1987-05-01

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, although Canadian women were delighted with the appointment of Mrs. Claire L'Heureux-Dube to the Supreme Court of Canada, they realize that the Government has a long way to go before it fulfils its campaign promises with respect to women.
The Conservatives promised to double the number of women sitting on boards and councils, but we have not seen much progress. Not a single woman has been appointed to the War Veterans Allowance Board of Canada, for instance. The Conservatives promised that the Public Service would be a model of employment equity. However, less than 10 per cent of management appointees are women. On the Nielsen task force which recommended changes in all government programs, less than 10 per cent of the members were women.
The present Government has never said how many women were affected by job cut-backs.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian women want results, not just nice words, and we expect the Government to act accordingly.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for his historic achievement yesterday at the First Ministers' Conference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Lesick: Through sheer determination, overwhelming preparation, and hard work, the Prime Minister has managed to achieve a momentous agreement in principle to changes to the Constitution. He has displayed great sensitivity to the needs of the provinces and has included them in every step of the negotiations.
The provinces have gained new powers in many areas, including a voice in the reform of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court. This in particular is welcome news to my home Province of Alberta. Premier Getty and all Albertans are ecstatic at the potential offered by Senate reform. This is indeed an example of the fact that the Prime Minister is listening to the needs of western Canada.
We are in a new era of federal-provincial relations. This constitutional agreement is a true example of effective federalism and I am proud to be part of a Government which has helped to achieve this historic agreement.


TRADE UNIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an historic moment in our history yesterday when Parliament Hill employees voted to join the union of their choice, the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
In a certification vote for which 537 employees were eligible, 82 per cent voted, and 72 per cent voted in favour of joining the Parliament Hill local of the PSAC. This overwhelming endorsement for the union demonstrates that the men and women who serve this institution so faithfully wish to have the same representation right which is granted to, and taken for granted by, so many Canadian workers.
The certification is the culmination of a five-year struggle to establish the collective bargaining rights of workers on Parliament Hill. Members of the NDP salute the persistence and patience these workers have shown in their efforts to establish their union. I fully expect these negotiations to be successful and to be followed by many others as all eligible staff on the Hill exercise their collective bargaining rights in the years to come.

May 1, 1987
[ Translation]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, April 30, 1987, will go down in history as a memorable day for the Government of Canada.
The 10 provincial premiers, representing four different political parties, unanimously supported the agreement in principle proposed by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), which will allow Quebec to become a signatory to the Canadian Constitution, with honour and enthusiasm.
Thanks to the constant efforts of our Prime Minister and the unprecedented flexibility of his provincial counterparts, Quebec can now become a full-fledged member of this wonderful country of ours.
This historic agreement is good for all Canadians since it gives our federation more flexibility, a better balance and more safeguards, and makes for a more united, stronger and more equitable country. This historic event is in line with the political agenda of the Conservative Government, which has national reconciliation as one of its main priorities.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec and the people of the riding of Chambly rise together to speak with one voice to the man who brought about this historic event, the Prime Minister of Canada and Leader of the Conservative Government, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney: Bravo and thank you! Mission accomplished!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
*
* *



[Stage Direction]
various media are highlighting is heartening, and hopefully it will be completed in the coming months.
In my opinion, this is not a partisan but a basic issue in the life of this country, and I can only rejoice.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
* *
*



Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Last evening, Mr. Speaker, like all Canadian men and women 1 was particularly happy to learn that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the 10 provincial premiers have concluded an agreement in principle which will enable Quebec to adhere to the Canadian Constitution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: We know there are differences in this country as there are in any family, but the sign of greatness, the sign of real caring, is when each one of us, individual or province, puts our self interest aside for the interests of the whole.
True leadership was shown last night by the leaders of our country. Today I am proud to be a Canadian and a British Columbian in a country which can be, at long last, united. Each Canadian can stand a bit taller as we show to the world our strength, our unity, and our concern for each other.
All Members will join me in congratulating the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers for this historic accomplishment, a hallmark in the annals of the history of this country.


PARTICIPATION OF QUEBEC AND UNITY OF CANADA
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of my colleague from Chambly, I should like to join all Hon. Members and congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the provincial premiers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-C. Lapierre: As you know, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the constitutional patriation process was an unfinished undertaking. I want to rejoice at the agreement in principle, but of course we will have to see all the details to make sure that everything is fine. Mr. Speaker, you would be aware of precedents or agreements in principle which were not necessarily ratified. Still, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that as a Quebecer I think that the participation of Quebec in the Canadian Constitution is a prerequisite to the unity of this country. Progress in this matter which the newspapers and


APARTHEID
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in Mozambique, South Africa funds and directs the terrorist organization known as the Mozambique National Resistance, or Renamo. Renamo creates violence, terror and destruction in a nation already suffering from severe drought, chronic poverty and underdevelopment after centuries of Portuguese colonialism. As a result, Mozambique has more than one million refugees, three and a half to four million people at risk of starvation, and the highest child mortality rate in the world. One child dies every six minutes.
May 1, 1987

In Canada we must understand the message: Apartheid kills. We must ask why our Government does not take stronger action against South African apartheid by imposing total sanctions against South Africa and giving the front line states the resources they need to defeat apartheid-financed guerrilla movements within their borders.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, April 30, 1987 will be a date to remember in Canadian history. Yesterday, a giant step forward was made in the constitutional issue, and as a Quebec representative, I am incredibly happy and proud of the agreement in principle reached by the 10 premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), which will enable Quebec to rejoin the constitutional family in the very near future.
I wish to underline the open-minded attitude of the premiers as well as the leadership, the performance and the determination of our Prime Minister which brought about a unanimous agreement, to the satisfaction of the Quebec Government and all the other provinces.
This agreement in principle is excellent not only for Quebec, but for Canada as a whole. It is factual proof that we have achieved national reconciliation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to put a damper on this collective rejoicing. The agreement in principle announced last evening makes me as happy as anyone else, but I would not want the majority, both in English Canada and in French Quebec, to forget Francophones outside Quebec or Anglophones within Quebec. I trust that this agreement will include provisions to eliminate on the one hand the quantification of rights for Francophones outside Quebec in our schools, and so on, and to extend linguistic rights as generously as possible on the other hand, so that all Canadians will be treated as first class citizens and feel proud of their heritage, without being subject in certain regions to restrictions and even sometimes to unwarranted prejudice.



Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, last night we received word that an historic agreement had been reached which would finally see Quebec become a full partner in our Canadian Constitution.
The Prime Minister's determination and dedication have brought about an agreement in principle which will result in the Province of Quebec signing the Canadian Constitution, a milestone in Canadian history.
His skill as a negotiator allowed him to find common ground for agreement between the federal Government and the provinces that will not only accommodate Quebec but will strengthen our country and reinforce the bonds that tie our provinces together to form this great federation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deserves both our congratulations and heartfelt thanks for his outstanding contribution to this long awaited accord. I am certain my colleagues will want to join me in applauding the Prime Minister and the Premiers for their success.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).
And the Prime Minister having entered the Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the warm welcome.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the handicapped appeared before the Government Operations Committee and stated that supermailboxes rather than door-to-door delivery are a derogation of their human rights. That may sound like a strong statement, but let us consider that Canada has signed an international declaration and has established a Charter of Human Rights, both of which guarantee access to the handicapped and a system that provides access.
The handicapped point out that systems that fail to provide full access do in fact discriminate. Mailboxes that can only provide service when the sun shines and not when the snow flies are discriminatory. They recommend generic services, services that are not vulnerable like specialized services, services that do not stigmatize.

May 1, 1987
The handicapped call upon the Elouse to move forward with regard to their rights, to ensure their human rights are respected, and to consult them when changes in systems are made.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, a Quebecer and a Quebec-elected representative in this House, it was with considerable emotion and pride that I learned late last night that Canada's 11 First Ministers had reached an agreement in principle to bring Quebec into the Canadian Constitution.
After 10 hours of intense discussions, the First Ministers agreed to respond positively to Quebec's five prerequisite conditions. Moreover, this agreement in principle is consistent with the proposal submitted by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to the provinces.
We should praise the many initiatives taken and the leadership shown by the Prime Minister of Canada in this matter, as well as the provincial Premiers' open-mindedness towards Quebec's conditions. April 30, 1987, which will remain from now on an important date in the history of our country, provides a beautiful conclusion to the 1982 incomplete efforts which had isolated Quebec from the rest of Canada.
Quebec joining the rest of the Confederation will truly make Canada a richer and more united country. The great and marvellous Canadian family welcomes Quebec!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHALLENGE '87 DECREASED GRANTS TO GLENGARRY-PRESCOTT-RUSSELL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Last year, Mr. Speaker, my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell received $378,997 under the Challenge 186 Program. This contribution was greatly appreciated by my constituents, for the unemployment rate in my riding was about 14 per cent. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has decided this year to reduce this amount by some $100,000 to $283,990.
This decrease is altogether unacceptable, for the unemployment rate in my riding is higher now than it was last year. Glengarry-Prescott-Russell voters want to know what has happened to the $100,000 owed to their riding. Mr. Speaker, they want and need that money. The tourist office in my riding
is about to close. A radio station will be unable to pay its employees holidays. Mr. Speaker, it is a catastrophe for my Glengarry-Prescott-Russell riding. I demand what we are entitled to. Glengarry-Prescott-Russell voters are entitled to their fair share, even under a Conservative Governent.

[DOT] (M20)


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand as a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada in this Chamber today. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has concluded an historic constitutional agreement with the provincial Premiers. This is quite remarkable given Canada's history in this area. Congratulations and thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for your leadership. Quebec's participation in the constitutional process fills a void and completes the process.
As a Nova Scotian, I am also proud of the pivotal role played by Premier Buchanan and other Atlantic premiers in these talks. Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians are proud of their political leaders.
To all our leaders I express congratulations for their maturity, sensitivity and determination. Finally, 1 welcome the Province, the Government and the people of Quebec as participating members in the constitutional process. You are an essential partner and indispensable part of the Canadian fabric. Once again, congratulations, Mr. Prime Minister. I look with even more enthusiasm to Canada's future.


ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) brought to the attention of this House the designation of this week as Organ Donor Awareness Week in Canada.
As members of the Canadian Medical Association, my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin), the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and I have made available to all Members an information package prepared by the CMA which encourages all Members of Parliament to play a leadership role by signing organ donor cards and encouraging their families and associates to do likewise.
May 1, 1987

As family physicians we are all aware of the life threatening situations which can be overcome through organ transplants. Donated hearts and livers can mean new and useful life to many facing certain death. The gift of a cornea can allow the blind to see again and skin transplants can mean less suffering for the severely burned.
A gift of life and renewed hope is yours to give and I urge all of you to consider signing and carrying with you an organ donor card. Do not stop there. Discuss the idea with family and friends, and pass along the message that we can all play a vital role in restoring health to many thousands of Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an important day for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for Canada.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Premiers for reaching an agreement which could mean that Quebec will formally sign the Constitution of Canada. This is significant and important. After all, my Party has taken a position in favour of further constitutional change to achieve this purpose. However, we do not know as yet exactly what was agreed to last night. Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will table in this House immediately a document giving full details of exactly what was agreed to at the meeting last night at Meech Lake?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question put by my hon. friend, I thought it was agreed among House Leaders that 1 would wait for the appearance of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition around 12.30 p.m., at which time the three Leaders would make statements with regard to this important matter.
However, I am happy to assure my hon. friend that any documentation with regard to last night's meeting will, of course, be made available. It was an agreement in principle on the important principles. Drafting instructions were given immediately to our respective officials which will translate, hopefully, into a constitutional amendment. At all times the House will be fully advised and there will be full opportunity for participation and debate on all aspects of any proposal.
Oral Questions


QUERY CONCERNING DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the House when the next First Ministers' meeting will be scheduled to discuss the Meech Lake agreement? He promised to table a document, but when will the next meeting be held to discuss it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, last night I said my personal preference would be to have this meeting within the next few weeks. Some Premiers expressed theirs, saying they needed some time to consult their respective legislatures or the National Assembly, in the case of Quebec. In any case, I intend to ask the Premiers to meet as soon as possible to ratify this historic agreement.


IMPLEMENTATION OF MEECH LAKE AGREEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the information the Prime Minister has just given us about when the next meeting of First Ministers will be held, I want to ask him if he will give us more information today about the process that will be followed to implement the Meech Lake Agreement. There are documents setting out principles about which the Prime Minister has told us. We know that he will be making a statement later today in the House. However, the process is likely to be complex, and we would appreciate more details with respect to exactly what that process will be and of what it will consist.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I intend to touch upon the process in my remarks to the House at 12 noon or 12.30. Briefly, what is required is that, after drafting instructions have been given to our respective Attorneys General and officials, a meeting of First Ministers must take place to ratify and to ensure that that document faithfully reflects the agreement in principle. Resolutions then have to be placed before our respective Legislatures for debate and consideration, after which an official proclamation on behalf of the Parliament of Canada and the various legislatures will take place to give effect to the agreement that will be submitted to Parliament. Essentially, that is the procedure.
I tell my hon. friend that at all times there will be ample opportunity for all Members of the House to participate fully in what is an important dimension of nation-building for Canada, as the First Ministers themselves described it last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 1, 1987
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHEN DEBATE ON AMENDMENTS WILL BE HELD
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, as a proud Quebecer with a passionate faith in Canada, I am very pleased to see that apparently we have started to come out of the constitutional impasse, and I think that whatever is in Canada's interests should be welcomed without any hint of party politics.
As the Prime Minister just pointed out, the Constitution Act, 1981 provides that any amendment to the Constitution of Canada must be considered by Parliament. Could the Prime Minister inform the House today when the debate will take place?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously, as soon as possible, but at least two Premiers made it clear that they intended to submit everything to their respective legislatures for debate. I indicated that we should nevertheless act quickly to get everything finalized. 1 think that within the next few weeks, Parliament may be asked to consider all the relevant documentation.


SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING DEBATE ON CONSTITUTION
Marcel Prud'homme: My thanks to the Prime Minister. Since there will be a debate in the House, there are two things we could do, and I would like to make a suggestion, with all due respect, to the Prime Minister and to the House. Perhaps it would be in Canada's interest, considering the widespread public interest in this matter, a foregone conclusion in Quebec, need I add, to take the following approach. First we could have a general debate to discuss the entire question, and this would be entirely aside from the obligation we have under the Constitution Act, 1981, to have debate. Subsequently we could have the regular, formal debate which could proceed very quickly when the time comes to sign. In this way, we could show the provinces that might still be somewhat reluctant the considerable support there will be in Parliament, and I don't think we should doubt the support is there until proven otherwise. When we look at all the details, the changes in the Senate and so on, it is clear that what we have here is history in the making, also thanks to previous action by the Prime Minister's predecessors-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: -and to the tremendous co-operation of the provincial Premiers, but I expect there may be some reluctance in some parts of the country.
Therefore, would the Prime Minister agree, in his wisdom, and I know he is wise in these matters-1 try to be- that it might be wise to set the tone for the debate?


An Hon. Member:: Say that again, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that was probably the greatest speech the Hon.
Member has made since his comments on the agriculture question, which were brilliant as well. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made some excellent suggestions. I will look at them closely. I will discuss them with the Government House Leader, who will consult with his colleagues. One thing is certain: We intend to consider any suggestions that will enable Hon. Members and the House to be as actively involved as possible and will also enable the House to provide moral leadership for the country and for the other governments involved in the decision making process. I want to thank the Hon. Member for his comments.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the three party Leaders will be commenting at 12.30 p.m. on the successes of last night, let me simply say on behalf of my caucus that we recognize and appreciate the Prime Minister's hard work that resulted in an agreement yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would like to turn to another important issue at hand and that is, of course, as of this morning hundreds of farmers across Canada, perhaps in a sense thousands, will be concerned that now foreclosure proceedings will be initiated by the Farm Credit Corporation as a result of a decision taken by the Government.
In light of the fact that we spent three days and nights in a sense in debate and heard well over 100 Members of Parliament on all sides of the House, most of whom agree that there is a real crisis in the farm community for which we are seeking solutions, and in light of the fact that the farm crisis did not end with the debate, would the Prime Minister indicate now that his Government, sensitive to the concerns particularly of the western grain farmers, will reinstate the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. We did have, I think, in many ways an historic debate that lasted over parts of four days which saw people participate from all 10 provinces right across the country. One of the most important contributions to that debate was made by the Prime Minister when he outlined the many initiatives that he has taken internationally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 1, 1987


Charles James Mayer: I think we all would agree that we are facing exceptional times in the Canadian grain and oil-seeds business, but from the many Members who spoke, the Elon. Member would have to agree that the Government has been responding in exceptional fashion to help Canadian farmers stay on their land.
Let me say that the Minister of Agriculture has put in place many things that will assist farmers who are in financial difficulties in dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation. None of us like to see personal hardship, but there are many programs that will assist people facing financial difficulties as a result of the exceptional times we face in agriculture.


ACTION TAKEN BY SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, can 1 suggest to the Hon. Minister that if he wants to help farmers who are experiencing crisis situations, particularly financially, the way to do it is to reinstate the moratorium which is exactly what happened 19 months ago. That is the way to bring relief to hard-pressed farmers experiencing financial problems.
A major concern expressed by Members on all sides of the House during the important debate-


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is part of the question-has to do with the fact that now the Government has sent a clear signal to the banks and other financial institutions that it is lifting the moratorium and will provide open season for the banks across Canada to start moving in on hard-pressed farmers.
Would the Minister of State for the Wheat Board rise and say that he is prepared to follow the example set by the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan? When it recognized there was a serious problem that Government decided to put a moratorium on all foreclosures, the Farm Credit Corporation, the banks-all lending institutions-so that we could keep the family farm in place during these difficult economic times.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about. He does himself, his Party and Canadian farmers a disservice when he talks about sending signals of open season. That is simply not the case. He knows better than that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He doesn't.


