1987-04-02

Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I am eager to share with the House what I have seen and experienced during the past couple of weeks as I travelled in China and Thailand. I say "eager" because I believe our relationship with the new Asia, which is emerging with astonishing speed, is crucial to our mutual interests.

After visiting several parts of Asia and a series of development co-operation projects in which Canada is involved, I am very pleased to say I was given tangible proof of the effectiveness of our development aid. The projects in which Canada is involved are having a definite impact.
Last week during my visit to Thailand, I signed several agreements aimed at promoting co-operation in major sectors between our two countries. For instance, Canada will provide a grant of $5 million to help the women of Thailand participate to a greater extent in the development of their country. These funds will enable them to initiate income-generating activities, open small businesses, have access to credit and receive leadership training.
Other agreements concern the funding of Canadian goods and services; scholarships for Thai students who want to pursue post-secondary studies in Canada in crucial areas such as energy and food production; and opening up new areas for co-operation such as food processing, air traffic control and environmental protection.
I visited the Champthai factory, an example of a joint venture involving a Canadian company, Champion Road Machinery of Goderich, Ontario and a Thai company. I visited a centre for remote sensing which is receiving technical assistance from Canadian companies in Montreal and Vancouver.
I was profoundly affected by my visit to a school for the blind, where fantastic work is being done.
I also went to Northeast Thailand, the country's poorest region, where I visited rural development projects funded by Canada. However, what struck me most was the way the relationship between our two countries has changed. There is so much vitality and growth everywhere in Thailand, and there are so many positive aspects for Canada that we can no longer properly speak of a donor-beneficiary relationship. These terms reflect a dependence that is no longer significant.

I can report that the same is true, but on a larger scale, in our relationship with China. It was a great privilege to spend 10 days in the world's most populous nation as a representative of the Canadian Government. It was a very productive 10 days, indeed. There were meetings with Deng Xiaoing, China's elder statesman, with the President, the Prime Minister and other officials at the highest level.
In following up on the Prime Minister's commitment of last year, I was able to announce, as Minister responsible for CIDA, 11 new projects of development co-operation to a value of over $90 million in such fields as management education, municipal planning and linkages at the college and university level. I was happy with the focus of our existing program, which The Globe and Mail has described as aimed at people and knowledge. I am particularly pleased to report that we have also taken some early initiatives in the important and promising fields of transportation and telecommunications.
There were many highlights. On one occasion I met with representatives of one of our development partners, the AllChina Women's Federation, doubtless the world's largest such organization with 93 million members. On another occasion I travelled by boat on the Yangtze to the site of the proposed Three Gorges Complex where the river, the hills and the mists truly speak to the soul. However, this spot is also where China is contemplating building a power complex with a capacity greater than the entire James Bay Development. The proposed project would also control floods and extend river navigation. We can be proud that China has entrusted a Canadian consortium with the carrying out of the feasibility study. We can only assist China, in its great wisdom, to make this crucial decision about its future.
There are two further observations I would like to offer. The first concerns Asia in general. Asia is changing fast-much faster, 1 fear, than our Canadian ideas and attitudes about

April 2, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Asian reality. The fact is that Asia with immense needs, pent up demand, a large and growing middle class and huge human and material resources, will become the mainstream, the centre of gravity of the global economy in the very near future-likely by the turn of the century, less than 5,000 days from now. It will have the world's largest, most diverse and, perhaps, most modern industrial capacity. This means that our relationship with Asia will be utterly transformed.
In reality, of course, transformations do not happen overnight-they are already well advanced. Some of us gained that insight when we recently saw Canadian communities vying for investment by Japanese and Korean car makers. But I am very concerned that Canadian perceptions are lagging dangerously far behind the fast pace of change. How many of us have looked recently at GNP per capita figures and noticed how Asian countries have begun to surpass those in Europe? At current growth rates for per capita income Taiwan and Korea will be richer than the United States four decades from now.
The point I want to make is that if Canadians want a strategy for success, whether we are talking about government, business or Canadians in general, they had better realize that, especially in Asia, the old game is over and a quite different one is under way with new roles and new rules. It is important for Canada as a whole to understand the new reality so that our country can make major adjustments, economically, politically and psychologically.

One of the aspects of this new reality is the fact that we need China more than it needs us. A look at the total volume of our exports in 1985 reveals that China accounted for 3.4 per cent, whereas Canada was the origin of only 1.6 per cent of Chinese imports. At that time, we turned a new page of Canadian economic history when, for the first time, a larger volume of our exports went to the Pacific region instead of crossing the Atlantic.
If we expect Canada to prosper as a major trading nation we must gain a very clear insight into worldwide economic events and do everything we can to cultivate our ties with Asia. We must establish a long-term economic and institutional relationship.
More subjective, my second remark has to do with the state of our relations with Asia and the way the Government approachesThis significant aspect of our external relations. In this respect I can say that our relations are excellent and that the Government is taking decisive action to strengthen these ties with Asia well into the XXIth century. Everywhere I went I was struck by the people's warm and friendly reception.
Although Canada does not rank high in terms of population, our impact in China is much more important than most of us would imagine. Our reputation over there is practically second to none. The name of Dr. Bethune was on everyone's lips.
I also believe that their attitude towards us is due in part to the deep respect which Canada has always shown for China and its priorities. Indeed, the same things goes for Thailand.
By any means the Government does not neglect any opportunity to expand these ties. I have just returned from my visit over there with the Governor General. The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) as well travelled to that country a few days ago, and recently there were other ministerial visits.

While in Asia I had the opportunity to sign a number of agreements for specific projects, thus moving our co-operation forward in keeping with, for instance, the commitments made last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). To further the process, Cabinet has now approved a strategy for China which reflects the importance Canada attaches to its relations with the Asia-Pacific region in general and with China in particular.
The strategy builds upon the major achievements since Canada's recognition of the People's Republic of China in 1970, especially the measures taken by the Government in the past two years, such as the opening of a consulate in Shanghai and the announcement by the Prime Minister when he visited Beijing last May that Canada is doubling its CIDA bilateral program and setting up a concessional financing facility. The strategy is designed to set an institutional framework for the building of a focused, orchestrated and dynamic approach to our relationship with China, a key political actor in Asia and Canada's fifth largest market in the world.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with you a Thai tradition. When one gives alms to a monk it is then customary to thank the monk for accepting the gift. The truth is that Canada's participation in Asia's development is indeed enriching and benefiting Canada. Day by day the relationship between our country, and those of Asia, grows more balanced and becomes more mutually beneficial.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that I wish that my comments on the Minister's presentation could be better prepared, since I think it has been a valuable contribution. Unfortunately, I was not in receipt of her remarks and was therefore unable to give time to the preparation of the type of remarks that I would like to make on behalf of my Party. At the same time, on behalf of the Members of the House, I wish to thank the Minister for the fact that she has come to the House to report on her visit and to give us an insight into her findings.
As an aside, an interesting aspect of her remarks was her comment concerning the importance of the trade future of the Pacific Rim. The growth of the power of many of the previously undeveloped and now rapidly developing countries in Asia will in fact shift Canada's trade to a larger extent to the Pacific Rim as opposed to the Atlantic Region, which is an idea that Canadians have to catch up with, as the Minister has indicated. Now that she has come back, the Minister should
April 2, 1987