Charles James Mayer: Through the debate, if the Hon. Member had been listening, he would have found that there is a record amount of financial assistance going to farmers at a critical time of year. Just to say it again, $1.3 billion is going to
Oral Questions
western Canada between now and the end of May. That is a tremendous amount of money.
In terms of dealing with the situation, let me outline some of the things that have been done. There are shared risk mortgages available. We have commodity-based loans. The Farm Debt Review Boards are set up and there is a Rural Transition Program. For the first time ever we are breaking new ground in many of these areas. The Hon. Member will find that in a year from now many of those programs have worked extremely well to help farmers through a very difficult time.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET FARM ORGANIZATION LEADERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated in his speech the other day that when westerners call he will listen, take action and respond to their request whenever and wherever possible. The Prime Minister is going to western Canada next week. Will he make a commitment that when he goes there it will not be a PR exercise but that he will be sitting down discussing and negotiating with the leaders of the farm community and organizations of western Canada ways and means of resolving this very serious situation, not a PR exercise, but a working visit to western Canada to resolve this farm crisis?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have met with farm leaders on a regular basis. I believe-I may be wrong-that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I met groups in Vancouver, we had formal meetings in Ottawa and meetings with the farmers in Edmonton-I believe that 1 am the first Prime Minister in a long period of time to have met so regularly with farm leaders across Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In terms of assistance to farmers, although I was not here yesterday, I was with my colleagues, of course, responding to requests for assistance. Sixty-four million dollars in federal assistance was granted yesterday for prairie grain farmers which was announced by the Minister of Transport. That is a pretty tangible further indication of our commitment to the well-being of farmers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you going to meet with them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend asks if I am going to meet with farmers. It would never occur to me to go to western Canada and not meet with farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 1, 1987
5618_______________________________
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SALE OF UNITED STATES WHEAT TO U.S.S.R.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Wheat Board. The House knows that this is black Friday. This is the day that the Government is starting to foreclose on thousands of farmers with FCC loans.
Yesterday the United States announced it was selling some four million tonnes of wheat to Russia under the Export Enhancement Program under which, last fall, the United States Government offered a subsidy of some $20 a tonne to the Russians. We can only assume that the Americans now are making this same offer, perhaps more. With this news, which is bound to depress world grain prices for all farmers including Canadian farmers, will the Government agree to giving a commitment to the farmers, or when the Prime Minister is in the west next week, to a deficiency payment and calling off the foreclosures today?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions to answer. Let me see if I can address the export enhancement sales to the Soviet Union. The Hon. Member will know that Canada, with the assistance of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, last year signed a five-year 25 million tonne grain deal with the Soviet Union. We are selling what we hope will be very close to a record amount of grain to the Soviet Union this year. We are doing very well selling.
Let me put it in context if I can. Two years ago the Americans sold six million tonnes of wheat to the Soviet Union. This year so far they have not sold any. For the Americans to sell to the Soviet Union is something we think that is normal given the fact that they have been major suppliers to the Soviet Union in the past.
Instead of having a black cloud over our heads-the Hon. Member talks about black Friday-there may be some optimism if the Hon. Member would want to look. To the extent that the Americans have sold a considerable amount of grain, it may take some pressure off the market and we may see an improvement in it. There is room for optimism in this announcement if the Hon. Member would want to take the little black cloud away from his head and look for something positive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
O)


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a black cloud over the heads of the 6,000 FCC mortgage holders who are two years in arrears this morning, with the foreclosures going ahead.


U.S. EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday we learned that the United States
is putting in place new measures under its Export Enhancement Program to subsidize 1.2 million tonnes of barley to Saudi Arabia which, as the Minister knows, is a traditional Canadian market. This could cost Canadian farmers some $75 million to $85 million in sales.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs call in the United States Ambassador to see that the United States will stop this raiding of traditional Canadian markets with its Export Enhancement Program?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we do that on a regular basis. The Hon. Member will be pleased to know that we have already communicated with the Americans to let them know our concern in this area. The Hon. Member will also know that so far it is a rumour of an offer which has not been accepted.
The other interesting point to note in the over-all exchange-and perhaps the Hon. Member could choose to be a little optimistic-is that the Americans are basically sold out of barley. Unless there is something additional to the rumours, which there very well may be, we really do not see that this will have much of an over-all effect on the market, except to say again that it looks like-because of the good selling efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board and the support of the Government for the board in selling-and this is in direct contrast to what happened in the early seventies with the LIFT program-Canada has the potential this year to export a record amount of grain. Again, this is a certain amount of good news to Canadian farmers.


INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS ON MARKETING OF GRAIN
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board has told us on many occasions, as have the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that Canada is hoping to get out of the grain war situation and depressed prices through international negotiations.
I am trying to be optimistic this morning, despite the announcement of the Soviet purchase from the Americans. However, can any of those Ministers point out to me or give me some hard news that will tell me that these international talks, in which they have engaged, will be completed faster than three years to five years?
I note, for instance, that many of the initiatives do not even include the Americans and the Europeans who are the main players in the problem.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there has already been some movement in the common agricultural program of the European Economic Community; not as much as we would like to see, but some movement is better than none. There used to be none, and now there has been some movement in certain commodities away from their protectionist practices.
May 1, 1987

The Government has taken a very active lead under the direct and personal direction of the Prime Minister to force the issue at virtually every international conference and, when there is not an international conference that month, to call one.
There will be a meeting here in Ottawa later this month, presided over by the Minister for International Trade, of the so-called Cairns Group of Fair Traders in Agriculture. We will continue to maintain pressure there.
We have agriculture under the GATT. It was not under the GATT before. We hope we can make progress within the time limits the Hon. Member mentioned toward some solution of this cycle of subsidy which is the principal cause of the devastation and the uncertainty being faced by Canadian farmers today.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I thank the Hon. Minister for that answer.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO GRAIN PRODUCERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister admits that it will be three to five years before such an international agreement could optimistically be possible, what financial assistance is the Government offering Canadian grain producers across the country to keep them competitive with their American and European competitors?
It will be at least three to five years before we can stop this stupid trade war which has been going on. The Cairns Group does not even include the Europeans and the Americans, so I think our producers want to know whether they will still be in business by the time the trade war has been brought to an end and there is grain peace in the world.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are two ways one can approach difficult problems. One can sit back and complain and trivialize the progress that has been made, and that is the position of the NDP.
The Hon. Member just got up and attempted to trivialize the fact that $1.3 billion will be in the hands of Canadian producers by the end of this month. That is not trivial; that is a very major contribution to Canadian producers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There was a day when the socialist Party believed in trying to take action internationally to solve problems. The Government is doing that now, doing that with effect, doing that with the United States, doing that with the European Economic Community, but not limiting ourselves to those major nations. The Government is also joining into active partnership with other countries like us-with Thailand, with Argentina, and with other nations which share our view that we must work together to break the cycle of subsidies.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Brian Smith, Attorney General of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has surely been very busy over these last few days, and the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture that the moratorium on farm foreclosures was being lifted must have escaped his attention. So I would like to ask him whether he thinks that is the kind of signal we should be sending financial institutions at this point, whether that is the kind of support we want to give the farm community by sending as of today bailiffs to seize their lands, thereby causing a farm exodus.
I will therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider discussing this anew with his Minister of Agriculture and tell him that his announcement makes no sense?

Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat
Board)): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that it did not escape the attention of the Prime Minister. He was here very early on Wednesday morning and played a major part in the debate.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Where were you?


Charles James Mayer: As a result of that his Leader showed up.


Mr. McDermid:: He got your Leader out of bed, and Broadbent was right behind him.


Charles James Mayer: Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture has put in place many, many mechanisms to help farmers who find themselves in a period of financial difficulty and unable to meet their commitments with the Farm Credit Corporation. They are not treated summarily.

May 1, 1987
Oral Questions
One of the reasons they are in this problem is the high interest rate policy followed by the previous Government. That is something we have addressed and now have interest rates down to an eight-year low as far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned.
[Translation}


GOVERNMENT'S ALLEGED CONTRADICTORY ATTITUDE
[Stage Direction]
Elon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister's comments will bring no comfort whatsoever to those who will be expecting the bailiffs over the coming weeks.
If there are as many programs as he suggests, and if there is as much help available to farmers, why is he then lifting the moratorium at this point? If, as he suggests, the farm industry has no problem why will he be foreclosing on thousands of farm loans? The question is: why is the Government sending conflicting signals? On the one hand, it says it has programs to help the farmers, and on the other it is sending bailiffs after them.
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, people in the farming community know that the Government is not sending out contradictory signals. They know that the Government is standing with them in an extraordinary time with some extraordinary measures. That is what people in the farm community know.
If the Hon. Member looks at the cases-and, if he has cases in his own riding, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and I will be more than willing to look at them-he will find that one of the reasons, if he has some constituents in trouble, is the high interest rates when he was part of a Government which let the rates for farm improvement loans go way above 20 per cent.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the Minister of Transport or for the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport announced a 6 per cent increase in grain freight rates to be paid by grain producers. During the Crow rate debate, the Tories gave the impression that they would keep rates down for producers, and last year they froze those rates.
Why is the Government now reneging and raising freight rates?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. gentleman asked that question. It is just as accurate and informative as are most of these questions.
Yesterday we announced an 18 per cent decrease from the freight rate paid by producers of grain in the year 1984-85 just before we came to power. After three years, we have reduced the price of grain to the prairie producers by 18 per cent and yesterday's announcement, together with the $64 million in assistance, will help them in their grain transportation costs. In the preceding two years, the rate-I do not have the exact figures here-was $5 and in this present crop year it is $5.97.
1 believe our record shines in comparison with the record of any other Government of Canada. We have never had an NDP Government so we could see how dismal and abysmal their record would be.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the farmers will not see one penny of that $64 million of which the Minister is speaking. Most of the Tory Members who spoke in the recent debate committed the Government to assist the grain producers. Is this increase in freight rates a signal of the kind of assistance we can expect, the kind of assistance the Government will be giving to grain producers in the next year?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a signal of the Government's continuing interest in and support for the farmers of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The facts are that when our predecessors in the Liberal administration had the House pass the Western Grain Transportation Act, they projected that this year freight rates to the producers would be $13.67 under their legislation. Instead of that, the cost will be $6.32 as a result of our actions. Compare that to the fact that in 1984-85 the cost to the producer was $7.70, and $6.32 from $7.70 shows a considerable improvement of $1.38 per tonne. Still the hon. gentleman is not satisfied to do anything but complain rather than supporting the Government and encouraging it in what it is trying to do.
* V *


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On April 24, Amoco Canada wrote to at least one hopeful bidder on Dome Petroleum to try to intimidate that party into not making a bid for Dome Petroleum. The Minister's own officials were briefed over the Easter weekend as to the fact that letter would be sent.
May 1, 1987

Why is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources condoning this intimidation by Amoco Canada of potential bidders? Will the Minister not tell Amoco Canada and Dome Petroleum that the Government wants to review all possible bidders as soon as possible?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under Canadian law, the Government is apprised through Investment Canada of take over proposals by corporations with foreign majority control. I repeat that through Investment Canada, this Government has received no proposal whatsoever at this time, so we are unable to take a position on a non-existing proposal.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON PROPOSED PURCHASE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, Amoco Corporation of Chicago will not allow its subsidiary Amoco Canada to issue one share to Canadians because it wants to retain 100 per cent interest in Amoco Canada so it can qualify for extensive tax benefits in the United States. How can the Minister allow Canadians to give away their resources without even getting equity just to allow an American multinational to get tax benefits in the United States? The Minister said that this deal would be good for Canada. How can he say that this is good for Canada?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat once more that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is unable to make a judgment on a proposal that has not yet been received. But I can assure the Hon. Member that when the Government receives a proposal, either by Amoco or any other corporation with which Dome Petroleum is interested in reaching an agreement, this Government will take its responsibilities and ensure that Canadian interests are well represented and defended.


IMMIGRATION
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Last week I was pleased to be able to accompany the Minister on a visit to Mosaic in Vancouver to see in action the important impact that the pilot program of English-language training for immigrant women was having in aiding these women to contribute to Canadian society, a program which had been recommended by committees of this House. However, funding for this pilot project and others ended yesterday.
Oral Questions
Given the very beneficial impact of this program, particularly in British Columbia, will the Minister undertake to find funds to establish these programs on an ongoing basis in order to ensure that immigrant women have access to language training? This training makes such a tremendous difference in their futures and their children's futures in their new homeland.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, last month I visited a number of these projects not only in British Columbia but indeed in Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta last month. I am excited by the progress the program has made and by the tremendous contribution it has had in integrating new Canadians into society and particularly members of target groups like women and seniors. I would like to commend the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, for putting this program into place. An evaluation is being done to see what the result has been and I can assure the Hon. Member that we will indeed try to find a way to continue the program in one form or another.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO OF CANADA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Government has stressed that it wants an open private-sector solution to the Amoco-Dome situation. How can this be possible if Dome and Amoco are preventing details from reaching the public and competitors, details that would permit them to make public bids that would be preferable?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, we as a Government, through the principles we put forward, the parameters we established, and our actions have ensured that, while six months ago the only question being put about Dome Petroleum was whether the corporation would fail, we are now being asked in this House how many people can make a bid for Dome Petroleum. That is as a result of this Government's efforts, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given that the Government has already intervened to stop Petro-Canada from playing a role in this potential purchase, will the Government take action and use its leverage to see to it that the information which is required by TCPL and others to make a public bid is available to them in order to keep Dome a Canadian-controlled company?

May 1, 1987
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Government's guiding principles in this area are to ensure that the bids are made by the private sector in Canada, or the private sector in the United States or any other country that may be interested. We do not want the bids to come from Finance Canada. In that context, the Government made its views clearly known and Petro-Canada took them into account. In the area of business operations, the Government has always given Petro-Canada a free hand.

[English)


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who has now received the finance committee's report on international banking centres. Does the Minister plan to follow the committee's recommendation to delay the setting up of IBCs in Montreal and Vancouver in order to deal first with the question of withholding taxes, a significant disincentive to any new business that might otherwise be attracted to IBCs in Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have the report here and I have read it. I do not see any recommendation by the committee which suggests that we delay, pending study of the withholding tax question. I should point out that the withholding tax agreements between Canada and other countries are the subject of substantial negotiations which can take a considerable period of time. Since the Government's intention is to proceed with the establishment of International Banking Centres in Montreal and Vancouver, and since, as I understand it, the committee acknowledges that there are certain comparative advantages for international business activity both in Montreal and Vancouver, I see every reason for continuing as we have set out.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the evidence received by the committee made it clear that the 15 per cent withholding tax and high operating costs associated with it are the main barriers to Canada's further increasing its participation in international banking. If the Government is serious why not deal with this situation? Or, is the Minister saying he was not seriously interested in increasing international banking and that the limited Ways and Means motion we have before us was simply a public relations exercise for Montreal and Vancouver?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is far from what the Hon. Member has suggested. The committee has made two recommendations. One is to the effect that we should consider broadening the proposal. I think we have had a sufficient degree of discussion on whether or not it should be broadened. Our proposal is for loans and deposits and I believe that is sufficient.
The second recommendation deals with withholding taxes. I have been quite interested in the media conclusions drawn from this report. I think they reflect possible leaks of what the report was going to say rather than what it actually did say. I am not turning down out of hand what the report has said on withholding taxes. We will look at that and see whether there are ways of broadening our withholding tax agreements with other countries. However, I repeat what 1 said in my first answer: I do not believe that is a reason for delaying the Ways and Means motion now before the House.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney General of Canada. Yesterday the Information Commissioner revealed that following a complaint of possible political interference by the Prime Minister's Office in the release of information from the Department of External Affairs she turned over to the Minister evidence of a possible breach of the law. Can the Minister now confirm that he ordered an RCMP investigation into this possible breach, and will he explain to the House the precise nature of the alleged obstruction by the PMO apparently in relation to the Prime Minister's Asian travel expenses?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I of course was not at the committee meeting. The Hon. Member was. I have not seen the transcript. I have only seen press reports this morning and I am not clear as to what actually transpired with respect to relating specific instances to allegations by the Hon. Member.
Let me say this. It is not my practice, and I think the Hon. Member would agree that this is a proper approach for an Attorney General, to comment on investigations by the RCMP. I can tell the Hon. Member only that if such a circumstance were to arise I would immediately turn the matter over to the RCMP. The reality is that the RCMP are very jealous of their right to bring forward charges under any federal statute on the basis of their investigation. I can say that since I have been Attorney General there have been no charges laid by the police with respect to any aspect of the Access to Information legislation.
May 1, 1987


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will of course know that the Information Commissioner continues to investigate this matter and may be issuing subpoenas to officials of the Prime Minister's Office.


REPORTED INVESTIGATION BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General as the Minister responsible for the RCMP. Is he prepared to turn over all the evidence gathered by the RCMP about this possible obstruction by the PMO to the Attorney General of Ontario-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -to avoid any possible perception of conflict which may arise from the Minister of Justice-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -which may arise from the Minister of Justice-


Charles Joseph Clark: The master of innuendo. No wonder your Party is ashamed of you.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -reviewing allegations of a possible breach of the law by the Prime Minister, his boss?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that the Hon. Member continues to be the justice critic for the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The basic principle here is that one does not comment on these matters while they are under investigation. I want to give the Hon. Member this assurance. If there was a complaint against him involving an investigation by the RCMP I would refuse to answer on the floor of this House or outside this House as to the existence of the investigation. I believe every Canadian citizen is entitled to have their rights protected. If the NDP wants to involve itself in sleazy and underhanded accusations with respect to the integrity of the RCMP, it rests on their head. I wish the Leader of the NDP would show some leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services and relates to a contract award.
Why did the Government of Canada not call for tenders before awarding a $680,000 contract to Astra Mecanique of Ville Saint-Laurent in April 1987 for the supply and installation of laundry equipment, especially considering the fact that certain competitors, like Laval's Equipements Calmek, had been previously assured that they would be invited to submit bids? Why were competitors not invited to submit bids, at least the other four from Quebec?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, 1 received the letter of the firm's president. 1 answered yesterday and told him 1 intend to review this case personally.


Don Boudria: I am sure it will all come out in the wash.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE DOCUMENTATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister completes her inquiry concerning the untendered contract for laundry equipment will she consent now to table the results of that inquiry in the House of Commons so that all Members can be apprised of the reasons which led officials of her department or others to give this contract for $680,000 in that unusual manner, that being an untendered contract?


Monique Vézina: As I just said, Mr. Speaker, I will review this case personally because I want to make sure the rules and procedure have been properly followed. I will be pleased to convey the results to Hon. Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that in view of some delays in Question Period I would ask its patience to extend Question Period for another minute or two. I am going to call on the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, and the last question will be from the Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park.

May 1, 1987
Oral Questions HEALTH


AIDS DISEASE-LICENSING OF AZT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As he knows, there are now 1,000 cases of AIDS in Canada. Yet Dr. Solder of McMaster University says Canada has been less expedient than other countries in the licensing of azidothymidine or AZT. As of today no new patients will be treated with AZT.
My question is very simple. What is the hold-up and when is the licensing going to be provided so that AIDS patients will have access to at least that treatment?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the Government of Canada has been very diligent in trying to provide AZT for clinical trial as well as for compassionate trial.
When discussions with Burroughs Wellcome were started one of the concerns was the matter of protection of patent in Canada, which relates to Bill C-22 which his Party strongly opposed. He cannot have it both ways. That is an example of why we need that type of legislation. With the Hon. Member's background he will know of the side effects of AZT. There are also toxicity and other issues which I will not go into.
The point is that we have had discussions with Burroughs Wellcome. The present circumstances will remain in effect until May 15. I have been informed by my officials as late as this morning that they believe that along with Burroughs Wellcome there will be a regime in place which will allow anyone who now has access to AZT to maintain that access after the middle of this month.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that Bill C-22 has not a thing to do with the licensing of that drug. He knows as well that the same side effects are experienced in Africa, France, Israel and all around the world, so he should not use that excuse.


COST OF TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that it will cost $10,000 per patient. At this stage I will accept his assurance that something will be finally done by the 15th. Have arrangements been made to provide the money necessary to ensure that those patients will have AZT available to them at the expense of Governments rather than their personal expenditures?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member can say what he will. He knows very well that the companies which have put a lot of money into the development of new drugs want protection of their intellectual
property. To put it any other way is simply not to deal with reality.
The Member should also know that his Party and Canadians in general, as they are entitled to, do not want the Minister of National Health and Welfare to interfere in the process of clinical trials in order for a notice of compliance to be issued. He knows that. He will argue the exact opposite position with me on another drug tomorrow.
We know that AZT has had some positive effects in terms of prolonging the lives of AIDS patients and have therefore not been reluctant or dragging our feet. That is why the discussions are taking place.
With regard to pricing, when we started with AZT the cost was $25,000 per year. It is now in the $10,000 range. If we go the American route and give the product a licence the patient will be totally responsible. However, the Member will not say that. He does not like to say those things.
We are working on a regime under which the patient will be covered under Canada's universal health system. That is the point which the Hon. Member should make. He should not put forward points which he knows are patently wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, one question, and then the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and is with regard to the meeting which took place this morning between himself, the Premier of Nova Scotia, and the Right Hon. Prime Minister with regard to the Trenton Car Works.
Can the Minister indicate to the House what plan of action has been consummated by the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia in order to bring relief to the workers at that facility? While he is on his feet, would he also indicate the time frame within which they will be able to make a concrete announcement to the people of the Trenton Car Works?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to respond although this is not within my ministerial responsibility, I am very glad to assure my colleague from Nova Scotia that it was a very satisfactory meeting. Substantial progress was made and I feel quite certain that we will have a positive announcement within a few weeks.
May 1, 1987


HUMAN RIGHTS
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that Ukrainian dissident Danylo Shumuk was recently released after spending 38 years imprisoned in Soviet gulags for his activities on behalf of fundamental human rights in Ukraine. Earlier this week there were reports that Soviet officials are finally prepared to issue Shumuk an exit visa following years of representations and a personal intervention by the Minister during his 1985 visit to the Soviet Union.
As Shumuk has relatives in Canada who are anxious for him to join them here, can the Minister confirm whether the reports on Shumuk are true? If so, will he be allowed to come to Canada? Will the Minister assure Canadians that the Government will continue its leading role in pressing the Soviet Union to respect human rights and to release the thousands of political prisoners, dissidents and refusniks, still imprisoned by Soviet authorities?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. I think all Members of this House will welcome the fact that I am able to confirm that Danylo Shumuk will be released from the Soviet Union. We expect that the exit visa will be granted in the very near future. That is important news, not only for the family of Danylo Shumuk, but also to the very many Members of Parliament and very many Canadians across the country who have taken a personal and active interest in his case.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that we will continue to work in other cases as we have in the case of Danyl Shumuk to seek the freedom from imprisonment of those citizens of the Soviet Union who want to leave that country and come to be with their families here in Canada.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated earlier, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is not available at the present time. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be making a statement on the results of the discussions yesterday with the 10 Premiers. Might we agree to proceed with Routine Proceedings with the understanding that at approximately 12.30 we will revert to Statements by Ministers to hear the statement of the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the responses of the Leader of the Opposition and
Tabling of Documents
the Leader of the NDP. I think that has been agreed to by all Parties.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) for his courtesy in this matter. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is driving back to Ottawa from Montreal in order to respond to the statement given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He should be here shortly. I am very happy to confirm the arrangements which the Deputy Prime Minister has just mentioned.
In addition, there may be a disposition of the House to continue sitting past the ordinary time of adjournment for lunch, if necessary, in order that all three Party Leaders may have their remarks on the record without interruption.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I understand from discussions with our House Leaders that the suggestions made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House Leader for the Liberal Party are agreeable to our Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to the suggestions of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House Leader of the Official Opposition?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to the following 154 petitions: Nos. 332-1338, 332-1343, 332-1344 to 332-1417 inclusive, 332-1435 to 332-1453 inclusive, 332-1457 to 332-1508 inclusive, 332-1513 and 332-1554 to 332-1559 inclusive.



CANADA COUNCIL


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: 1 have the pleasure to table the supplementary report 1985-86 of the Canada Council pursuant to Standing Order 67(2). In accordance with Standing Order 67(4), it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.

May 1, 1987
Interparliamentary Delegation Report



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101 1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the first report of the Canada-Japan Inteparliamentary Group.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, in both official languages.
Your committee, Mr. Speaker, considered two Order in Council appointments, one to the board of examiners under the Canada Lands Surveys Act and the second of a temporary member on the National Energy Board.



JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

["Mr. Speaker, I have 21 petitions to table today. They are signed by residents from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.\nWhereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or governmental medicare programs; and whereas the federal Government's proposals will raise the already high cost of provincial health care programs; and whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and prices, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; and whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concession in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals of Bill C-22 for the negative effects it will have on Canadians, particularly the senior citizens and the poor of this country."]
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present in both official languages the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on our review of the report of the Statute Revision Commission, Volumes 1 to 17.



Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report to the House. [Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 18 petitions, 17 of which are signed by hundreds of residents of Winnipeg, and deal with Bill C-22. They state that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
I have another petition on the same subject signed by residents from towns of Garson, Erickson, East Selkirk and Selkirk in Manitoba. They state, whereas the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis, and whereas the proposal of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions today. The undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners state that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from less costly generic products. This will result in an increase of drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of many people to buy the drugs they need. They also state that the proposed changes to the Patent Act will directly affect all Canadians who are not protected by private or governmental medicare programs; that the Federal Government's proposals will raise the cost, already high, of the provincial health care programs; and that the changes to the Patent Act proposed in Bill C-22 are another example of the Canadian Government's concession to the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of ordinary consumers.
Wherefore, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions from residents of the federal constituency of Yorkton-Melville, including the Towns of Ransack, Wroxton, Pelly, Verigin. They are petitioning the House to support Motion M-37, allowing unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by 488 residents of my consituency who support Motion No. 37, the Private Members' Bill whose purpose is to include the rights of the foetus in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
May 1, 1987


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition duly certified, signed by some 40 St. Catharines residents petitioning Parliament to support Motion M-37 with a view to protecting unborn children under the Charter of Rights.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have 21 petitions to table today. They are signed by residents from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or governmental medicare programs; and whereas the federal Government's proposals will raise the already high cost of provincial health care programs; and whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and prices, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; and whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concession in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals of Bill C-22 for the negative effects it will have on Canadians, particularly the senior citizens and the poor of this country.



COASTING TRADE AND COMMERCIAL MARINE ACTIVITIES ACT


Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-52, an Act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade and in other marine activities of a commercial nature.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 99.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Is the Government committed to pay the Government of British Columbia $25 million, plus interest, for timber rights in the Pacific Rim National Park by March 31, 1989 and, if so, will this money be provided (a) over and above the A-base funding of Environment Canada (b) by the operating budget of Parks Canada?
2.	Was a $8 million payment made to the B.C. Government on February 19, 1987 and, if so, was spending reduced on any departmental programs to make that payment and, if so, for which programs was spending reduced?
3.	Will spending be reduced on programs between now and March 31, 1989, to complete the balance of payments and, if so, for which programs?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Yes. (a) No, (b) No.
2.	Yes. The reductions were made in activities deemed nonessential for the protection and presentation of park resources to the public; deferrals on expenditures for through highways repair and upkeep; the recapitalization of canals in Ontario and Quebec; and the recapitalization of infrastructure in the town sites of Banff and Jasper.
3.	Yes, as indicated in 2.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 96 could be made an order for a return, that return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 96 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fulton: For the period September 4, 1984 to March 4, 1987, did public servants travel on business (a) inside Canada (b) outside Canada and, if so, by department, what were the cost for (i) travel by air (ii) travel by car (iii) taxis (iv) hotels (v) meals while on such travel (W) other expenses incurred while on travel?
Return tabled.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if you would call Orders of the Day, 1 would suggest that immediately following we might recess the House in order to allow the House to reassemble for the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) statement and the replies of the Leaders of the Opposition. However, I would request that Orders of the Day be called first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 7, consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 12 (Mr. Orlikow, p. 4936).

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed that we suspend the sitting?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are willing for the House to suspend its proceedings for a few moments to give the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) an opportunity to enter the House and make his statement. I see that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is now here and we are willing to proceed at the convenience of the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 take it the sitting is suspended until such time as the Prime Minister is available to make a statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The sitting will be suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 12.32 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 12.35 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As per agreement made earlier today, the House will now revert to Statements by Ministers. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to report to the House on the meeting of First Ministers yesterday at Meech Lake. I am honoured to inform the House that at about 10 p.m last night the Premiers and I reached unanimous agreement in principle on a constitutional package which will allow Quebec to rejoin the Canadian constitutional family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This agreement enhances the Confederation bargain and strengthens, I believe, the federal nature of Canada. Although it remains to be formalized, it represents in the judgment of First Ministers from all political stripes and from all areas of the country an historic accomplishment.
The Meech Lake Agreement springs from the Canadian tradition of honourable compromise and is a tribute to the statesmanship and leadership that all First Ministers demonstrated yesterday at Meech Lake. Our task, simply put, was to settle a constitutional impasse which was incompletely resolved in 1981. Our task was to attempt to reconcile Quebec's distinct needs with the interests of all other provinces and the good of the country as a whole.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to table the statement of principles that constitute the Meech Lake Agreement.
The essence of the agreement is as follows: We agreed to recognize the distinctiveness Quebec brings to Canada, which includes within it two main linguistic communities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We agreed to give constitutional protection to an expanded immigration agreement with Quebec and to enter into accords with other provinces, appropriate to their circumstances.
We agreed to entrench the Supreme Court of Canada and the requirement that at least three of the nine justices appointed be from Quebec, and to provide for provincial involvement in Supreme Court appointments.
We agreed that reasonable compensation be granted to provinces that do not participate in future national shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if they undertake their own initiatives or programs compatible with national objectives.
May 1, 1987

We agreed that all provinces must approve changes to national institutions under Section 42 of the 1982 Constitution act, and that the Government of Canada will provide reasonable compensation in all cases where a province opts out of an amendment transferring provincial jurisdiction to Parliament.

We agreed that there will be annual First Ministers' Conferences on the Constitution and that the first will be held before the end of 1988 to discuss Senate reform, the fisheries and other items to be agreed upon. Until Senate reform is achieved appointments to the Senate will be made by the federal Government from lists of candidates furnished by the provinces. We are also entrenching in the Constitution the annual First Ministers' Conference on the Economy.

Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Agreement is good for Canada, and good for Canadians.
It will unblock the constitutional reform process and enable Canadians to turn their attention to other issues such as Senate reform and fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement represents the best features of a vital federal system, one which 1 believe responds to the aspirations of Canadians in every corner of the country.
It reflects a spirit of partnership-and not one of endless federal-provincial power struggles.
The work of nation-building goes on. Shortly, officials will begin drafting a constitutional text which will reflect the Meech Lake Agreement. I shall be convening a conference of First Ministers within weeks, the purpose of which will be to seek formal agreement. On the assumption that a formal agreement is reached at the conference, the constitutional amending process will proceed. An amending resolution will be tabled in Parliament and in the legislative assembly of each province. Proclamation will follow once all the resolutions have been approved.
Mr. Speaker, Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said:
The governing motive of my life has been to harmonize the diverse elements
which compose our country.
Surely, that is the wish of every Member on all sides of the House. That is our policy, our purpose-building a stronger Canada for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) as well as Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa and the other provincial premiers for their constructive work and the result achieved yesterday.
Statements by Ministers
It is a happy day for Canada and for Quebec, particularly for all those who believed that our country would remain united by respecting the diversity of its regions and the equality of its citizens.
I have always believed that it was essential to the future of our country that Quebec be a major and leading partner of the Canadian Federation and a full-fledged participant in its evolution.
That is what I stated in an interview with Le Devoir in June 1986, and what has led the Liberal Party of Canada to adopt, at its convention last November a clear position on the place of Quebec within the constitutional agreement of 1982.
I must tell the House that the constructive work of the Liberal Opposition and of the New Democratic Party did contribute to create a favourable atmosphere and context for agreement.
Our Party held a democratic debate on a resolution dealing with each point of the agreement, and thus we showed that a national Party, with representatives of all regions of Canada, could reach a firm consensus which could be a reasonable basis for an agreement.
In addition, we refrained from politicizing this question in the House of Commons. I, as much as the Members of the Official Opposition and the New Democrats purposely avoided embarrassing the Government about this issue. We knew that the provincial premiers and the representatives of the Canadian Government were studying the views set forth by Quebec, and that it was desirable that the interests of the country take precedence over partisan considerations.
Also, we must admit that Quebec is led by a Government which is openly federalist, nationalist but federalist, and which believes in the future of our country. It is a Government which is inspired by positive nationalism, which is aware that there is a way to conciliate and reconcile the objectives of the preservation and defence of the French language and culture while guaranteeing minority rights.
I was also advised that the Premier of Ontario played a leading role in the definition of a consensus, a fact I should like to emphasize in this House.
I just heard about the agreement-I didn't have time to read the text on my way back from Montreal this morning-so I am not in a position to comment on the contents. However, I will say that recognition of Canada's linguistic duality, of Quebec's distinct position as the main, but not exclusive, source of French language and culture in this country, and of the multicultural character of Canadian society would seem to be a sound foundation on which to build our future.
A more specific definition of powers with respect to immigration will guarantee that Quebec and other provinces, if they so desire, will be in a position to enhance the balance between language groups.

May 1, 1987
Statements by Ministers
The amending formula should also be changed to provide explicit guarantees that the status of federal institutions will not be modified without the consent of Quebec and the other provinces. In other words, the national interest must be served.
I would have to read the text. Perhaps the formula is too rigid for the future. We will have to look at this very closely.
We have recognized that spending authority is also a major concern. We intend to take a positive approach to the proposed text, while bearing in mind that because of this authority, Canada has today a social security and income support system that is among the most progressive in the world and the envy of many countries.
We shall therefore wish to ensure that nothing in the future will prevent the Government of Canada from improving the lot of medium-and low-income Canadians and to take action to guarantee greater social justice and equal opportunities for all Canadians.
The history of our country shows that our nation has evolved thanks to the reasonable nature of the aspirations of its citizens and the legitimate claims of both federal and provincial Governments.
This agreement will not be the last in our history. More progress can be achieved in relation with Senate reform and a clearer definition of some of the powers shared by the two levels of Government.
However, we recognize that, by taking its rightful place at the constitutional table, Quebec will continue to act as a catalyst for change and progress, and that there is some hope a better definition of the status of native Canadians can finally be achieved.
It is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that we shall take part in the coming debate on the resolution which must be passed by this House to implement the agreement reached by the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers.

In commending the Prime Minister and his colleagues, the First Ministers of the provinces, I want to say to him that the work accomplished yesterday was encouraging and constructive for the country. Bringing Quebec into our constitutional fabric, fully into the Canadian family, was an objective worth his time and worth the time of the First Ministers. We are very encouraged by the result.
I have not had an opportunity, nor have my colleagues, to study the text. As I said in French, I came back from Montreal when I learned that the Prime Minister would be making a statement this morning. We will, of course, have some questions to put to him and to the Government.
We are concerned, first, about the limitations on the spending power. Do they preclude national programs? Does this mean that in future a national child care program is impossible? What about a guaranteed annual income? Would
medicare have been possible under the agreement now contemplated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the provincial Premiers, or unemployment insurance for that matter? We will want to study the text of the spending power very carefully.
How will the expansion of opting out with compensation affect the quality of services and the uniformity of services in Canada? Who will decide national objectives? Senate reform will now require unanimous approval. Maybe the amending formula, even affecting federal institutions, will be too tight and too rigid. Until that formula is resolved, of course, and until Senate reform becomes a fact, we now understand that the provinces will submit lists of potential Senators to the Prime Minister. There are a lot of sad faces over there, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I think they have taken it very well this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Are we now, however, in a constitutional strait-jacket? Will we ever really see Senate reform? Will we ever see an elected Senate under the formula agreed upon between the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers?
We will want to study, the language of the distinctive character of Quebec. Will it be in the preamble? Will it be in the body of the Constitution? Do we yet know how widely it will influence the interpretation of that Constitution?
The Prime Minister seems to have accommodated many provincial concerns. That is the reason for the success, I am sure, of the negotiations. We will want to know from him what the federal Government got in return and what it sought. Did it seek changes to Section 23, the minority language rights feature of the Charter? Did it seek to eliminate the "notwithstanding clause", Section 33? If these questions were not raised at Meech Lake, will they be raised before the final deal is signed?
The Constitution requires, obviously, parliamentary assent to the text as it is eventually drafted. The Prime Minister must bring that before Parliament, as the Premier of Quebec must bring it before the Assemblee Nationale and as the other provincial premiers must bring it before their respective legislatures.
Will this Parliament have an opportunity to debate these issues before the final test is negotiated and signed? It is clear that Parliament will have to approve whatever the final text is in order to give it constitutional validity, as will provincial legislatures. My question to the Prime Minister, which we will pursue over the forthcoming days is, will this Parliament have an opportunity for some input into the final text before it is finally signed?
May 1, 1987

That being said, Mr. Speaker, it is a notable day for Canada. The Prime Minister deserves to enjoy his weekend, despite some of the events that will be happening; but for today it is a very significant accomplishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, as someone who has participated in this House in the process of constitutional change in recent years, I do know something about the immense difficulties, in a country of our nature, that are involved for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the other Premiers of our nation. I too want to begin my comments by complimenting the Prime Minister and the Premiers for reaching an Accord that I hope will be seen, after final analysis, to be something that all of Canada can cherish.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Constitutional change is always a difficult process, especially in our country with its great economic and cultural diversity. In Canada, we must be sensitive to the needs of assuring adequate powers to provincial governments so that they can meet the needs of their quite different regions.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there is a crucial necessity of ensuring that the power and the authority of the central Government is fully adequate, not only to carry out certain national functions important to all Canadians now, but also to be sufficient to enable the Government of Canada to initiate for the future in ways that can make our country even better. The need for a national child care program is a perfect current illustration of this point.

All Canadians know that the Premiers had the important and very special task of agreeing on proposals which would open the door to Quebec, the only province not to have signed the 1982 constitutional agreement.
The unique character of Quebec in Canada, the only province where the language and culture of the majority are French, is a fact which enriches the lives not only of Quebecers, but of all Canadians.
This fact must be recognized in the Canadian Constitution. Such is the policy of my Party.