now meet with the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) for the purpose of enlightening that Minister, as she is contemplating Canada's trade relations with the United States, on the importance of trade with the nations of the Pacific Rim. It is our contention that it is within the total context of our GATT relations and within the context of our total trade with all of the nations of the world that we should consider our trade relations with the United States. Perhaps the Minister for External Relations will be helpful in getting that point across to the Minister for International Trade.
I should like to call attention to the Minister's report on Thailand. Given that she is the Minister for External Relations, her report includes a section on the work of CIDA, something that is entirely within her area of responsibility. In looking at our development programs, both multilateral and bilateral, we want to ensure that such programs are beneficial to the poorest people of the countries involved. In addition, we want to ensure that any such developments are not in any way harmful to the weak and the poor of those countries. This, of course, is something that is difficult to achieve when one is dealing with sovereign nations. Certainly, we would not want them to feel that we were interfering with their plans and their views. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we do have that responsibility of which I spoke.
I was pleased to hear that the Minister went to the poorer sections in Thailand and had the opportunity to see what some of those problems are. But, it does also raise certain areas of concern, those concerns having to do with the plight of the poorer people in these countries and the whole question of human rights. I regret that the Minister did not make a few comments in that regard.
Like everyone else, I was happy to hear about the desire to provide education and to work on co-operative educational programs with Thailand, including the exchange of students, the possibility of having Thai students in Canada-something which would be beneficial to both of our countries. Such programs are a positive step in beginning the process of improving human rights in other countries and in ameliorating the suffering that takes place in those countries.
I was pleased to hear about the Minister's visit to China, a country which we often speak of as the "Sleeping Giant". Given the vastness of that country, and the size of its population, it is certainly a good thing to have Canadians generally visit that country to acquaint themselves with it, and it is particularly beneficial when leading members of our Cabinet travel to that very important nation. While it is a Communist nation, it is an important one, and Canada has provided leadership in the past in opening up relations with it. In this regard, I make reference to former Prime Minister Trudeau, who helped create a better respect for China as a nation that must be dealt with in the realities of the world. So, it is a good thing that the Minister was able to spend time in China,
Statements by Ministers
allowing her to return to Canada with a better assessment and appreciation of things in that country.
I should like again to call the attention of the Minister to the manner in which we provide aid to these countries. As the Minister responsible for CIDA, she will be aware that some of the projects undertaken around the world have led to some tragic results. We have had examples of countries, with the assistance of the International World Bank and the IMF, going after major projects, including the construction of hydroelectric dams, that have led to tragic consequences. We have had examples where a nation's leaders, in their desire to keep up with the progress of other countries, have embarked on projects which, while providing them with some personal glory, have done a great deal of damage to the country's population.
I will not cite specifics. I think the Minister knows what I am talking about. Certainly in various nations of Africa, this kind of thing has taken place.
I can understand that the Minister, in speaking about the Three Gorges Complex, would not want to insult the leadership of the Chinese people by challenging them about the wisdom of that project. However, it is a project in which we are involved, and a project on which Canadian firms are seeking contracts. The construction of hydro-electric dams in other areas of the world have led to the displacement of entire populations, with no provision for relocating the people affected or providing them with a better and improved way of life. On the contrary, such projects have oftentimes led to the total destruction of the lives of those people. Oftentimes, they result in economic ruin. In addition, there have often been, as a longer range result, dreadful environmental repercussions.
By no means am I suggesting to the Minister that all hydroelectric dams are bad. On the contrary, provided that all of the necessary safeguards are taken, they can be good. However, we have seen ourselves involved in projects where not enough attention has been given to these matters, with the result that, instead of having brought about alleviation of the suffering of the poor, we have in fact brought about just the opposite. Many projects bring about very dubious long range benefits for the economy of the country involved, with very powerful and tragic short term repercussions on the people directly affected by the project. I regret that the Minister did not comment on how some of these tragedies of the past could be avoided insofar as any involvement we have with China is concerned.
We have to ask ourselves, too, just how the Minister sees her role as one who is concerned with developments. Development, of course, does include trade, and certainly it is not her function to try to be the Minister for International Trade. However, I think her observations on the trade situation will be of assistance to her colleagues in Cabinet. I would welcome from the Minister, as soon as possible, a further detailed explanation as to what is happening in Asia insofar as the poorer people are concerned, those on whom we are supposedly focusing as our top priority in terms of CIDA aid.

April 2, 1987
Committee Reports
Indeed, in the Minister's statement-and I appreciate that in a short presentation such as this she cannot cover everything-I did miss hearing anything about the tragic fact that there are so many people on the Asian continent who continue to live in very limited circumstances, people who are illiterate and not well cared for medically. These are the very people, through our CIDA operations, we want to help.
As well, I should like to have heard her observations on nongovernmental organizations, organizations that monitor the human rights situation and the economic situation in those countries. I hope that she did visit some such organizations.
My comments, Mr. Speaker, are meant to constitute both congratulations to the Minister and an expression of concern in relation to those areas that were omitted from her remarks. I do want to express my appreciation to the Minister for her having taken the time to make this trip and for the courtesy of her report to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you will find that there is agreement to immediately move to the item Presenting Reports from Committees, in order that parliamentary committee reports can be presented, following which we can revert back to my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for his intervention in reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that there is agreement to the suggestion put forward by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: As your Speaker, I am reluctant to comment too often on matters of the relations among the Parties in this place, but I think it is appropriate to remark at this time that while the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) expressed a desire for more time to consider the Minister's statement before replying, he was extremely gracious in his response. I would ask that when statements are being made in the Chamber every effort be made to give those who must respond adequate time to consider the statements before making their reply.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I merely offer that as a comment. It is something that I hope will be given consideration.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I have the honour of tabling the first report of the Sub-Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. The title of the report is: CHALLENGE-Putting our House in order.
[DOT] (M30)