The Prime Minister and the Premiers therefore had a very challenging task before them. All Canadians, I am sure, were pleased to hear that an agreement in principle was reached at Meech Lake last evening. The coming together of the Canadian family is desired by us all in this House and by all Parties and regions in our country. I compliment the Prime Minister
Statements by Ministers
and the Premiers representing such diverse regions, cultures and political Parties in reaching that agreement in principle.
I hope, like all Canadians, that when we see the fine print and study its implications our initial, genuine pleasure at the news of an accord will be sustainable. The Prime Minister will understand that my withholding of a complete endorsation of the agreement at this point is not at all churlish in nature, but rests entirely on the responsibility of my Party to study the details and the implications of what has been agreed upon. I deeply hope that such study will warrant wholehearted endorsation.
I would like to conclude with reference to one item in particular. In the accord, as the Prime Minister knows, there is a proposal to put in the Constitution specific commitments to meetings of the First Ministers on Senate reform and on economic matters. As one Canadian, 1 regret the complete absence of any reference to our aboriginal peoples. There was a conference, as the Prime Minister knows, that took place not long ago in this city in which we as a country and as political Parties failed to meet the needs and legitimate aspirations of our aboriginal peoples. I had hoped that there would have been a reference in the document that had been agreed upon to a commitment to carry on with such conferences in the future until the legitimate aspirations of our aboriginal peoples have been met.
I conclude, as I began, on a positive note, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the First Ministers on this new beginning, and hope that when we see the final wording it will be an historic day indeed, and one that all of us will be able to look back upon with pride and with pleasure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), he did make reference to the statement of principles arising out of the Meech Lake meeting yesterday and his willingness to table the draft of those principles.
With the permission of the House, I would be prepared to have these tabled and appended to Hansard.
[Editor's Note: For draft statement of principles referred to above, see Appendix],


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 23 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.

May 1, 1987

Patent Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 12 (Mr. Orlikow, p.4936).
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, as the House will recall, I was defending Motion No. 12 when the debate last ended some weeks ago, and I believe I have four or five minutes remaining.
I should like to remind the House what is at issue with Motion No. 12. Basically what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has in mind is commendable. In his motion he is proposing to put in place in Bill C-22 a recommendation of Mr. Eastman who, in his testimony before the committee, pointed out that there were three shortcomings in the legislation. I will just review them very quickly.
The first one in his opinion was that we should allow the research and development ratio of individual firms to be revealed. His suggestions were ways of improving the legislation, so he was hoping the R and D ratio would be revealed. The second one was that the board should remove, if need be, the exemption from compulsory licensing from all the patents of firms with excessive prices, a power which is not in Bill C-22. His third recommendation, with which the amendment deals specifically, was to reconsider the transitional arrangements and allow firms which have compulsory licences to exercise them when they receive a notice of compliance. This amendment proposes to do precisely that.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, because you have been following the debate very carefully, 153 applications were caught when the Government decided to stop the issuance of further licences or notices of compliance beyond July 27 of last year. I believe I mentioned to the House earlier that one of those drugs was a generic drug to take the place of the ulcer drug Zantac.
I also pointed out some of the economic advantages to the users of such drugs.
The Canadian Association of Consumers and the New Democratic Party feel that it is unfair and unreasonable for these 153 applications for licence to be stopped simply by a ukase from the Minister performing the ancient function of his art. The result will be much higher drug prices for consumers who will not have access to these 153 generic drugs which were on their way to being made available to Canadian consumers.
Motion No. 12 would correct that situation and would allow all these 153 applications, which are part way through the system, to be accepted and to receive a licence or a notice of compliance to make them available to the public.
In closing, I point out to Hon. Members of the government Party, who do not seem to be too interested in supporting this motion up to this point in time, that in effect Bill C-22 is retroactive legislation. I remind the older members of the Government who were here during the last Parliament that they made that particular point loudly and clearly. They rang bells and stormed the Speaker's chair as a result of a retroactive clause which was as reprehensible when the Liberals did it as it is when the Conservatives are proposing to do it.
I hope they recall their earlier rationalization and apply it to clear up this shortcoming in the Bill and to do away with an attempt by the Government to introduce what is in effect retroactive legislation. I plead for support for Motion No. 12.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 12. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 11 to 14 at page
12 and substituting the following therefor:
"licence has been issued in respect of the medicine or a notice of compliance in respect of the medicine has been issued to a person other than the patentee."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 41 to 49 at
page 12 and lines 1 to 10 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"41.14(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 41 or in any licence granted under that section, where a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine gives notice in the form and manner prescribed to the Commissioner, within six months after
May 1, 1987

(a)	the date on which this section comes into force, where the notice of compliance that is first issued in respect of the medicine is issued after June 27, 1986 and before the date on which this section comes into force, or
(b)	the date of the notice of compliance that is first issued in respect of the medicine, where the notice of compliance is issued after the date on which this section comes into force,
that the patentee intends to make the medicine in Canada for the purposes of completely or substantially supplying the Canadian market for that medicine, the Commissioner shall, by order, declare that this subsection applies in respect of the invention, and in such case, while the order remains in effect, no person shall, under a licence granted under section 41 in respect of a patent for an invention pertaining to the medicine, have or exercise any right,
(c)	where the invention is a process, to use the invention for the preparation or production of medicine, or
(d)	where the invention is other than a process, to make or use the invention for medicine or for the preparation or production of medicine
for sale for consumption in Canada, until the expiration of 10 years after the date of the notice of compliance
that is first issued in respect of the medicine.
(2)	Every patentee who has given a notice to the Commissioner under Subsection (1) shall provide the Commissioner with
(a)	in such form and manner and at such times and subject to such conditions as are prescribed, information and documents concerning the medicine-making activity to which the notice relates; and
(b)	such additional information or documents with respect to the matter referred to in paragraph (a) as the Commissioner may require, within such time as the Commissioner may specify.
(3)	Where, after providing every person against whom an order of the Commissioner under this subsection is proposed to be made with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Commissioner finds that a patentee in respect of a medicine
(a)	has failed to provide information or documents in accordance with Subsection (2),
(b)	has not commenced making in Canada the medicine that is the subject of the notice under Subsection (1) within two years after the date of the notice of compliance that was first issued in respect of the medicine, or
(c)	after the two years referred to in paragraph (6), is not making in Canada the medicine that is the subject of the notice under Subsection (1) so as to completely or substantially supply the Canadian market for the medicine,
the Commissioner may, by order, direct that, effective on the coming into force of the order, the prohibition set out in Subsection (1) ceases to apply in respect of the medicine and, in any case where paragraph (b) applies, the Commissioner may also by such order direct that the prohibition set out in subsection 41.11(1) ceases to apply in respect of the medicine effective on the coming into force of the order."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my view this is a very important amendment. It might well be called the "Michel Cote clause" or, better still, the "C. Joe Stettler clause".
Everyone who has followed the progress of this Bill knows of the great changes which occurred over the summer of 1986 after the Bill was almost introduced by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on June 27, 1986, and was finally introduced by the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) on November 7, 1986.
There were several changes to the Bill, and three of them significantly weakened it. What was dropped were the requirements of manufacturers to manufacture in Canada in order to keep exclusivity. The penalty clause was softened for excessive prices, and the criteria used by the drug prices review board were significantly weakened by making the costs of
Patent Act
making and marketing drugs a secondary criterion for determining costs.
What our amendment does is bring back the original clause in its entirety. For those who would like to see a Canadian drug manufacturing industry as opposed to one that exclusively imports its active ingredients, this amendment is worthy of support.
Attention was drawn to the matter when C. Joe Stettler, the head of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of the United States, disclosed on The Journal television program that he knew the previous Bill had been substantially changed or "toned down", as he put it.
Since the interview had been filmed a week before Bill C-22 was introduced, the question naturally became, how did he know? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs kept insisting that he had never met with or never heard of C. Joe Stettler, and neither had his department.
Of course C. Joe Stettler does not have to bother to know the Minister. He can simply get the same information through his client organization in Canada, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, which is well connected enough to hire the likes of Government Consultants International and even the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the Liberal Government, Judy Erola, so that this information is supplied to him with no fuss or protocol.
However, the lasting impression about the incident is that the Bill is being significantly influenced, if not written, in the United States. The Minister can maintain, as he does, that he knows of no U.S. influence on him, but the features of the legislation have been so shaped that the benefits are accruing to U.S.-based companies and the costs are being paid by Canadians.
Let me digress for a moment to point out to the Minister the objections made to the Bill by hundreds of organizations representing hundreds of thousands of people, despite the protestations of the Minister that they did not really understand what was involved. Despite all the pledges of the Minister that this Bill when enacted would not substantially increase the cost of drugs to ordinary people, until today they have been rejected by most of those organizations.
1 would like to read from a letter sent to the present Minister by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. This letter was written on April 22, 1987, and the bishops had this to say:
On behalf of the Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops we wish to express our concern over changes to the Drug Patent Act (Bill C-22).
We have followed the debate on this legislation and have noted that the pressure to change Canada's generic drug laws has not come from the people of this country. Indeed, national organizations representing thousands of Canadians from virtually all sectors of society have been unanimous in calling upon your Government not to proceed with the proposed legislation.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act
We add our voice to that call because we believe that this legislation, if enacted, would have detrimental effects on average Canadians, especially on the elderly and the poor. Thanks in large part to existing drug patent legislation, Canadians enjoy low prescription drugs prices and high standards of health care.
The proposed amendments will cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars annually in drug price increases. The changes will also have serious implications for health care costs and for the future of Medicare in this country.
We urge your government to resist the pressure from the multinational drug industry and from the United States Administration. At the moment in history when your government is negotiating a bilateral free trade arrangement with the United States, the people of Canada are watching vigilantly to ensure that the interests of the common good of the Canadian people are not sacrificed to market interests.
i will not continue reading because of time limitations.
That letter was signed by Paul J. O'Byrne, Bishop of Calgary, Chairman of the Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs. I hope the Minister will take the time to tell us his reply to that Bishop of the Catholic Church speaking for all the bishops, a bishop from his own city.
Just last week hearings were held by a committee of the United States House of Representatives which deals with questions of health. Let me read a couple of paragraphs from the report on that, which appeared in The Globe and Mail of April 22, 1987:
Witnesses praised and condemned Canada's system during the hearing at which Harry Eastman, the Toronto economist who led a Canadian inquiry into the subject, testified that Canada's current rules have saved drug consumers millions of dollars.
Let me digress to point out to the Minister again that Professor Eastman has said repeatedly that the system we have in place has saved Canadians many millions of dollars. The article goes on:
Subcommittee staff prepared a report showing that prescription drug prices in the United States have increased more than 79 per cent during the past six years and that the industry has spent only one of every three dollars from that increase on research and development...
The consumer-oriented American Association of Retired Persons, however, praised the Canadian system as "an appropriate market-oriented model for moderating the trend in escalating prescription drug prices."
I say to the Minister that, as we have said all along, the Bill the Government is forcing through the House despite the representations of dozens of organizations will be a major blow to ordinary Canadians.
Let me return for a moment to the statement made by the former Minister in praise of the new policy of his Government. I quote from his press statement of June 27, 1986:
Here are the specific changes we propose: patent-holding pharmaceutical firms in Canada will receive a phased-in period of exclusivity ranging from seven to 10 years. This, let me point out, is still less than the full patent protection which applies to other products.
In order to be assured of this exclusivity, however, an innovative firm must manufacture the fine-chemical ingredients in Canada . .. While the previous policy encouraged the importation of fine chemicals, our new policy will encourage their direct manufacture in Canada.
That provision was disposed of between the time the former Minister proposed to introduce the Bill and the time the present Minister brought the Bill in. It went because the American Government put the pressure on the Minister and the Government caved in.
We say that this Bill is wrong. The amendment I have moved would improve the Bill and I would urge Hon. Members to support it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this amendment to Bill C-22 moved by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. In the few moments I have before you call it 1.23, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the intent of this particular amendment is to try to facilitate, as best one can under these very adverse circumstances, a Canadian pharmaceutical industry predicated on the viability of Canadian-owned firms.
As it now stands, the legislation makes it very easy for multinational corporations to come to Canada to participate in the pharmaceutical sector of the economy. 1 think the over-all objective of any public legislation, particularly when dealing with pharmaceuticals, ought to be to build on the pillars of a public policy. I feel that one of these pillars is that we provide fair prices to Canadian consumers, whether they be the sick, the elderly, the poor or those on fixed incomes.
Fair prices for Canadian consumers is one such pillar, but we should also try to provide incentives to those individuals who are trained in a profession. We want them to reap some of the benefits of their innovative works. As well, real dollars should be directed into research and development in Canada, not just mere quotations from the newspapers about the lofty intentions of multinational corporations.
In my view, another such pillar must be the facilitation of the development of a Canadian pharamaceutical industry. I think it is fair to say that there is not a country in the world that has developed a viable pharmaceutical industry based solely on the existence and operation of multinational corporations. In this instance we have an opportunity to facilitate with reason, as always, a Canadian pharmaceutical industry. I know that I, as well as Members opposite and Members to the left, can fully appreciate that Canada is not a major player in the world market. However, that should not lessen our will and desire to try and enhance our own pharmaceutical industry.
I think the amendment attempts to do that in a number of ways. Yet the Government, for whatever reasons, some of which have been alluded to and some of which have not, is reluctant to reward Canadian entrepreneurs, reluctant to give them a legislative framework to assist and enhance their opportunities in a Canadian market. If it did, that could very well mean Canadians would become leaders in this sector. Then they, too, would be able to export their products as well as the technology which went into formulating the various new drugs. The Government consistently and persistently refuses to try and assist in developing a policy along those lines.
In November of 1986 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) said that for the previous four months he had an opportunity to fully review the draft legislation. He had consulted many interested parties and was
May I, 1987

convinced of its merits. The thrust of this Bill is the same as that announced in June with some modifications which I will refer to later. The Bill that the Government attempted to introduce in June had a few provisions which are not in the present Bill. However, it is very clear to all Members of Parliament that the philosophy behind the Bill is that of a giveaway of our pharmaceutical industry to multinational corporations wherever they may be based.
I note it is 1.23 p.m. I hope I can resume debate at two o'clock under your chairmanship.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.23 I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.23 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at 1.23 p.m., the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) had the floor and has three minutes remaining.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. In the few minutes I have I want to reiterate for Members opposite that we must be concerned and must be prepared to take concrete and specific actions with regard to Canadianizing our pharmaceutical industry.
It is well and good to say that Canada must abide by certain international conventions, whether the Paris Convention of 1904 or the subsequent treaties with regard to the issue of intellectual property rights, but it should be noted that since that time many countries have taken it upon themselves to try to develop their own pharmaceutical industry based upon their human resources, and also to use the state as an instrument of public policy to achieve their objectives.
In this instance the Government of the day, as many have argued, is trying to appease its neighbours to the south. As I indicated last night on the debate on the farm crisis, I am not anti-American. I want to make that perfectly clear. I have great difficulties with the American administration, but I am not anti-American. It seems that in our dealings with that country we in Canada always seem to be taking it in the neck.
I think this is a prime example of a case in which Canada has consented, both intellectually and in practice, to the wishes of our friends to the south, thereby giving multinational corporations in the United States and elsewhere everything they have asked for while we in Canada are failing to achieve the goals and objectives which are necessary to make the Canadian economy vibrant and viable.
In the minute which I have remaining I want to congratulate my colleague from the New Democratic Party who put forward this amendment. As was said in the Committee on Bill C-22 which studied this legislation, it would have been nice if Members opposite had been in agreement with the objectives which we laid out so early in our deliberations. As time has
Patent Act
progressed we have seen that the Government is falling prey to multinational corporations. I suggest, with great respect to you, Sir, that that may very well not be in Canada's best interests, particularly in the long term.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Motion No. 14 placed before the House by my hon. friend, the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It is a fairly substantial amendment which attempts to rectify some of the shortcomings of this Bill and bring back the rights of the generic drug industry to enable it to continue to operate as it did prior to the Government's decision of last July to stop 153 applications which were in the process of being accepted for additional generic drugs.
This entire exercise by the Opposition has been aimed at keeping down the cost of drugs to Canadians. The policy put into effect in the mid-1970s in this country to allow the manufacturing, under compulsory licence, of generic drugs has attracted attention around the world from consumers and health care personnel. It has been widely accepted as a good thing for the health care system in Canada as it provides relatively new patented inventions to consumers at a low cost. It also provided some protection to the patent holder because of the compulsory licence feature.
This initiative has attracted the attention of a wide range of Canadian society beyond the consumer association and some of the health care groups. It has attracted the attention of farm organizations like the Keystone Agricultural Producers in Manitoba, who have written to all Members of Parliament pointing out that the existing generic drug law has been good for Canadian rural residents. The Keystone Agricultural Producers speak on behalf of farmers and their families and point out that they have a double concern about what they believe is a flawed initiative.
They believe, as consumers of health services and drugs, that the generic drug law should remain as is and that the changes proposed in Bill C-22 should be dropped.
Their second concern as agricultural producers who use farm chemicals is that it has been a long-standing effort by farmers, through their organizations, to attempt to have on equivalent generic drug law and compulsory licensing for farm chemicals that they require in order to maintain the high productivity of Canadian farms.
The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Agriculture has taken upon itself a special project to investigate farm input costs. One of those input costs that has received substantial attention has been farm chemicals and veterinary drugs. Virtually without exception, the witnesses who appeared before us said that from the farmer's point of view the farm chemical industry needs some legislation similar to the generic drug law so that there could be compulsory licences applied to farm chemicals. Some have also indicated that this should be extended to include veterinary medicines. These submissions to the committee point out that the farm community has a parallel concern in this area.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act
I also have a letter from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, signed by Paul J. O'Byrne, Bishop of Calgary, Chairman of Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs. Tie has addressed the letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Leaders of the opposition Parties and numerous Members of Parliament. He points out:
On behalf of the Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops we wish to express our concern over changes to the Drug Patent Act (Bill C-22).
We have followed the debate on this legislation and have noted that the pressure to change Canada's generic drug laws has not come from the people of this country.
Indeed, national organizations representing thousands of Canadians from virtually all sectors of society have been unanimous in calling upon your government not to proceed with the proposed legislation.
That is, in fact, the case. No Canadian organization or group loudly called for these kinds of changes. The change seems to have come from south of the border where there is considerable pressure placed on the Prime Minister and his Government to create a legislative level playing field so that our drug laws more closely resemble those of the United States as a forerunner to a free trade arrangement between the two countries.
The letter continues:
We add our voice to that call because we believe that this legislation, if enacted, would have detrimental effects on average Canadians, especially on the elderly and the poor.
Thanks in large part to existing drug patent legislation, Canadians enjoy low prescription drug prices and high standards of health care. The proposed amendments will cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars annually in drug price increases. The changes will also have serious implications for health care costs and for the future of medicare in this country.
This point has been made by many groups and individuals across the country. It is not only the opinion of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose letter I am reading now. It goes on:
We urge your Government to resist the pressure from the multinational drug industry and from the United States administration. At the moment in history when your Government is negotiating a bilateral free trade arrangement with the United States, the people of Canada are watching vigilantly to ensure that the interests of the common good of the Canadian people are not sacrificed to market interests.
As the federal Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry declared in its 1985 report, the Canadian compulsory licensing policy "can be thought of as a mechanism to provide socially optimal patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry that other countries might well emulate".
Because the people of Canada affirm that this policy is not-and should never become-a trade issue, we urge you, in the name of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, to withdraw Bill C-22.
I believe the bishop has expressed the sentiments of hundreds of other Canadians, groups and institutions that have appeared before the committee, presented briefs, and written letters to individual Members of Parliament. The House will know that we have received petitions from hundreds of Canadians who have urged the Government to give up its
effort to push through Bill C-22. I urge government Members to support this motion and reconsider the Government's decision to put forward Bill C-22.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to deal very briefly with Motion No. 14 which was moved by our NPD colleagues. I feel it is a major otion because it would change significantly the Bill introduced in the House by the minister.

This amendment should probably be referred to as the Joe Stettler clause, because we know that the Bill went through great changes after the initial flawed attempt of the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote).
I remember the day when he was sitting at that end of the House and tried to introduce his Bill, but forgot the required Royal documentation necessary to present the Bill. This mistake was probably caused by the fact that he spent too much time that day at the press conference across the street and not enough time concentrating on what he should have been doing in the House.
Nevertheless, after that flawed attempt by the Government to introduce the Bill at that time, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) brought the Bill in. It came out differently than the Bill of his predecessor. Mr. C. Joe Stettler, the head of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, not of Canada but of the United States, said on The Journal television program that he knew the previous Bill had been substantially changed or, as he said "toned down". It is interesting, of course, that no one in Canada knew that but someone in the United States knew it well.

As Canadians, Mr. Speaker, we should ask ourselves what are we here for. Have we been elected to the House of Commons of Canada to protect the interests of Mr. C. Joe Stettler, President of the Association of Drug Manufacturers of America, or those of Canadians?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not usually call on a Member for relevance to a particular Clause, however we are now on a particular Clause and I would like the Hon. Member to stick with Motion No.14 (a)(6)(c) and (d) and tell me just exactly where the relevance is in what he is speaking about, particular to this motion?
May 1, 1987

[ Translation]


Don Boudria: With great pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had clearly indicated that the amendment proposed by our NDP colleagues was meant to re-establish this clause as it was before the intervention of Mr. C. Joe Stettler, an American who apparently was delighted with a change That is contrary to what we are trying to do now and was based on consultations with American interests and no consultation with Canadian interests. What our NDP colleagues, therefore, would like to do with our support is to re-establish the Bill as it was before the so-called intervention which I have just described.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you realize right away the importance of mentioning that Mr. C. Joe Stettler, of the Association of Drug Manufacturers of America, had been apparently informed of the proposed changes we are trying to reverse today.
That is the reason why I am trying to emphasize this fact. I am sure that if I went about explaining this even more slowly, the Hon. Member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Valcourt) might understand, although I might have to go really very slowly. He would catch on very quickly, on the other hand, if the idea was to take money from the poor in my riding. This morning he was laughing his head off when we raised this matter. As the House can see, unfortunately, he has not changed much. Come election time, we will look after him.

I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in June of last year, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said in a statement that he wanted to bring it to the attention of the House, but of course all this could not happen because the Bill could not be tabled, as I reviewed with you, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago. I am sure you remember it well. However, perhaps I should repeat it again so that the Hon. Member for Madawaska-Victoria understands because he understands a lot more slowly than most of us.
The Minister said in his statement:
As I stated a moment ago, we are also proposing new incentives to encourage pharmaceutical fine-chemical manufacturing in Canada. Pharmaceutical production in Canada is today basically an assembly operation. The chemicals are first imported and then packaged into pills, capsules and other product forms. While the previous policy encouraged the importation of fine chemicals, our new policy will encourage their direct manufacture in Canada.
I could argue that the Conservative policy will encourage the manufacture by the multinationals, Americans primarily, at the expense of generic Canadian companies. That, of course, is the result of Conservative policy. That is really what I wanted to bring to your attention this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I had.
I would like to continue much longer because I know the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) would want me to do so. However, I am afraid I will have to end my comments right now so I can allow the Hon.
Patent Act
Member from Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) to make his contribution to this debate.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 16.


David Orlikow: That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line 15
at page 13 the following:
"(3) Subsection 41.14(1) does not apply in respect of any licence or application for licence under Section 41 where the Commissioner finds that the licence that has been obtained or is sought by a person is necessary to the utilization, for the manufacture and sale of a medicine, of a biological process patented by the person, or for which a patent has been applied, and the process has been invented and developed by the person in Canada to such extent as is prescribed."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment could well be called the "Cangene amendment" because it was inspired and suggested by a representative of Cangene, which is a new and successful Canadian biotechnology company located in Mississauga, Ontario. Hon. Members should know that we do not have very many biotechnology companies and even fewer successful biotechnology companies.
In an appearance before the committee, the officers of Cangene pointed out that they had organized and prospered so far under the present Canadian patent law and they now feared that they would suffer greatly because of changes to the law being made by Bill C-22. It was another twist on the story of Canadian companies, such as the generic drug industry, being penalized in the future for having grown up under existing Canadian patent law. They were particularly concerned about the switch from patents on a process to patents on products, which is what this Bill, if it passes, will do.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act
In the words of Dr. Robert Garvin, the vice-president for Research and Development at Cangene:
On the verge of our success, you propose to change the rules. Under the new rules, the Cangene process, already successful with one, perhaps successful with others yet to be tried, will be useless. It will be useless because you, in the amendments, will allow product patents. The natural health giving proteins will become the private property of a single company. The process used to make that protein, the Cangene process, will be immaterial.
Under your new rules or the rules proposed in the amendments, the battle for the market-place will move into the courtroom as it has in the United States. That will doom Cangene and Canada forever... from establishing a Canadian niche in the protein-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Surely together we can write legislation which will not throw out the baby, Cangene, with the bath water.
That is what my amendment, Mr. Speaker, is trying to do. The committee was quite impressed with the presentation Cangene made and adopted an amendment to Section 41(1). It is meant to provide transitional arrangements for a period of four years in the case of microbiological processes intended for food and medicine.
This delay in the switch to product patents is to assist Cangene and other biotechnology companies to make the transition. However, this was only one of the proposals which Cangene made to the committee. Cangene also sees the value of compulsory licensing in its work, which is the purpose of the amendment brought forward here as Motion No. 16. It is restricted to the biotechnology area.
The purpose of the amendment is explained on page 14 of the Cangene brief to the legislative committee which dealt with Bill C-22. I quote from its submission:
The question still remains whether the prohibition of product patents in the biotechnology field would be sufficient to encourage the development of Canadian research and manufacturing firms such as Cangene. In Cangene's view, although such a change would be an enormous step forward, some aspects of compulsory licensing might still be necessary, because of the necessity in many instances to rely on enabling patents in order commercially to market a product. A patent rarely stands alone. Without some access to compulsory licensing, even though Cangene might own the patent to make human growth hormone by its own patented special process, the use of certain aspects of that process, or even the bottling of human growth hormone, might require access to patents not owned by Cangene and only available through licensing.
I could go on to quote further from the Cangene presentation. However, obviously, I do not have time.
I would like to put on the record some of the views which were outlined by Dr. Eastman in his report on which, supposedly, much of this legislation is based, although most of the recommendations he made have been ignored and rejected. I would like to quote from the section in his report which appears beginning on page 348 and which is entitled: "Compulsory Licensing and the Growth of Generic Production in Canada" in which he states:
The performance of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada does not differ significantly from that in other industrially advanced countries.
Its level of research and development is comparable to the disproportionately low level prevailing in such countries as Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. This contrasts with the very high level of research and development expenditures in France, West Germany, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The structural characteristics of the industry are everywhere similar as are, in consequence, the incentives to which firms are subject, their behaviour, and their performance.
To stray for a moment from Professor Eastman's views, it is interesting to note that most of the countries he mentions, which are not doing any more than we are, do not have our laws. They have the laws to which we will move and which were in place before 1969. In those countries the industry is still not doing much in the way of research.
I would like to continue to quote from Professor Eastman's views. He stated:
Canadian federal policy, on the other hand, is indirect and seeks to affect the industry's performance by altering the conditions of competition at the manufacturers' level... That Canadian policy is currently all but unique among industrially advanced countries does not make it wrong. Indeed it can be thought of as a mechanism to provide socially optimal patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry that other countries might well emulate.
He then goes on to state:
The new policy of compulsory licensing to import gave rise to a vigorous and growing generic sector of the industry ... On the whole, compulsory licensing has caused no decline in the economic health of the patent-holding firms... Nevertheless, it is known that the generic sector was of negligible size in 1968 but contributed about 8 per cent of sales in 1983 and employed about 1,300 persons in 1982.
Professor Eastman concluded by stating:
However, it should be kept in mind that the generic sector grew to significance in the industry because of the profitability of compulsory licensing and might well not have obtained a share of the post-patent market without that base.
We see that Dr. Eastman's view is that compulsory licensing is the corner-stone for the generic industry and is part of a policy "that other countries might well emulate." By supporting the amendment which I am moving today the unique Canadian system of drug patents will be strengthened for biotechnology companies. Given the tremendous increase and the almost unbelievable explosion of new research and development in other countries, the few companies operating in this country need every bit of assistance they can get. That is why I am moving this amendment.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). For the record I wish to read the amendment, because it is important that we understand that the amendment that is being put forward is being done so after having received some impressive submissions.
I think all members of the committee who studied Bill C-22 will agree that one of the most impressive presentations made to our committee was by Cangene. It was a succinct submission. Officers of the company were forthright in their presentation. They were very candid when they were questioned by Members of Parliament from all three political Parties. The amendment reads:
May 1, 1987

-Subsection 41.14(1) does not apply in respect of any licence or application for licence under Section 41 where the Commissioner finds that the licence that has been obtained or is sought by a person is necessary to the utilization-
I have read but part of the amendment.
It should be noted that in making its presentation to the committee Cangene spoke not only about the pharmaceutical industry in Canada but also about the biotechnology industry. We had other witnesses who came before the committee other than those from this particular corporation. The Science Council of Canada appeared before Members studying Bill C-22. Representatives from the Council talked about the biotechnology industry in Canada and its potential.
It ought to be remembered that if one is concerned with regional economic development, this is the sort of thing in which the western economy is very much interested. I know that this area is dear to your heart, Mr. Speaker. The people of Alberta have been attempting to diversify their economy. This is one high-tech area, the biotechnology area, in which they wish to become involved. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Cangene is not located in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, at the present time. Perhaps in the future it might be, I do not know.
However, I do wish to quote from the submission of Cangene, even though my colleague has perhaps already done so. When Dr. Garvin, the Vice-President for Research and Development at Cangene, was before the committee he said this, and it is worth repeating because its importance will become obvious to Ministers and to Members of Parliament quite readily:
On the verge of our success, you propose to change the rules.
That is precisely true. Here is a Canadian corporation operating in a new and innovative sector of our economy, the biotechnology industry, and prospering under the present legislation, the Patent Act as it now stands without any amendments thereto. The company was reasonably successful and hoping to make major break throughs. Yet the Government has come in and said, "We are going to change the rules of the game for Canadian corporations". Dr. Garvin went on further to state:
Under the new rules, the Cangene process, already successful with one and perhaps successful with others yet to be tried, will be useless. It will be useless, because you, in the amendments, will allow product patents. The natural health-giving proteins will become the private property of a single company. The process used to make that protein, the Cangene process, will be immaterial.
Under your new rules or the rules proposed in the amendments, the battle for the market-place will move into the courtroom, as it has in the United States. That will doom Cangene and Canada forever ... from establishing a Canadian niche in the protein-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Surely together we can write legislation which will not throw out the baby, Cangene, with the bath water.
Patent Act
I come back to my initial intervention when I talked about the pillars of a Canadian pharmaceutical industry and the amendment submitted by my colleague on the left. You can see quite readily, Sir, that it is not merely opposition Members proposing amendments for the mere sake of debate. We have a legitimate corporation operating here in Canada with men and women employed in a very sophisticated complex industry who will now have their particular operation, if you will, cut because of the new changes in Bill C-22, hence the purpose of the amendment submitted by my colleague.
Again and again I must repeat, not for the purposes of trying to deafen Members opposite, who may be listening very carefully, but to try to irk them into rethinking and reconsidering their position with regard to the Patent Act and the pillars of developing a Canadian industry. This is one of them. I would have hoped that Members opposite would avail themselves of every opportunity to stand in the Chamber to support the amendment and the intent of it. As we have seen in the past, this has not been the case, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed Motion No. 16 stands deferred.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 17:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 17 to 20 at
page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion pertaining to a medicine shall provide, every three months, the Board
with
(a) in such form and manner and subject to such condi-".

May 1, 1987
Patent Act
Motion No. 18:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 28 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing the medicine in Canada and elsewhere, where such informa-".
Motion No. 30:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 15 to 17 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall provide every three months the Board with
(a) in such form and manner and subject to such condi-"
Motion No. 39:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 20 and 21 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion pertaining to a medicine shall, every three months, in such form and manner and"


David Orlikow: Motion No. 40:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 30 to 33 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"medicine;
"(c) expenditures made by the patentee in Canada towards the cost of research and development relating to medicine; and
(d) expenditures to be made by the patentee in Canada towards the cost of research and development relating to medicine to the years 1990 and 1995 respectively."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, we are debating Motions Nos. 17, 18, 30, 39 and 40?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes.


David Charles Dingwall: But they will be voted on separately?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes.


David Charles Dingwall: I can only speak once, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is right, unfortunately.


David Charles Dingwall: I will have to put this in fast gear, then. These are amendments dealing primarily with the aspect of the operations of the Prices Review Board as set out in the legislation, Bill C-22. The motions that 1 have put forward, in particular Motion No. 17, require the industry to make quarterly reports to the board rather than at times at the discretion of the board. This significantly strengthens the watch-dog or monitoring capability of the board. Motion No. 18 allows the board outside of Canada to gather information on the cost of manufacturing medicines.
This amendment, in my view, has significant relevance with regard to the issue of transfer pricing, which 1 will speak about in a moment or two, and would allow the board to carry out meaningful investigation.
We have contended from day one that the prices review board as contained in the legislation is not constitutional. In questioning and in submitting a written argument to the Minister he refused to accept that argument. Having said that, there are some natural, in my view, amendments both substantive and consequential that ought to be in the Bill, or with the board anyway, even if it is found to be constitutional. That is a
question for the courts to decide at some point. Our fear in this Party is that the constitutionality of the board will be challenged by multinational corporations and they will use this as a lever to delay or to protract deliberations and activities of the board.
Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, clearly if you do have a board, which seems from the perspective of my Party to be in absolute contradiction to the philosophy of the Members opposite, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis), if the free market is to operate in Canada. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservative Government of the day would now want to put in the form of a regulation that the Prices Review Board monitor and advise on the pricing of pharmaceuticals in this country.
There seems to be a contradiction, because in 1983-84 the free market was advocated. In 1984 and in 1985 the free market was advocated. Now in 1986-87 it seems the reverse is advocated. I say that that is a contradiction. If the board is to be in place, if the courts do find it to be constitutional, it must have sufficient enabling powers within the substance and the make-up of the board to achieve the objective that it hopes to achieve.
If the board is to be limited to the parameters of Canada in terms of gathering information on the cost of what it will be for the manufacturing of the new drug, this in my view will prohibit and prevent the board from doing the job it was constituted to do originally, which is to advise and report on the cost of the manufacturing of the drug.
Many of these drugs in terms of ingredient, technology and the human resources that have gone into it may be located in various countries throughout the world. Canada has no leverage, no authority to say to multinational corporations who may be operating in Canada that we would like to see and have submitted an audited statement of the expenses and the expenditure program of the company in order to arrive at the figures they have quoted.
Why do 1 say that? It is because we were told in the legislative committee that it was upwards of $150 million to develop a new drug in Canada. I asked the multinational association, PMAC, to provide certain information on how it arrived at the cost of certain drugs. I was assured that 1 would receive that information, but 1 did not.
When I was in Washington 1 visited with the chairman of the subcommittee on environment and health which was conducting a study or investigation into the practising policies of pharmaceutical companies in the United States. We were led to believe from the information it had that the price was $50 million. When the chairman of a United States pharmaceutical organization was here in Canada, he was questioned on that matter at a press conference. I believe his statement indicated that it was something in the vicinity of $50 million for the manufacture of a new drug.
May 1, 1987