The report 1 am tabling this morning on behalf of the parliamentary committee on the disabled is a unanimous report entitled "Challenge-Putting our House in Order".
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I specifically ask, on behalf of the committee, that the Government provide a comprehensive response within 120 days. In a very encapsulated form, when the report speaks about putting our house in order, it is something Hon. Members of the House can particularly take to heart. The message relates to mentally and physically challenged Canadians and it sets out an action plan for us to lead by example.
In presenting the report this morning, members of the committee would like to note that Your Honour is mentioned in the report for the exemplary initiative you have taken in responding to the concerns of the committee, developing an action plan, establishing timetables, and moving to action so that the needs and aspirations of mentally and physically challenged Canadians are being adequately responded to on the Hill, and through this example which the committee will be using, through all other departments and branches of the federal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


EXTERNAL RELATIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party I wish to express appreciation to the Hon. Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) for her statement and for the trip which she made, along with the Governor General and others, to China and Thailand. The growing importance of Asia in the world and in Canada's relationships with other parts of the world has been underscored by the visit and by the Minister's report.
In the early 1950s the question of the recognition of the People's Republic of China was something of an United Church heresy, because the United Church of Canada was
April 2, 1987

advocating that before many other organizations in Canada were. Some people felt that the sky would fall in if Canada took such a drastic step. It finally happened in 1970, and since then there have been absolutely no regrets on the part of Canada that we have recognized the People's Republic of China. We have been seeking to build stronger ties ever since. It is important, as the Minister has done, to underscore the importance of those ties both for Canada and for the world in general. Coming from a riding on the Pacific Coast, I know how important it is for our people.
China is a country which has made tremendous strides in the last few years, yet it continues to face tremendous problems. Canadian and Chinese co-operation is essential and, as the Minister pointed out, it is essential for Canada as well as for countries in Asia. I was very pleased to note in the Minister's comments on Thailand that we are moving beyond the donor-recipient relationship. It is important for us to move into an era of international co-operation rather than see a kind of paternalistic relationship continuing.
I have some concerns about some of the issues mentioned by the Minister, certainly the major dam project. It is interesting to note that we have announced an additional $1.4 million to expand the scope of the Three Gorges feasibility study. This is in addition to the $8.7 million contract awarded last July to a Canadian consortium. That contract was to look at the technical, economic, and financial viability of a multi-purpose development in the Three Gorges. When we are considering a project of this kind, it is important to be aware of the environmental impact and of the human rights impact-what will be the results on people upstream and downstream from the developments. While we recognize that the final decision will be that of the Chinese Government-and its integrity as a Government is involved-and that Canada is involved in providing financial assistance, we have a responsibility to ensure that some values which are very important to Canadians in terms of the environment and human rights values are being protected or looked after. Before any further contracts are let involving Canadian money for the Three Gorges project, I urge upon the Minister that there be some statement to Canadians about the environmental impact and about the human rights impact of this massive development.
The Minister knows, as do all Members of the House, that sometimes massive developments which can produce some very positive results can also have some very negative results. Every Government must be involved in trying to weigh what is positive against what is negative. That is the final responsibility of the Chinese Government as far as the project is concerned, but I think the Canadian Government has a responsibility in terms of further Canadian assistance.
Statements by Ministers
I was pleased to see an emphasis in the Minister's statement on assistance to women and the $5 million which will be going to women's projects in Thailand to help them develop income generating projects. It is a helpful emphasis. We want to underscore the need for CIDA constantly to find ways of emphasizing the needs of women around the world.
This brings me to a concern that there is no dollar figure attached to the support for the All China Women's Federation. The Minister pointed out that its membership is 93 million, a huge organization, yet there is no dollar figure attached to the kind of aid which will be going to it. Perhaps the dollar figures will come later. I hope they will. It is very important not to lose sight of this as we emphasize the importance of women. It has an important public relations aspect for Canadians. They want to hear about it, but they would also like to hear what dollar figures are attached.
The Minister's remarks about the changes which are taking place in Asia are well taken, yet she talked about a strategy for Canadian success in that huge and developing market. I am not completely sure what is our strategy for success, but I have a suspicion that the Minister is trying to have a closer link between Canadian development assistance and Canadian trade, and that bothers me. Development assistance has its own priorities which must stand on their own and be addressed on their own. Time after time, talking about development assistance, representations have been made to the Government that the primary target for such assistance should be the poorest of the poor. Yet Canada has traditionally had a policy of tied aid by which we seek to do two things; we hope to help developing countries and that somehow we help the poor, and we are also very concerned about developing Canadian industry, exports and services.
O)
I do not think the best way to encourage Canadian trade and services is by trying to use development assistance as a lever. These two very commendable goals have to stand on their own, and when we try to use tied aid as a method of levering our way into a market, no matter how important that market is, we end up having some very skewed development projects. We have seen some of the white elephants that have been created by tied aid in other parts of the world. This should not be done on a continuing basis. Trade has its own priorities. We should be addressing it in a straightforward, honest manner, and we should be addressing development priorities in a straightforward, honest manner. I leave those comments with the Minister and with the House.
Again, I thank the Minister for her statement. I want to underscore the importance of her visit, and the visit by other Canadian Ministers and other Canadians generally to the whole Asian area.