In order to get at the real cost of manufacturing a new drug, the board must have the powers in terms of being able to subpoena persons and information, wherever the information may be. However, as the legislation now stands, the board does not have the authority or jurisdiction to call for that information. If the Government is clear in its objectives, why would it want to hide the actual costs which go into developing and manufacturing new drugs?
Is it because the prices charged for particular drugs subsequent thereto will be very significant costs to senior citizens, the sick, the elderly, and those four million Canadians who have no drug program at all? If we knew the actual price predicated upon the information submitted, Canadians would have a better appreciation and understanding of why prices are what they are for certain drugs. I think it would be in their best interest to share that information with Canadians and with the board reviewing the prices, unless they want to hide it so that they can inflate their prices.
We are not trying to penalize anyone. We want to make certain that Canadian consumers will get a fair shake when it comes to the pricing of prescription drugs in Canada. These amendments would give the board a legislative authority and jurisdiction to obtain that information. At the present time the board does not have that authority.
We heard from a number of witnesses on the issue of transfer pricing. It is a very serious matter. Multinational corporations merely transfer prices from one jurisdiction to another. If the board does not have the authority to obtain that information, it will not be able to do the job which the Minister indicated he wanted it to do initially.
I hope Hon. Members will see the true value of these motions. I have not spoken on some of them because time is limited to 10 minutes at report stage. However, the amendments collectively would add immeasurably to the improvement of the Act if, on the hypothesis, that it is in fact constitutional.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Motion No. 40 standing in my name which substitutes the following:
(c)	expenditures made by the patentee in Canada towards the cost of research and development relating to medicine; and;
(d)	expenditures to be made by the patentee in Canada towards the cost of research and development relating to medicine to the years 1990 and 1995 respectfully.
The reasons I have moved this amendment are fairly easy to understand for those who want to try to understand the problems confronting us in Bill C-22. We have seen the problems in Canada in getting companies to live up to commitments made to Governments for government assistance, Those difficulties are as old as the CPR, or more than 100 years, and as topical as the financial assistance given to the company which manufactures Coleco toys in Montreal that closed after receiving substantial federal grants.
Patent Act
In this legislation we have already had the example of the drug manufacturing clause being cut from the Bill which was introduced last June because multinational companies did not want to manufacture in Canada. The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), not having manufacturing to talk about, has instead emphasized the commitment of companies to increase research in Canada. In his words, one of the objectives of Bill C-22 is:
To transform Canada's pharmaceutical sector into a world-class, innovative industry led by an unprecedented increase in investment and jobs in pharmaceutical research and development. The ratio of research to sales will double from the current level of under 5 per cent to 10 per cent by 1995, thereby directly creating an estimated 3,000 scientific and research related jobs and putting Canada at the forefront of leading nations in the pharmaceutical field.
Any person with an inquiring mind might be tempted to ask if we are being set up again with these promises.
After all, Dr. Eastman after his extensive studies in the pharmaceutical industry came to the following conclusion in his report:
In the Commission's opinion, Canada is not well placed to become a major world centre for pharmaceutical research or for the production of active chemical ingredients.
We should not be surprised at that conclusion of Dr. Eastman. We were told repeatedly by the companies themselves that to develop a completely new, important, and innovative drug would cost anywhere from $50 million to $100 million. Obviously no company would do that in Canada unless it has assurances that if it did the patent and manufacturing would not only be for Canada. We know that the multinational companies will do very little in that regard.
However, Dr. Eastman's caution did not stop the Minister. In the view of the Minister, the grounds for stating that Canada would become "at the forefront of leading nations" is based upon the following quote:
-extensive discussions with the innovative sector of the pharmaceutical industry from which the Government of Canada has received strong investment commitments .. . Specifically, the industry has undertaken to invest in Canada a growing percentage of sales revenues directly into R and D expenditures.
As a result of the policy change ... the industry is committed to increasing its current ratio of R and D to sales from 4.9 per cent to 8 per cent by 1990 and 10 per cent by 1995-a full doubling from the pre-policy level.
These commitments are not in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which would require the company to live up to these conditions, despite suggestions made by opposition Members and by many groups which appeared before the committee.
Since these commitments are not in the Bill, Dr. Eastman was forced to ask at committee for an amendment so that the drug prices review board could at least report the ratio of research and development to sales and the industry would know which ompanies were meeting their targets and which were not.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act
However, there is even more skepticism of a basic kind about the R and D commitments about which the Minister is so eager to talk. Paul Gorecki, an economist who worked on the Eastman Commission, told the committee the following:
Unfortunately it is difficult to evaluate these undertakings because no data is provided. Under what assumptions is the growth in R & D likely to occur? ... In the absence of answers to these questions and in view of the Commission's conclusions cited above one must unfortunately express skepticism about the projected doubling in R & D by 1995.
This amendment attempts to make the companies respond to the specific target years of 1990 and 1995. These are very important targets because if they are missed, reviews of the legislation can be triggered by Cabinet and by a parliamentary review.
There is the further controversy which has erupted over what constitutes R and D and what are really other kinds of research in marketing and clinical areas. We had long debates in committee about what constitutes research but, although we and many of the witnesses urged the Government to define research and development in the Bill, we were unable to convince the Government and it refused to do so.
The Minister's press release of December lists some 17 announcements totalling $770 million. Yet much of this money represents plant expansions that would be required in any case to serve a Canadian market that is doubling every five years. The research about which the Minister talked is clinical.
I would like to conclude by saying that we should remember what the Minister promised which was an expanded research effort which would create 3,000 scientific and research-related jobs and put Canada at the forefront of leading nations in the pharmaceutical field. That claim has its doubters, both over the number of jobs that will be created in scientific research and the quality of those jobs. That is what I am trying to pin down and get included in this Bill so we will really get the 3,000 jobs about which the Minister has spoken.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 17, 18, 30, 39 and 40 have been grouped for debate but will be voted on separately. Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
May 1, 1987


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 39 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on the Motion No. 40 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Oriikow). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now debate Motion No. 19 which will be debated and voted on separately.


David Charles Dingwall: Patent Act
Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 12 to 14 at
page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) any other patents of the patentee for inventions pertaining to medicine, whether granted".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This amendment will put the Bill back into its June 1986 format regarding the powers of the board to repeal any of the patents held by a manufacturer sanctioned by the board. We must remember that the Government attempted to introduce draft legislation in June, 1986, but because of a procedural hiccup, it did not introduce it in accordance with the procedures of the House and thereafter introduced a Bill in the fall of 1986 in a somewhat different form from that of the original draft.
Instead of having the power to repeal only one patent, this amendment provides that the board would have the power to repeal patents that it had in the 1986 draft. This will significantly strengthen the powers of the board. There is no logical reason for this section of the Bill to have been removed by the Minister except pressure from brand name manufacturers. It makes no sense to weaken or reduce the enforcement options open to a regulatory body.
The board to which I have referred in earlier amendments to Bill C-22 has certain powers and one of the powers the board was to have according to the June 1986 draft was that, if it was found by the board on its determination that a company, multinational or otherwise, was in breach of the Bill, the board could exercise certain sanctions against the particular company in question. That particular company may have a number of patents and the board would have had the authority to remove those patents.
The legislation introduced subsequent to the June draft, the Bill that has been presented to the House by the Conservative administration, removes those sanctions. It allows the board to remove one patent without removing other patents. The authority the board may use in circumstances it deemed necessary has been relinquished. In my view and in the view of my Party, this certainly does not add to the functions or powers of the board.
By forming this board, we are acting as if it were to be used to make companies aware that if they breach the law or are in violation of pricing regulations, the board has the authority to remove those patents and so the companies would think twice. Their behaviour would be different. However, as the legislation is now written, a company that has 10 patents and is found to be gouging the public will have only one patent removed by the board because that is the only authority it has. We do not believe this is in the best interests of the administrative practices of the board.

May 1, 1987
Business of the House
I would think that regulatory agencies would want to have at their disposal a variety of sanctions they might impose. By restricting the board to only one action you restrict its effectiveness. If there was a violation, perhaps the penalty ought not to be the removal of that one patent. It may unduly affect the viability of the company concerned. Equally so, if a violation is of such significance that the only sanction available to the board is the removal of one patent, the board is again failing to achieve its objectives because it would not be allowed to remove more than one patent as may be called for a given significant violation.
This is not a mere partisan political issue. It is a fact of administrative law and regulatory practice that I would have thought Members opposite, particularly the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt), would subscribe to.
That is the pith and substance of this particular amendment. However, I again wish to recall for the benefit of the Chair that we still maintain that the constitutionality of this board will be challenged first and foremost by the multinational corporations. If the courts find they are constitutional, it would seem appropriate that the Government accept this amendment. If not, perhaps it should accept the argument and have the entire matter referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication of the constitutionality of this board.
I do not want to go on at length regarding the constitutionality because that issue will arise in a number of other motions and I know you will want to hear argument from all sides of the House on that matter.
Let me conclude with this. The Government is contradicting itself again and again. It advocated a free market and regulatory reform and it has now come full circle. It is doing away with compulsory licensing, which is a free market activity, so to speak. The Government is substituting regulation which it said it did not want. It talks about free market and is now intervening. I suggest that the law will not be effective the way it is drafted. Without this amendment it will be ineffective in attempting to achieve the goal of proper sanctions for those in violation of both the spirit and substance of the amendments to the Patent Act.
*
*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), I have a statement regarding Private Members' Business.
I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' Business prior to May 11, 1987.
I have also received written notice from the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' Business prior to May 7, 1987.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to the Special Order of the House agreed to on February 20, 1987.
Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop both items of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 19 (Mr. Dingwall, p. 5643).
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 19, which we support, is almost identical to Motion No. 20 moved by the NDP. What it attempts to do is to reverse a Conservative change to the Bill which made a bad Bill worse. Back in June when the Government first attempted to introduce this very bad Bill it contained certain sanctions for drug companies which overcharged. The penalty was worded so that the patent was lost on any other patent of the patentee for an invention pertaining to medicine. In the November Bill, that was watered down to one other medicine. In other words, instead of losing all patents that pertain to medicine the company would lose only that which pertained to one other medicine.
That change reflects the influence which the American drug manufacturers have on the Canadian Government. It is a very clear illustration of the power of Mr. C. Joe Stettler, the well-paid and well-connected lobbyist on behalf of the PMA lobby in Washington. The fact that the Minister said he has never had a meeting with that lobbyist is incidental because the PMA is so well-connected here in Canada. It has its own lobbyists who were able to deliver the message to the Minister quite effectively.
In a CBC television interview which took place in advance of the tabling of the Bill in Parliament, Mr. Stettler was very forthcoming in pointing out to the Canadian public that changes had been made in the Bill in accordance with their desires. I would like to quote his words:
May I, 1987

Some of the penalties on violated pricing were pretty stiff and they were toned
down.
With this amendment we seek to return to the original wording in the June Bill. We would like to see a Bill which is not worse than it was originally intended to be. We would like to see a Bill which has not been interfered with to make it even more obnoxious to the Canadian people in order to satisfy the interests of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association in the U.S.
The U.S. companies now have a Bill they are very happy with, but it is not one that the Canadian people are going to be happy with. It will not in any way provide protection for them. It will result in higher prices for drugs and increased costs for provincial pharmacare programs. It is a vicious example of the way in which the Government bows down to the dictates of the American Government.
The very high percentage of foreign ownership of the Canadian drug industry is of major concern here. In 1981, of the 21 largest companies by sales, none was Canadian-owned. Foreign companies controlled about 92 per cent of the industry in 1972. Domestically owned companies supplied only 15 per cent of the Canadian pharmaceutical market in 1975 ranking us below countries such as Mexico, Iran, India and the Philippines. This information is from Dr. Joel Lexchin's book, The Real Pushers.
Between 1968 and 1979 the fraction of the Canadian market served by imports originating from parent countries or other subsidiaries abroad increased from 13.9 per cent of sales to 26.3 per cent while the fraction of the market served by the Canadian subsidiaries fell. Even in the late 1960s, drug manufacturing in Canada was minimal. Of all manufacturing, 85 per cent was confined to the conversion of imported material into final dosage form. In other words, we are taking the basic material manufactured abroad and only packaging it. That is the kind of manufacturing we did in the late 1960s. This is not good enough.
In addition, we should be aware of the extreme limitations which are put upon Canadian branch plants with respect to exporting abroad. Canada wants to be an exporting nation. We want to be able to export more than only wood products and grain products because we have a great deal of trouble with commodity prices. Presently Canadian branch plants in pharmaceuticals are not able to export because of foreign ownership and foreign control. Lexchin says:
The ability of Canadian branch plants to export drugs is also limited by foreign control. With most patents on drugs foreign-owned, subsidiary companies of the parent patentees control the market within their own jurisdictions. Export activity has to be confined to world areas where patents are not taken out; areas that are commercially insignificant. As a representative of a Canadian subsidiary in one U.S. company said, "We have so many plants all over the world 1 just do not know where we would export to."
Patent Act
This has led to the finding by the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce that Canadian subsidiaries are usually "not encouraged or permitted by the head office to assume responsibility for exports of their products". Our drug industry is dominated by foreign firms which dictated to the Canadian Government changes in legislation, which was wrong to begin with and worked against the interests of the Canadian public.
1 urge the Government to accept this amendment which restores the original wording of the section so that we do not have a bad Bill made worse through interference by the American Pharmaceutical Association, I hope all Members will consider the implications of this Bill and support this amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 31 have been grouped for debate. Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 31 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 disposes of Motions Nos. 24 and 25. A negative vote on Motion No. 23 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 24 and 25.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 17 to 28 at
page 14.
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 44 to 46 at
page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"price that is excessive, the Board shall take into consideration the following".


David Orlikow: May 1, 1987
Patent Act
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 48 and 49 at page 14 and lines 1 to 29 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: "(a) the costs of making and marketing the medicine; and (b) the Industry Selling Price as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act."


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 12 to 29 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion;
(d)	the Consumer Price Index as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act
(e)	the direct costs of making and marketing the medicine; and
(/) such other factors as are prescribed or, in the opinion of the board, are relevant in the circumstances."
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 21 to 23 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"price that is excessive, the Board shall take into consideration the following".
Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 6 to 17 at page 18.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these motions deal primarily with the matter 1 raised earlier of the constitutionality of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Bill C-22 establishes a drug prices review board with a mandate to keep future prices of pharmaceuticals down. Much has been made by the Government, and in particular the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), about the effectiveness of this board. Since the board is the only mechanism in the legislation to control future increases in the price of pharmaceuticals, it is important, in my view, to have a very close examination of the board's validity.
The powers given to the board are set out in subsection 41.15(2) of Bill C-22 as follows:
The Board may revoke the patent protection (exclusivity period) of an "excessively priced" drug as well as one other drug under patent by that patentee; or
The Board may cause the price of the "excessively priced" drug to be reduced to such an extent that the maximum price at which the medicine is sold is not excessive.
In my view each of these powers has very serious flaws. I would like to elaborate, for the purposes of this debate and to put them on the record, upon the reasons why 1 believe that the validity of these powers must be questioned.
With respect to the first power given to the board, the power to revoke a drug patent, such power is consistent with the power of the Commissioner of Patents over any other type of patent invention where there has been an abuse of patent privileges.
Unfortunately, however, the additional powers given to the board to revoke a patent on one other drug of the patentee is a power not given to the commissioner over any other patented invention or patent holder. This makes the legislation discriminatory in the sense that one group of patent holders, those
holding pharmaceutical patents, is treated differently from other groups of patent holders, those holding other patented products or processes.
This may be contrary to Section 15 of the Charter which guarantees equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Furthermore, it could be argued that such sanctions constitute cruel and unusual treatment or punishment contrary to Section 12 of the Charter.
With respect to the second power given to the board, the power to fix a price at which a drug may be sold, this power as well raises a fundamental issue of constitutionality. By virtue of subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the provinces are given the exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to property and civil rights in the province. "Property and civil rights in the province" encompasses the whole range of legal rights between persons, including law relating to property, succession, the family, torts and contracts.
I pointed out earlier that it is my opinion that at the first instance when a company is called into question and the powers of the board are attempted to be utilized, the company will say that it is unconstitutional. Thereby, the effectiveness of the board will be put into question. It will take innumerable time in order for decisions to be made. The case will be protracted for a considerable time, thus enabling the situation to fester.
The price at which goods are sold is a matter to be decided between two persons. That is private law as opposed to a matter governing the relationship between a person and an institution of Government. It is therefore clearly a provincial matter.
I can assure the House that the multinational corporations will waste no time when a sanction is imposed upon them by this board to place it before the Federal Court in order to have its jurisdiction and authority questioned.
The extent of provincial jurisdiction over pricing was questioned in the famous anti-inflation reference case referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and decided in 1976.
The Anti-Inflation Act, 1975, on which the reference was based, instituted a program of wage and price controls to be administered by a federal tribunal. The scheme was temporary and the Act automatically expired at the end of 1978.
The Supreme Court of Canada held, by a majority of seven to two, that the Act was valid as an exercise of the federal Government residual emergency power. There was no question that the intent of the Act was indeed an excursion into an exclusive matter of the provinces, namely property and civil rights. However, the incursion was justified by Mr. Chief Justice Laskin as being a rational basis which was temporarily necessary to meet a situation of economic crisis imperilling the well-being of Canada as a whole and requiring Parliament's stern intervention in the interest of the country as a whole.
May 1, 1987

Clearly, the situation of the Patented Medicine Review Board is not the equivalent of what Chief Justice Bora Laskin said in the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to this particular matter.
This is a subject matter that comes under the provincial jurisdiction. This is not an emergency situation. It does not come to a conclusion within 16 to 20 months, but exists for an indefinite time.
On those three grounds alone, the courts are apt to strike down the constitutionality of this particular review board, thereby enabling multinational corporations which are in violation of the spirit and the law as it pertains to Bill C-22 to slip away in the darkness of the night or the brightness of the day because the Government refuses to acknowledge that this is wrong.
I know that Members opposite agree. I know that the majority of Members in the House want to support me on this amendment, but we know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski), and of course "Gucci-Gucci", the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), have made a deal with the United States, based on the auspices of free trade, that this legislation will go through.
Mir. Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my Motion No. 23, if adopted, will tighten the price control provisions of this Bill. The Government has always implied that price control means that all drug prices will increase at the inflation rate. However, the Manitoba Government and others have pointed out that present price control criteria would justify any price increase, including those as high as 140 per cent. This amendment would tighten the criteria to increases of the industry's sales price index, not the CPI, which is a retail index for wholesale cost increases. Since the Government is pretending that it is giving inflation-only increases, then this amendment should be accepted.
I have already quoted from testimony given last week before a United States House of Representatives subcommittee looking at this whole question. It indicated that in the last six years the price of prescription drugs in the United States has gone up by over 79 per cent. That is substantially higher than the increase in the cost of living in that country. The same will happen here.
I also pointed out earlier that in the next few years we will face a host of new prescription drugs that will be brought on the market. While some of them will involve new processes that will give us better drugs, others will be modifications of present drugs so that the companies can charge higher prices. Despite all the arguments we have heard, the Government has used its power to force this Bill through Parliament at every stage. It has done so primarily because it knows how much opposition there is against the Bill.
Patent Act
Let me take a few moments to put on the record once again just a few of the objections and criticisms against the Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: I know. The Conference of Catholic Bishops, copycat drug companies.


David Orlikow: If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to speak instead of shouting from his seat, he should get up and speak. I know that if he rose to speak on this Bill he would show his ignorance and prejudice.
Let me take a few moments to quote a few newspaper editorials from one end of the country to the other, which outline their opposition to what the Government is proposing. The Toronto Star


Philip Derek Lewis: There is an independent journal of record.


David Orlikow: -on April 13 had an editorial with the headline: "Drug bill a bitter pill". The editorial states:
Opposition MPs-Liberals as well as New Democrats-have fought the good fight against the bill, rightly arguing that its adoption will inevitably result in higher prices for prescription drugs.
The editorial concludes:
Once the bill becomes law, how long will it take before Canada once again has drug prices among the highest in the world? And who's going to blow the whistle when the multinational drug companies don't live up to their glowing promises but continue to do their research and development in the U.S., Britain and Europe where their head offices are located? A Prices Review Board with no teeth? A federal government with no spine?
Let us look at an editorial in The Ottawa Citizen.


An Hon. Member:: Let's hear it for Keith Spicer.


David Orlikow: An editorial written this month contains the headline: "A bad drug deal closer to reality". It states:
The Bill is defective and rests on false assumptions.
It goes on:
. .. profits have not suffered unduly under generic competition.
Andre's least credible claim is that higher drug prices will by themselves lead to more Canadian research.
The existing system has proven its worth . . . The Opposition has been right to block the Bill. It is bad medicine.
If members on the government side do not want to listen to the editorials, let me quote a letter that was sent to the Minister by the President of Keystone Agricultural Producers, an organization in Manitoba which takes in all the farm commodity groups. The President of Keystone Agriculture Producers, Jack Penner, is a very good friend of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). I am told he has worked for and supported the Minister. Let me put on the record what Mr. Penner, on behalf of Keystone Agricultural Producers, said in a letter he wrote to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). He wrote:
The KAP's concerns about the proposed amendments are twofold. Firstly, and most obviously, KAP members share the concerns of those who believe that extended patent protections, will, by limiting the ability of drug manufacturing companies to produce generic copies by means of royalty payments, raise the prices charged to consumers for pharmaceutical drugs to unwarranted levels. Farmers and their families are, of course, part of the general consuming public, and stand to be seriously affected in any such situation.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act
Then they raise another very important point which I think we ought to think about, given the debate we have had during the last few days about the desperate plight of western farmers. The letter continues, and I quote:
Secondly, since many of the drug manufacturing companies which produce pharmaceutical drugs are the same companies which produce the chemical formulations used by agricultural producers in the production of primary food commodities, it is our belief that any measures which may be taken with respect to pharmaceutical drugs may have significant implications with respect to the production and pricing of pesticides.
We have spent many days this week talking about the reduction by 19 per cent of the initial price paid to grain producers. We spent days talking about the removal of the freeze on Farm Credit Corporation loans. Today we heard about the increase in the cost of transporting and moving grain which the farmers will have to absorb, and here we have another illustration-


John Horton McDermid: You also heard about the additional $64 million farmers received from this Government. Don't forget that. Read both sides of this story.


David Orlikow: There is still 18 minutes to go, Mr. Speaker, in this debate, and if the Hon. Member from Ontario wants to get up and speak, I invite him to do so, because every time he opens his mouth and puts something on the record, he demonstrates again and again his ignorance, his prejudice and his lack of concern about people in western Canada and particularly farmers who are really suffering.
I say to the Hon. Member and to other members of the Government that instead of listening to the pleas of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, the multinational corporations, whose profits have been as high or higher than any other group in this country, instead of listening to their pleas and giving them everything they want, the Government ought to listen to the pleas and arguments of the hundreds of organizations, churches, community groups, labour groups, consumer groups and farm groups, all of whom have urged the Government to withdraw this Bill and to continue with the present legislation.
The Minister asks us to look at the public opinion polls. All the public opinion polls except the poll commissioned by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, with a question it drafted-which was completely distorted-showed that the public is opposed to this Bill, and when the public gets a chance to vote in the next election, they will show the Government what they really think.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 3.45 p.m., pursuant to order made in accordance with provisions of Standing Order 117 on Wednesday, April 15, 1987, it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill.
The question is on Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 will dispose of Motions Nos. 24 and 25.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 1, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
No question will be put on Motions Nos. 24 and 25 until Motion No. 23 is disposed of on Monday.
The next question is on Motion No. 31 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 41 and 42 have been grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 26 will apply to Motion No. 27. Motions Nos. 28, 33, 34, 41 and 42 will be voted on separately. The question is on Motion No. 26.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 26
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line
42 at page 15 the following:
"public as prescribed by regulation, the".
Patent Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 27.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 47 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) and the public and such minister is entitled to".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We do not do anything on Motion No. 27 until we dispense with Motion No. 26 on Monday.
The next question is on Motion No. 28.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 28
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 5 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"sioner shall forthwith publish the ruling and shall concurrently inform the holder of'.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 33.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 27 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"relates, in which case this part of the hearing is deemed private by the Board or Commissioner but the hearing shall resume in public once the information or documentation is dealt with."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 34.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-22, be amended in clause 15 by adding immediately after line 18 at page 20 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), all rulings of the Board shall forthwith be made public, in a manner prescribed by regulation."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 41.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 3 to 8 at page
24 and substituting the following therefor:
"subsections (1) and (2) shall be public unless the Board or Commissioner is satisfied upon representations made by the person who supplied the information, that specific, direct and substantial harm would be caused to the person by the disclosure of the information or documentation."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 42.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 42
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 35 at page 24
and substituting the following therefor:
"shall be set out in such a manner that".
May 1, 1987


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 32


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 21 to 24 at
page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"the order."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 35.


David Charles Dingwall: Patent Act
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 26 to 28 at
page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"cine Prices Review Board consisting of 5 members to be appointed by the
Governor in Council.
(2) A majority of members shall constitute a quorum of the Board."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 36.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-22: be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 25 to 29 at
page 21.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

May 1, 1987
Patent Act
The next question is on Motion No. 37.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 37
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 7 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"under section 41.15 or 41.16 and shall".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 43.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 43
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 6 to 9 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"(7) The Governor in Council shall make regulations defining, for the purposes of this section, the expression "research and development" which shall include the following criteria:
{a) all expenditures made under the requirements for a notice of compliance for phase one and phase two of clinical trials;
(b)	all expenditures made for laboratory and preclinical work which lead to a notice of compliance;
but shall not include
(c)	all expenditures made under the requirements for a notice of compliance for phase three of clinical trials; and
(d)	all expenditures associated with the marketing of the medicine including all direct arid indirect marketing schemes by patentees."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 44.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 44
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 10 to 13 at
page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"41.26(1) The Governor in Council may, at any time but no later than the expiration of four years after section 41.11 comes into force, by order, where he determines".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 45.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 45
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line
14 at page 25, the following:
"and shall, if the patentees ratio of sales to research and development expenditures does not reach 8 per cent by 1990 and 10 per cent by 1995".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 1, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 46.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 46
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 39 at page 25
and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) On the expiration of four years after".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 47.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 47
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines 3 to 15 at
page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"31. This Bill shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation but not sooner than January 1, 1991."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Violence and Terrorism


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 114, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Normally, at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions of the report stage of the Bill now before the House. However, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 13(5), the recorded divisions will stand deferred until 6 p.m., Monday, May 4, 1987.
Shall I call it four o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM
[Stage Direction]
REMEMBRANCE OF INNOCENT VICTIMS Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of designating the period from April 19 to April 24 each year as a period of remembrance in Canada of innocent civilian victims of violence and terrorism.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion M-41 is a deceptively simple motion, but one which I believe warrants the support of the whole House because it tries to achieve several objectives.
In Canada there should be an annual focus in Parliament on those currently the victims of persecution based on race, religion, national origin, or political affiliation, as well as victims of terrorism so that public opinion can be mobilized to protect potential victims. This is particularly relevant today when, as a result of spurious refugee claims, Canadians are claiming the refugee process. We must systematically take the opportunity to highlight situations of genuine persecution which warrant refugee treatment.
[Stage Direction]
Violence and Terrorism
Of course, we could designate any time of the year as the period in which to focus on human rights abuses. My motion on the Order Paper suggests that the specific period between April 19 and April 24 be chosen. These dates, in the third week of April, were deliberately chosen because of historical events which took place this century. In my opinion, the decision to designate a national day of remembrance for victims of man's inhumanity to man can best be given historical relevance by directly relating the remembrance day to the horrible events of the recent past.
During the First World War, between one-half and two-thirds of the Armenian population died as a result of measures taken in the Ottoman Empire commencing with the order for the arrest of the first leaders of the Armenian community on April 24, 1915. In the area which is now northeastern Turkey and Soviet Armenia, Armenians reacted with resistance in response to those arrests. The resistance was quickly and forcefully crushed with many reprisals against the community. However, reprisals did not end there. The Armenian population was first put into concentration camps and then forcefully relocated from their home territory, during which time hundreds of thousands died from starvation, from attacks by the civilian population or at the hands of their government guards. The Armenians were the only race during the First World War subject to such proportionately massive losses. Indeed, within a decade, the term genocide was first used specifically to describe the large scale elimination of a people specifically with respect to the Armenian tragedy during the First World War.
It is important to recognize that while this represented the first major genocide in the 20th century, the concept of racially motivated killings unfortunately did not originate at that time nor has it ceased since. Shortly after the First World War, millions of Ukrainians were systematically starved by Stalin. Before the First World War, during the break-up of the Ottoman Empire in the so-called Balkan wars, there were all too many documented instances of entire villages being killed in the most horrible ways imaginable, including many villages of ethnic Turks. We should, of course, condemn these racially motivated killings as well.
During the First World War, the number of Turks who died as a result of starvation and war also reached into the hundreds of thousands. However, what distinguishes the Armenian tragedy from all others in World War I is that the vast majority of the civilian deaths occurred after the people had been rounded up for relocation by the governmental authorities of the Ottoman Empire and were specially under government protection. This should not be forgotten.
The second date mentioned in the motion, that of April 19, was chosen because on April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising commenced. Through the work of Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Elie Wiesel, we now have an annual commemoration of the Holocaust based on this date, although it is frequently celebrated by Jews throughout the world as occurring on the 27th of Nisan, the equivalent date on the Jewish calendar. All
of us are aware of the millions of innocent civilians, particularly Jews, who died in the Nazi concentration camps in the most systematic, barbaric attempt at racial annihilation the world has ever seen. In the Holocaust, the European Jewish population suffered the largest proportionate losses of any race in the Second World War.
It is, therefore, appropriate to select the date for annually recognizing human rights violations to civilians close to the dates symbolic of the most tragic events of each world war.
Moreover, these two events are connected in another bizarre way. It has been reported, when Hitler was challenged concerning his plans for the Jews, that he said, "Who now remembers the Armenians?" As a result of these reports, there have periodically been efforts by both the Armenian and Jewish populations to point out that lack of action by the world community to the First World War Armenian killings facilitated the path for Hitler during the Second World War. Some historians challenge the remarks attributed to Hitler as apocryphal. Whether apocryphal or not, the fact is that the world community had indeed largely forgotten the lessons of the First World War and that Hitler proceeded with his systematic racial extermination plans.
Following the Second World War, in reaction to the racially motivated mass killings of civilians, steps were taken both to define genocide and other war crimes and to ensure that sanctuary would, in future, be available for genuine refugees fleeing for their lives by establishing the U.N. High Commission on Refugees and the Geneva Convention on Refugees.
However, in the last two decades we have begun again to see an escalation of persecution and terrorism with victims, based on race, religion, national origin or political conviction, such as the Bahai's in Iran, the Miskito Indians in Nicaragua and Guatemala, and supporters of President Allende in Chile. The Pot Pol regime has killed millions in Kampuchea. We have also seen the starvation and indiscriminate killings of men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut by both Christians and Shiites, the murders of thousands of Sikhs in India following Mrs. Gandhi's assassination, the murders of Hindu men, women and children travelling on buses in the Punjab, the bombings and shootings of hundreds of bus passengers in Sri Lanka, the bombings of civilians in villages in Afghanistan, terrorist attacks against civilians in Israel, and most pertinent to Canada, the deaths of 329 innocent passengers on Air-India Flight 182.
Some of these events represent state terrorism, others represent terrorism by groups who seek to change the political order. Still others, such as the recent death of a guard at the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, represent attacks by isolated individuals who believe that terrorism is justified in the name of history. Canada is a world leader in the struggle for human rights. We should, therefore, also be a leader in ensuring that events in which civilians are killed as a result of state terrorism, group terrorism or individual terrorism, are condemned and, where possible, that world-wide remedial steps are taken.
May 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
I understand that there will be an amendment to my motion moved during the debate to select the first Monday of the third week of April as the date of remembrance in order to secularize the motion to cover all violence to civilians in all countries. I hope this will lead to a formal annual parliamentary statement.
I wish to indicate that the amendment is acceptable to me provided that it is clearly on the record that the choice of this date is designed to centre the day of remembrance between the specific dates mentioned in my motion.
This is important because there are some people in the world who now attempt to deny that the tragic events in the First World War and the Second World War referred to in my motion happened at all. Indeed, we have all recently seen two trials in Canada concerning the distribution of such hate literature. By passage of this motion, the Parliament of Canada would be stating unequivocally that it recognizes that the First World War Armenian genocide and the Second World War Holocaust are indisputable historical facts.
In summary, through the passage of this motion, I believe that Canada can provide a lead to the world by ensuring that similar events in the future are publicized and that corrective international action is started expeditiously. As such, I view the passage of my motion as both complementary to and a logical extension of the work done by Elie Wiesel in focusing on the Holocaust so that the lessons of the past can be applied to prevent future tragedies.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few remarks and then move an amendment. First, though, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) on his motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If I may just interrupt, the seconder for the motion of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. McCrossan) is the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton) instead of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), as I mentioned. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The presence of this motion on the Order Paper today has been a causal event in my life, but it has caused me to reflect on my last few years in Parliament and the extent of knowledge that I have about the degree to which violence and terrorism was a daily fact of life in many countries of the world. It was not very great the day I was first elected to this Chamber. To that extent, I think I share the state of knowledge that exists for a great many Canadians. I might even go so far as to say that such is the case perhaps for most Canadians.
I happen to be a fourth generation Canadian. When I reflect on family history, I think again I am not unlike many Canadians who have moved into the fourth, fifth and sixth generation,
Violence and Terrorism
but our ancestors came to this country in most, if not all cases, to escape violence, terrorism and persecution. We are a nation whose future to a large extent has been conditioned by that reality. Out of those kinds of experiences comes our special feeling for democracy, for the kinds of things that are important to this Chamber, important to our electoral process and important to our ways of governing ourselves.
I have had the honour to represent this Government for 11 weeks of the 1984 Fall Assembly of the United Nations. There are less than 40 democracies in an assembly of something in excess of 160 countries that are either full members or are represented there.
A true democracy is a very special commodity. I think we have special responsibilities in the world. It is appropriate that as a nation we set aside a day which gives us a focus and reason for coming together. It gives fourth generation Canadians a reason for remembering our history and our roots. What does it give more current first generation Canadians who came to the country as refugees, escaping the persecution and terrorism to which the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough referred? For them those memories are fresh. They have certain knowledge of friends and relatives who still exist in situations where there is real, genuine, and well-founded fear of persecution, of terrorism, and of violence.
I hope we as a nation will applaud the efforts of Parliament to set aside that kind of day. Then, as the future unfolds, hopefully we will put some effort into deciding the kinds of remembrances which would be appropriate on that special day.
We need to be reminded that the price of peace is also vigilance. When it comes to human rights, the need to be vigilant is ever present. There is a tendency in the busyness of our lives and our daily existence to forget that. Anything we as a Parliament and a nation can do to ensure that we do not forget it should be done, so that we remain conscious of it and responsive to it. This would speak well of us as a people and as a nation.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I should like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), the following:
That the words "the period from April 19 to April 24" be deleted and that the words "the third Monday in April" be substituted in their place.
The effect of this amendment would be to secularize the motion by providing a specific day each year for the remembrance to take place. Therefore the motion, as amended, would read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of designating the third Monday in April each year as a period of remembrance in Canada of innocent civilian victims of violence and terrorism.

May 1, 1987
Violence and Terrorism
I commend my amendment to the House, and I hope we will see its passage today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Therefore the debate is on the amendment. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. There have been consultations concerning the Hon. Member's motion. I have always been in favour of stating the facts as they are, very clearly, specifically and publicly. A number of consultations took place among Hon. Members and among various groups, including the Canadian Armenian Community, and I am sure other Members consulted with the Canadian community of Jewish faith, there is no doubt. Personally I like this kind of resolution, of motion and of commemoration because a people without memory does not deserve to survive. But I am somewhat embarrassed because the people who are primarily concerned and whom we would like to help have expressed-at least most of them did-their disagreement with the motion as drafted. I for one wish that some day people will be able to remember, but if we want to remember the least we can expect is that all those people for whom we want to remember should be in agreement. This is nothing new for me, Mr. Speaker. In April 1989-I see the Hon. Member listening attentively, my NDP colleague, I have him in mind today when I mention related issues of this story. In April 1989 it will be 25 years since, like many others, I began to familiarize myself with the Armenian community. In fact, it was in April 1964, I think it will be twenty-five years ago in 1989, and this is the twenty-fifth time I have raised this issue. It is one of my year-round concerns, but even more so on April 24.
What worries the Armenian community is this refusal to want to have something that reminds the world and Canadians of those events. If the House can accept the Hon. Member's amendment that does away with the date April 19, that is all right and we agree.