April 2, 1987
Committee Reports


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1977 PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, I have the honour to report the Bill to the House in both official languages, without amendment.
I would like to thank all Members from all sides of the House for their co-operation during the consideration of this Bill in committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 106, of tabling a petition signed by residents of the riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic who object to the proposed changes to the Patent Act in Bill C-22. They feel the Government's proposal will increase the already high cost of provincial health insurance plans and will also have a direct impact on all Canadians not covered by private insurance plans. The undersigned call upon Parliament to reject this proposal which will increase the price of drugs for all Canadians.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Madam Speaker, I have another petition, which I have the honour and the privilege of tabling on behalf of my constituents. It is signed by people in my riding who object to the Government's decision to make substantial changes in Canada's housing policy. In this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, they feel that the Government's definition of essential needs is preventing hundreds of thousands of Canadians living below the poverty line from receiving Government housing assistance.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to immediately increase funding for the Cooperative Housing Program.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: My last petition is again signed by people from the riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic who object to the proposed changes to the
Patent Act in Bill C-22. The undersigned are advising me of their objections because they feel the Government's proposal will increase the already high cost of provincial health insurance plans, considering the fact that the provinces pay 65 per cent of all drug costs.
The undersigned therefore call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase the price of drugs for all Canadians.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents in Newfoundland protesting the Government's changes to the Patent Act. Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will directly affect all Canadians who are not protected by private or governmental medicare programs, and whereas the Government's proposal would raise the cost, already high, of provincial health care programs, and whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concessions in free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of every day Canadians, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices to Canadians.
I have another petition from residents of Hull and from different parts of the Province of Quebec and from as far East as Moncton and Dieppe, New Brunswick. They too say that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and prices which will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and that the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concessions in free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians.
I have a further petition on the same subject, Madam Speaker, from residents of the Province of Quebec, Carleton, St. Omer, Nouvelle and so on. They protest the Government's action in presenting Bill C-22, the Patent Act, and are very much against it. They recognize that Bill C-22 will increase prices to the poor, to ordinary Canadians, senior citizens and those who can least afford it in our society. They ask that this House condemn the Minister and this Bill. They ask the Government to defer and, indeed, scrap this legislation.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure and indeed an honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, quite a number of petitions on the issue of Bill C-22. They come from Kamloops, Langley, Burns Lake, New Westminster, West Vancouver, Richmond, Nelson, Merritt, Vancouver, Dawson Creek, Burnaby, Mission, Surrey, Coquitlam, Courtenay, Comox, Cumberland, Sardis, Clearbrook, Agassiz, Port Moody, North Delta. All of the petitioners are concerned that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act related to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely
April 2, 1987

restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. They believe this measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They believe this is simply another example of the Canadian Government's concession to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations. The petitioners ask the Government to reject these proposals which they believe will increase the cost of prescription drug prices.
I have a large number of petitions from central Canada and eastern Canada. I will not necessarily read all the various communities. The people are particularly concerned about the fact that the proposed changes to the Patent Act, Bill C-22, will result in higher costs to provincial Government drug plans. They ask the Government to stop proceeding with this legislation.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of the City of Winnipeg. The petition is in connection with Bill C-22, and the petitioners say that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug costs for Canadians.
I have several other petitions on the same subject from residents of various towns in Manitoba including Gimli, Fraserwood, Whitemouth, Brandon, Inwood, Teulon, Gunton, Deloraine, Melita and Ranch Grove. They say that the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They say that the proposed change is another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to submit a number of petitions signed by residents of Vancouver, the Province of Ontario, Lachine, Quebec, and other parts of Canada. They say that whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in increasing drug costs or prices and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposals contained in Bill C-22, better known as the Patent Act Bill.
I have another petition from residents of Scarborough and Brampton in the Province of Ontario as well as from other parts of Canada. Likewise, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-22 and the amendments
Petitions
thereto because they do not want this particular Bill to negatively affect those Canadians who are in need of prescription drugs, namely, the elderly, the disabled and of course the poor of Canada.
The third petition I have comes from individuals in Brandon, Manitoba, and from other parts of Canada. The petitioners reject the amendments to Bill C-22 for they too believe that this will negatively affect senior citizens, the disabled and the poor as well as four million Canadians who are not covered by any drug programs. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
My final petition comes from a number of residents mainly of the Province of Ontario. The petitioners are calling upon the federal Government to withdraw Bill C-22 because 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. Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concession in free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of ordinary Canadians, therefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have a petition here from a number of Canadians who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a common grievance to this House of Commons in the assurance that this House will therefore provide a remedy. They are very concerned about proposed changes to the Patent Act which will result in increased costs for prescription drugs and will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of these drugs on an ongoing basis. It will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans and the petitioners see these changes as being another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, 1 have today two petitions for presentation to this honourable House. The first petition has of course been certified correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 106. It has been signed by a large number of residents of the City of Winnipeg and surrounding communities such as Hazel Ridge and Dugald. In this instance, our petitioners are calling upon Parliament to exercise its influence upon the Government to reject the proposed changes to the Patent Act in Bill C-22. Our petitioners cite that the proposed measure will hurt those Canadians who require prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and our petitioners see these as basically being concessions in

April 2, 1987
Order Paper Questions
the free trade negotiations with the United States for which average Canadians will have to pay.
The second petition is signed by residents of communities in our East Coast provinces including places like Halifax, Dartmouth, Tantallon and Cape Breton. This petition also calls upon Parliament to act so that changes to Bill C-22 are not instituted because of the adverse effect they will have on the budgets of average Canadians who are dependent upon prescription drugs, and they too believe and declare that these are in fact concessions in the free trade negotiations with the United States.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to table a petition from 70 people in my riding who are united in the Greater Victoria disarmament group. I table it with a sense of duty and privilege. This is a very sincere group and I agree with its ultimate aim of nuclear disarmament, although we may differ as to the best and safest route to get there. I received this petition three days ago. The Clerk testified that it was acceptable yesterday and I am tabling it today. I think that is a reasonable amount of time to spend on a petition from a delegation. I said that this group was sincere. It is also enthusiastic. There are 73 signatures, one gentleman signed twice and a lady signed three times.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege of presenting a petition to the House. This petition comes from many Canadians in Atlantic Canada including such places as Amherst, Springhill, Moccar, Joggins, Truro and Brookfield in Nova Scotia and Moncton and Riverview in New Brunswick. These petitioners make the point that the proposed changes to the drug Patent Act will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and that in fact these proposed measures will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They point out that it will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans, something which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has confirmed. They also point out that this is another example of the Canadian Conservative Government knuckling under to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in an effort to get a free trade agreement. Therefore, these Canadians humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject Bill C-22 which will serve only to increase prescription drug prices for average Canadians.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Madam Speaker, I, too, have a petition which has been properly certified pursuant to Standing Order 106. I am honoured to exercise the privilege I have as a Member of Parliament of
tabling a petition from Canadian citizens who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance in common in the certain assurance that the House will provide a remedy. This petition adds to the thousands of names submitted in protest over the Government's introduction of Bill C-22. The petitioners protest that the Bill contains proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which will increase prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. As well, the proposals will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. We also know that this legislation is a part of the concessions, the genuflection, if you will, before the demands of the U.S. which were required for the free trade negotiations. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians, as in duty-bound your petitioners ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, on Monday, March 16, 1987, I rose on a point of order and delivered a statement concerning the Deschenes Commission. Upon receipt of the "blues" I approved the content as being the exact wording of my text. However, when Monday's Hansard was released, a change had been made to the final sentence, thereby altering the basis and intent of my statement. Mr. John Ward, Editor in Chief of English Hansard, assures me that the corrected statement will appear in the bound edition of Hansard. I appreciate the diligence and dedication of Mr. Ward and his staff for their prompt action in correcting the error. However, in order that my original statement appear in Hansard for distribution, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I wish to read it again today.
April 2, 1987

Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to comments attributed to me in the Edmonton Journal of March 13, 1987, regarding the Deschenes Commission report.
I want to state that the intent of my remarks was to acknowledge that both Ukrainians and Jews had suffered enormous losses at the hands of oppressors.
In recognizing the tragic death of some 5.5 million Ukrainians, I in no way wished to minimize or downplay the atrocities and the evil of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis.
If, inadvertently, my remarks have given offence or led anyone to believe I do not share a sense of outrage at the Holocaust, I categorically apologize and withdraw any statement, which may be interpreted as offensive to the Jewish community and indeed to any Canadian.
Ukrainians and Jews share a common experience as victims of grotesque oppression and cruelty. My desire is to see us work together to ensure neither Holocaust is forgotten nor allowed to happen again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended by 32 minutes from 1 p.m. today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 1, 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. 2 (Mr. Dingwall, p. 4745).
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on one of the saddest pieces of legislation to come before us. It will do great damage to a very vulnerable sector of our society. It will impact mostly on the elderly, the sick and the disadvantaged. Why is this being done? We are told one reason is that more drug research will be done in Canada.
I want to address my remarks particularly to the amendment because it points out that there is no definition of research in the Bill. The Minister says he does not want to put a definition in the Bill for fear of limiting the kind of research to be done by a multinational. I want to remind him of the words of his Leader who said he was not afraid to impose prosperity on the regions. I say to him, do not be afraid to impose prosperity on the regions of this country. Do not limit
Patent Act
the amount of research because all over my riding holes are being dug in the ground in anticipation of the research centres which will be going up. There is a hole in Donovans Industrial Park in St. John's. I suspect the man digging that foundation is doing it in anticipation of the new research centre to go up there. In Wild Bight, White Bay, there is another hole in the ground and I suspect another research centre will be going up there in anticipation of this new legislation. We will probably see research centres growing up all over Newfoundland and Labrador. Indeed, research could become a new growth industry employing all those unemployed fishermen, all those miners laid off in Labrador City because of the downturn in the mining industry, and all those unemployed young people. No doubt they will get jobs in all those new research centres that are going to go up.
Well, that is a fiction. The record will show that R and D has not been done in Canada up until now and most certainly will not be done in the future because Canada has a small domestic market and historically the multinationals have chosen to perform R and D in their home country. I suspect that no matter what this legislation does that situation will continue. The multinationals will continue to do their research where they have done it before in spite of this legislation. I do not buy the argument that more research and development will come to Canada as a result of the passage of this Bill.
There is no question but that drug prices will rise. As a matter of fact, the Minister has admitted that, by passing along to the provinces $100 million over the next four years in anticipation that drug prices will rise so that the provinces will be able to fund, to a certain extent, the drug programs. However, that will be only a drop in the bucket. The real burden of the price increases which will come will be on the elderly, the sick, and particularly on low-income people.
A Bill on day care was introduced earlier this week. We are doing something about day care in this country because of the changes that are going on in Canadian society. There are more single-parent families today and most of the single parents are women who, of necessity, must look after their children somehow or other. They are doubly disadvantaged because, as we know, women are already in a disadvantaged position with regard to employment in this country. The average working woman is making 60 cents to every dollar earned by a man. I make that point because I believe we need to understand the changes which are going on in our society and understand the kind of people on whom this Bill will impact. The pressure will be exerted when children are sick and drugs have to be bought. That is when the unhappy effects will be felt.
The effects will also be felt by the elderly, the fastest growing section of the Canadian population. That range in our population will escalate dramatically during the next few years. We all know that as we age we have a greater dependency on medical help and drugs. I am starting to feel it

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
myself, although I am not that old. When drug prices increase the burden will be felt by the senior population as well.
These things will happen and that is why I think it is important to support the amendment before us today, and object to the measures in the Bill because there is no commitment to enforce the legislation. There is nothing built in which ensures that multinationals will live up to what they say they are going to do. I believe we would have been prepared to accept the reasonable position put forward by the Eastman report. Everyone understands that there must be some legitimate protection for people who invent new things, that there must be some legitimate compensation for them.
Elowever, legitimate and reasonable are the words upon which we must focus. I do not agree that we should say that they may design and introduce whatever new drugs they wish and can have a monopoly for a 10 year period. I do not know of anyone who willingly holds down prices in a monopoly. Unless there is some sort of competition, some balance in the market-place, people who have a monopoly on a product will charge as much as they can for it. That is part of the free market system. However, it seems to me that there is no reason the Government of Canada should hand such an opportunity to companies which are mostly American, while putting at a disadvantage distinctively Canadian companies which have grown up over the years.
There is no question that some price rise has to occur. The Eastman report suggested that a certain minimum price rise occur, that there be a royalty, and that possibly the period for the royalty might increase somewhat, but not to a 10 year period. In other words, the Government has gone well beyond what Eastman recommended. We will get not a reasonable increase for people who buy new drugs in the country, but a gouging of the Canadian consumer, particularly the elderly, those who are sick, and those who are on low incomes. That is the reality, Madam Speaker.
There are some people who say that there is really no difference between Parties anymore, that all people are Liberal-Conservatives, Conservative-Liberals, or whatever. However, it seems to me that this Bill puts into focus the difference in philosophy. When this Party was the Government it introduced, I believe in 1969, the regulations which have been in effect up until now through which there has been some competition in the market-place, which has kept the price of drugs down for Canadian consumers. There was something in the order of S200 million a year in savings to the Canadian people as a result of the legislation that was passed. Legislation has now been introduced which will dramatically drive up the price of drugs. That may not happen right away because this is a Sominex Bill, a sleeper Bill, but the price rises are coming.
When the Government tried to reduce old age pensions there was a mobilizing, for the first time, of gray power all across the country. This is the time for a re-enactment of that play, for the return of gray power. If we are going to do a job in this chamber of opposing this legislation I hope the seniors will once again come to the support of the Parties who are opposing
this, will mobilize their forces and tell the Government that they are not prepared to put up with legislation which impacts directly on them, by putting an undue and unfair burden on them over the next 10 years.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the amendment before the House which attempts to put into the Bill a definition of "research". Most of the Members of this House have at some time been in Opposition and have a healthy disrespect for Bills which leave too much to regulation. Any citizen who has dealt directly with the interpretation of legislation must have a concern with a Bill which leaves so much to regulation that in many cases the regulations become more important with regard to the impact of the Bill than the Bill itself.
Nothing is more central to this Bill than research, how it is defined and what research can be done in Canada. I understand that many of the people who appeared before the committee had concerns about this particular section and believed that research had to be much more clearly defined and detailed in the Bill. The clause in the Bill which says: "The Governor in Council may make regulations defining, for the purposes of this section, the expression 'research and development' ", leaves the matter up to Cabinet. It is our concern and that of the Official Opposition that this point should not be left to regulation.
The disadvantages of not adhering to this principle are pretty well known. When precise instructions are not in legislation it is left to a regulator and there is always a possibility that the regulator will interpret the Act in a way quite different than what was originally intended when Parliament passed the Act. We are not satisfied to leave the definition of "research" to the Cabinet. We believe the Cabinet has already caved in to the multinational companies and, with the establishment of regulations, will continue to cave in.
One of the great disadvantages of leaving the definition to the regulators is that it is a hidden process. It does not provide for input from a large number of people. The legislative structure of the Bill allows all of us to talk about it. It allows hearings and discussion, but that does not happen in the making of regulations. A regulation can be changed very quickly, for example, by another regulation. Even if we now receive regulations from the Government under this Act, that would not make us feel secure that the definition would be the same next year because those regulations can be replaced by other regulations.
Often this process of changing a regulation or replacing a regulation goes unnoticed, yet it can have enormous implications. We have found in the past that regulations often allow the vested interests of those who have the time and money, and the reason, to impact on the Cabinet. The changing of
April 2, 1987

regulations is often controlled by that particular group. That is not in the public interest, or in the interests of Parliament.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has made a commendable attempt to present a statutory definition of "research". The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has also made an attempt to put into this Act a definition of "research" which would force the people who are going to be governed by this Bill to recognize that they have a greater responsibility.
Some kind of amendment to the R and D definition is needed. People who appeared before the committee toid us that it is now a kind of logical decision. We have no guarantees that the companies will invest the sums they say they are committed to. We have no guarantees that the investments will be in research rather than in any other kind of investment. We have no guarantees that the investment will be in research or even in basic research of useful medicines. The investment may instead be in processes and other things which really have nothing to do with the basic idea of research into pharmaceuticals.
What we do have is some indication of how the companies intend to proceed toward meeting their goals. As the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has expressed it, there will be 3,000 high-quality jobs created for Canadian scientists and biochemists over the next 10 years. The Minister made that statement in his attempts to justify this Bill. The access to information application made by Southam News indicates that the Minister, even as he made this statement, did not believe it. What that document shows is that of the 3,000 jobs, there will be 1,148 employed by the industry in professional categories. So the statement of 3