We agree that one of the great tragedies of the world occurred on April 19, 1943, the day when the Warsaw uprising began. It is commemorated as Holocaust Remembrance Day. Some day-and that day is coming soon-I will talk about my view of the Holocaust, this great world atrocity.
However, contained in the motion of the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) was the date of April 19 and also the date of April 24, the date of the mass arrest of the Armenian leadership in Istanbul, Turkey. It is considered to be-and we cannot change history; we cannot accommodate history-the beginning of the Armenian genocide. The Armenian community would have preferred at least part of the resolution put forward by the Hon. Member, but certainly not the amendment. They also have great reservations about le libelle de la resolution as it read then and as it reads now.
I have talked directly with the Hon. Member who moved the motion. I am trying to be fair to him, but I am also trying to reflect the strong views which have been put forward to me.
I wonder whether we could show Parliament at its best today. It is only an idea. The Hon. Member knows that I have been agonizing about what I will finally do. However, April has passed. We have almost 11 months to wait until next April. We want to remember the Holocaust. I sincerely do. We want to remember the genocide. I sincerely do, as does the Hon. Member. However, some people are already debating the way we are going to do it. I wonder whether that is the correct way to do it.
We could put up as many speakers as possible. We could kill the motion. I hate to use the term "kill the motion" when we are talking about the Holocaust. However, we could speak until six o'clock and it would be sad. I am reluctant as a longtime parliamentarian to do that.
I am pleading directly to my colleague about the people who made representations to us. I have the trust of the Armenian community. They will trust what I am trying to do. My colleague has the trust of the Armenian community of Toronto. They trust what he will do. Those who want to commemorate the the Holocaust trust many of my Liberal colleagues as well.
Yesterday, I offered the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) a chance to get together with me to see if we could discuss our opinions in consultation with those who want to commemorate the Holocaust. The Armenian community of Montreal, which is reluctant, and the Armenian community of Toronto will be divided if they are not satisfied that April 24 has been put aside for non-political reasons.
I know about political reasons. I used to sit on the government side and I know that the Department of External Affairs is very concerned about the question of genocide. If the Hon. Member so signifies, we will ensure that not too many Hon. Members speak so that the motion will not terminate automatically or come to a vote at five o'clock. Perhaps we should suspend the motion so that the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and I and any other Hon. Members who are interested could consult with the people before next April and perhaps come up with something that is acceptable to all.
We should recall that what we really want to do is to remember the Holocaust. There are too many tragedies taking place in the world without having a day to reflect on these immense, unacceptable tragedies that keep repeating themselves.
Many things were said during the election campaign by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), but I do not want to rehash those remarks. In July, 1984, comments were made in Toronto by the Hon. Member for York-Peel and by Mr. Hannigan in Montreal.
May 1, 1987

My colleague, the Elon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) was immensely interested in this question, but he is in Montreal today because we did not expect this debate to take place today. It was supposed to take place last Monday or next week. As well, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin), is in Vancouver, and she too wanted to participate in this debate.
On behalf of all these people, I am trying to agonize openly to see what is the best way we as parliamentarians who have an ultimately better motive can commemorate the Holocaust. I believe the Hon. Member who moved the motion is extraordinarily sincere and he wants to commemorate these people. Equally, he knows of my sincerity.
I have an idea that I will throw out in the last minute and a half of my time. 1 could talk about what the Armenian community has done for Canada, but we all know about it. 1 could talk about my involvement and the involvement of many Hon. Members from the government side, the Opposition side and the New Democratic side. We could pass the motion as amended, but I know that it will be debated right away in some of these communities and we will not have achieved our goal.
Perhaps the Hon. Member could signify his agreement to what I am trying to do, which is quite unusual, but between four o'clock and five o'clock we can do what we want. If what I say sounds reasonable, we could agree to say what we have to say and we will hear the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party who will speak in the same vein. I know the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and my colleague from Cape Breton will also wish to speak.
While the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party is speaking, perhaps I could speak to the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough to see if we could, by consent, suspend or withdraw the motion or dispose of it without taking a vote. I will see if the Hon. Member would agree to suspend the motion after those who wish to speak have done so, with my solemn commitment, publicly and openly, that we will go to these communities and come to an agreement so that what we want to commemorate will be commemorated. That means that we want to remember.
[ Translation]
However, I want people to remember how this has come about, and not regret that the motion is not worded exactly as they would have liked, because the original purpose cannot be achieved in my opinion with the present wording of the motion.
I think that I have used up all my allotted time. I would like to tell the House that I shall listen to the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party and that I shall consult him to ask him whether, before the debate comes to an end, he will point out that he would have said such or such a thing if there had been agreement on the motion, but that, in the absence of such an agreement, he will say something else.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to have the opportunity to represent the New Democratic Party in the debate on the
Violence and Terrorism
motion introduced by the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and its amendment. In considering the justification for the motion, I suppose one can be reflective about the fact that this motion addresses itself to violence and genocide in the 20th century, but I am not too sure why that should necessarily be so.
I know that Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy, when trying to come to grips with that which distinguishes man from other animals, defined human beings as being rational animals. We could suppose that the 20th century is focused upon rationality because I think many of us consider it to be the rational century, the century during which man has achieved the highest stage yet achieved in his development and the pursuit of the fulfilment of that ancient definition. Today we are dealing with those instances in which man has not done violence merely to fellow man but to himself and his very essence, the times when man has been reduced to the level of the animal, to the most primitive stage of man's evolution.
Humanity is unique as a species. As a biologist, I know it to be rare for a species to attack its own members. There are no wars among most species and there is no terrorism among most species. There is no genocide among any of them.
While we focus upon the 20th century, much of that with which we are concerned today represents a legacy of the 19th century. I stand as a descendant of a people who lost many; slaves who were shipped from Africa to the new world. It is not well known that far more slaves died during slavery than died in the 20th century Holocaust. We might reflect upon the fate of the Indians of South America, of the victims of colonialism throughout the world, of man's inhumanity to man.
I am not sure that I quite understand all of what is implied by my Liberal friend's intervention, but surely it is clear that the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust represent more than significant events in the 20th century. They represent new legacies and illustrate all the more in this rational century just how necessary it is for us to be concerned about the tendency of human beings to lose their character and kill because of race, religion or politics, to kill sporadically, randomly, in the form of terrorism to achieve some purpose which in their minds justifies acting like animals.
As we reflect upon the Armenian genocide, however worthy it is of commemoration, and it is; as we reflect upon the Holocaust, however worthy of commemoration it is, and it is; we must not forget that even as we stand here there may be another bomb being planted among a civilian population somewhere in the world. There may be another slaughter of passengers on a bus in Sri Lanka. There may be more Miskito Indians being slaughtered in Central America. Genocide has not ended. Violence has not ended. When we talk about the reduction of man to animalistic viciousness, let us not forget it is our rationality in the form of technology that all too often makes it possible to contemplate and justify so-called higher purposes violence of a sort that would never be contemplated as being included in the definition contained in this motion, violence in the form of nuclear or chemical warfare.

May 1, 1987
Violence and Terrorism
It is more than worth-while, indeed more than necessary, that there be a commemoration of those two fatal events, one for the Armenians and the other for the Jews. However, that commemoration must not be regarded as limited to those two tragedies. It must be directed to the prevention of any new tragedies. It would do us little good, however we do it, to commemorate these two events and ignore the images on television last night which sound the clarion call of warning to the world that a new genocide is about to be perpetrated upon the people of Mozambique.
Who would see the blood spewing from the mouth of a starving dying child, knowing it is the result of the activity of a regime whose view of mankind is completely contradictory to the view represented in this motion and, failing to act, not know that nothing has been learned from the Armenian genocide and the Jewish Holocaust?
Therefore, if this motion is adopted, in whatever form it might be adopted, and I hope it will be, nothing will be accomplished if it does not communicate to us and every other democratic country in the world that wherever there is racism, wherever there is antipathy on the basis of religion, wherever there is intolerance of differing political views, there is the possibility of new terrorism and new genocide. That is the message I know and understand, indeed the message that is intended to be communicated by the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough and this House when it adopts this motion.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon. As you know, we have always held on Friday afternoons debates that are very interesting for Members who choose to spend their Friday afternoon here rather than elsewhere. We often have an opportunity to share opinions, feelings and hopes on matters of importance to a large number of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues I have received a letter dated April 2, 1987, from Mr. M. Hagopian, Chairman of the National Armenian Committee of Canada.

The letter Mr. Hagopian sent reads as follows:
Motion M-41, introduced by Mr. Paul McCrossan, M.P. for York-
Scarborough, has been drawn as a non-votable motion.
April 10, 1987, has been tentatively set as a date for consideration of M-41 by
the House of Commons.
As my colleague indicated, that date was changed and that explains why a number of my colleagues, particularly the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs.. Pepin), who desperately wanted to speak on this motion, are unable to be with us today. It is the fault of no one, just the fact that the date was changed. The letter continues:
It is our understanding, that Mr. McCrossan's intention is setting a special remembrance period for the victims of all genocides. Hence, the selection of the dates.
April 19, 1943, is the day when the Warsaw uprising began and is commemorated as Holocaust Remembrance Day;
April 24, 1915, is the date of the mass arrests of the Armenian leadership in Istanbul, Turkey, and is considered to be the beginning of the Armenian Genocide.
Of course, the remembrance period would not be exclusively for the victims of the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, since, unfortunately, other genocides were committed in this century as well.
Furthermore, this would be an appropriate time each year for Parliament to focus on the present-day universal problem of persecution based on race, religion, or national origin.
As you would probably conclude from reading this page it appears that Mr. Hagopian was in favour of the motion. However, let me read to you the second page and you will see that there is a problem with the text of the motion as originally presented and, I submit, a further problem with the amendment brought to our attention today should it be passed. He continues:
However, the language of Mr. McCrossan's motion does not reflect his purpose, and it is vague and ambiguous. M-41 does not address the concerns of the Canadian Armenian community, and some might even consider it to be an affront to the memory of those who perished. Nonetheless, we sincerely believe that Mr. McCrossan is well-intentioned.
In order to directly and clearly address the issue, we suggest that the last words of M-41 "violence and terrorism," be replaced by "genocide and mass extermination," or "war crimes and crimes against humanity".
We strongly urge you to express our views when M-41 is debated in the House. We count on your understanding and support. Your co-operation will be very much appreciated.
There is quite a simple explanation for why Mr. Hagopian wrote such a letter. When I first read the letter I thought it was unusual that a person would initially express support and then reluctance. I referred to documents which I have and others which my colleagues provided to me and found the answer.
On July 23, 1984, during the last election campaign a Member of Parliament of the Progressive Conservative Party promised that a day would be set aside as a day of remembrance for the estimated 1.5 million Armenians killed during the Ottoman massacre of 1915. That was, of course, the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), a senior member of the then opposition Tory caucus.
I believe that the Armenian community interprets the motion before the House today as an attempt by the Government to fulfil that commitment. However, it does not go nearly far enough to fulfil the original commitment made by that Party. The amendment of the Hon. Member from Calgary removes completely the date of April 24, and I am sure that members of the Armenian community will not be satisfied with the amended motion, if it passes, especially considering they were not entirely satisfied with the original motion.
May 1, 1987

They did, however, highly praise the Member for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) who brought the matter to the attention of the House. I believe, as does my colleague from Saint-Denis and Mr. Hagopian, that the Member for York-Scarborough had only good intentions in the original motion.
I was hoping that the amendment of the Member from Calgary would have reflected the proposals of Mr. Hagopian in his letter of April 2, 1987, which he sent to many Members of Parliament. I surveyed a number of my colleagues who all said they had received it, so presumably all Members of this House, including the Member from Calgary who moved the amendment, must have been aware of Mr. Hagopian's concern.
Why was the amendment moved to water down the motion when Mr. Hagopian wanted it strengthened because it did not fulfil the commitment made by the Conservative Party in 1984? I hope all Members of this House will take note of that concern.
We know that the Government is not famous for keeping its promises made during the election campaign of 1984. I do not want to go through the whole litany of promises which it broke. I have done that on sufficient occasions in this House. However, if provoked I would gladly raise them again.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether we are on Private Members' Hour or government business. There seems to be some confusion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member has only one minute left and I am sure he would like to continue.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to be unduly partisan. I gave credit to the Member who presented the motion. However, if properly provoked by the temporary Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) I can be a trifle partisan on occasion. I can say that the Tories are once again trying to weasel out of a promise made to a community of Canada. That promise is now being further watered down by this amendment.
It is quite evident that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said it best when he said: "Sometimes you make commitments on the way to office that do not stand the scrutiny of information or circumstances that become known to you when you are in office". In other words, you say something to get elected, but reality sets in once you are there and you do not fulfil those promises. That is the Tory position.


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


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to involve myself in this debate. This is a Private Members' Motion and Members of all political
Violence and Terrorism
parties have an opportunity to express their views and examine the substance of the motion.
Motion 41 put forward by my colleague from the Conservative Party says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of designating the period from April 19 to April 24 each year as a period of remembrance in Canada of innocent civilian victims of violence and terrorism.
The amendment changes the time to the third week in May. It is worth noting that parliamentarians have the opportunity to send a very significant signal to individual Canadians who have relatives or friends who have been the victims of such violence and terrorism. On that note I want to congratulate my colleague from the Conservative Party because I think that is his intention.
I specifically want to address my remarks to the Holocaust. Three weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak with some young people from Halifax. We spoke about the issue of the Soviet Jewery and the difficulties with which people in that country are still plagued. It is rather frightening when you study history, view films, listen to commentary of various individuals, and read reports of Parliament to learn what some individuals were confronted with at a very difficult time in our history. These young people impressed me because they wanted, as I am sure the Hon. Member opposite wants, to highlight in a real way the significance of the Holocaust and other acts of violence and terrorism.
While the Hon. Member has his idea, these young people gave me other suggestions. Perhaps from time to time Parliament would put away its partisanship and discuss issues of international importance for a day or two when the Chamber could perhaps adopt a resolution that is agreeable to all Parties and, more important, to those individuals who are directly involved.
In this way Canada as a nation and as a free people could send a signal domestically and internationally that Canada is concerned, remembers, and has the compassion to make sure that the events of the past will never reoccur in the future.
They also suggested that this debate should not only consist of national leaders but also of Members of Parliament from all Parties who could espouse their views and those of their constituents so that Canadians would gain a better appreciation for what I believe is a well-intended motion.
All too often, we have a tendency in the country to forget. I do not say that because I believe anyone wants to forget past events in world history intentionally, but that is what happens as time and the world go on.

May 1, 1987
Violence and Terrorism
I believe that parliamentarians, particularly at the federal level, although I mean no disrespect to provincial parliamentarians, have an obligation to address this issue.
The students also said that while it is important to debate in the House of Commons and pass a resolution, perhaps we must do more. The original suggestion in the Hon. Member's motion was to set aside April 19 to April 24 for this remembrance. That has been amended to the third week of May. My colleague, the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has a profound interest in this subject, as I am sure all Members of Parliament do. I know that he would have preferred to be here if it were possible.
Perhaps some national organizations, as referred to by my colleague who spoke before me, may not share or fully appreciate the pith and substance of the motion that the Member is putting forward today. I have a letter that I believe all Members of Parliament received from the Armenian National Committee of Canada. 1 would like to quote from that letter because they make some interesting observations. It states:
April 10, 1987, has been tentatively set as a date for consideration of M-41 by the House of Commons.
It is our understanding, that Mr, McCrossan's intention is setting a special remembrance period for the victims of all genocides. Hence, the selection of the dates.
April 19, 1943, is the day when the Warsaw uprising began and is commemorated as Holocaust Remembrance Day;
April 24, 1915, is the date of the mass arrests of the Armenian leadership in Istanbul, Turkey, and is considered to be the beginning of the Armenian Genocide.
Of course, the remembrance period would not be exclusively for the victims of the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, since, unfortunately, other genocides were committed in this century as well. Furthermore, this would be an appropriate time each year for Parliament to focus on the present-day universal problem of persecution based on race, religion, or national origin.
I am not taking issue with the Armenian National Committee of Canada, but I want to say as a parliamentarian that we cannot set aside only one day or have just one debate. It cannot consist of one speech given by a government Minister and responded to by an opposition Member. My hon. colleague opposite has suggested a period of time for reflection on what has taken place.
The letter goes on:
However, the language of Mr. McCrossan's motion does not reflect his purpose, and it is vague and ambiguous.
I am not sure I necessarily agree with that, but I suggest that this provides an opportunity, particularly for the Hon.
Member opposite and my colleague, the Member for Laval-des-Rapides, for consultations with some of these organizations.
I congratulate the Member opposite for introducing this motion and allowing for this debate. I think his motion has a lot of substance which deserves reflection by all Members of Parliament.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the two or three minutes remaining I want to associate myself with the Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) who gave his support to the intent of this resolution.
I am not too concerned about the number of days because in the 20th century we have become successful in many areas and can do more than we have ever done in the world.
It is also obvious that we can kill more people than ever before. Mention has been made of the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey and of the Holocaust when six million Jews were killed by the Nazis.
We ought to remember the more recent times, with the deaths of four million people in Cambodia. We should remember the Idi Amin regime in Uganda, the civil war in Nigeria when the people in the Biafra province tried to separate from Nigeria, and the killings taking place in Sri Lanka at the present time.
There is the tragedy in Ireland. We cannot forget the events since World War I in the Soviet Union with the death by starvation of five million or six million Ukrainian people and the purges and wars which took place. It was estimated by the son of one of the leaders of the Communist uprising in 1917 that sixty million people living in the Soviet Union have died since then. So we say that violence and terrorism are a part, tragically, of the 20th century. We accept the proposal of the Hon. Member that we should remember this and honour these people wherever that happens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the motion shall be dropped from the Order Paper.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned.
May 1, 1987



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
April 30, 1987 MEECH LAKE COMMUNIQUE
At their meeting today at Meech Lake, the Prime Minister and the ten Premiers agreed to ask officials to transform into a constitutional text the agreement in principle found in the attached document.
First Ministers also agreed to hold a constitutional conference within weeks to approve a formal text intended to allow Quebec to resume its place as a full participant in Canada's constitutional development.

[Stage Direction]
(1)	The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canada, centred in but not limited to Quebec, and English-speaking Canada, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	Parliament and the provincial legislatures, in the exercise of their respective powers, are committed to preserving the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (0(a).
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.

[Stage Direction]
-	Provide under the Constitution that the Government of Canada shall negotiate an immigration agreement appropriate to the needs and circumstances of a province that so requests and that, once concluded, the agreement may be entrenched at the request of the province;
-	such agreements must recognize the federal government's power to set national standards and objectives relating to immigration, such as the ability to determine general
categories of immigrants, to establish overall levels of immigration and prescribe categories of inadmissible persons;
-	under the foregoing provisions, conclude in the first instance an agreement with Quebec that would:
[DOT]	incorporate the principles of the Cullen-Couture agreement on the selection abroad and in Canada of independent immigrants, visitors for medical treatment, students and temporary workers, and on the selection of refugees abroad and economic criteria for family reunification and assisted relatives;
[DOT]	guarantee that Quebec will receive a number of immigrants, including refugees, within the annual total established by the federal government for all of Canada proportionate to its share of the population of Canada, with the right to exceed that figure by 5% for demographic reasons; and
[DOT]	provide an undertaking by Canada to withdraw services (except citizenship services) for the reception and integration (including linguistic and cultural) of all foreign nationals wishing to settle in Quebec where services are to be provided by Quebec, with such withdrawal to be accompanied by reasonable compensation;
-	nothing in the foregoing should be construed as preventing the negotiation of similar agreements with other provinces.

[Stage Direction]
-	Entrench the Supreme Court and the requirement that at least three of the nine justices appointed be from the civil bar;
-	provide that, where there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the federal government shall appoint a person from a list of candidates proposed by the provinces and who is acceptable to the federal government.

[Stage Direction]
- Stipulate that Canada must provide reasonable compensation to any province that does not participate in a future national shared-cost program in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction if that province undertakes its own initiative or programs compatible with national objectives.
[Stage Direction]
May 1, 1987

[Stage Direction]
-	Maintain the current general amending formula set out in section 38, which requires the consent of Parliament and at least two-thirds of the provinces representing at least fifty percent of the population;
-	guarantee reasonable compensation in all cases where a province opts out of an amendment transferring provincial jurisdiction to Parliament;
-	because opting out of constitutional amendments to matters set out in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not possible, require the consent of Parliament and all the provinces for such amendments.

[Stage Direction]
-	Require that a First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution be held not less than once per year and that the first be held within twelve months of proclamation of this amendment but not later than the end of 1988;
-	entrench in the Constitution the following items on the agenda:
1)	Senate reform including:
-	the functions and role of the Senate;
-	the powers of the Senate;
-	the method of selection of Senators;
-	the distribution of Senate seats;
2)	fisheries roles and responsibilities; and
3)	other agreed upon matters;
-	entrench in the Constitution the annual First Ministers' Conference on the Economy now held under the terms of the February 1985 Memorandum of Agreement;
-	until constitutional amendments regarding the Senate are accomplished the federal government shall appoint persons from lists of candidates provided by provinces where vacancies occur and who are acceptable to the federal government.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 4, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers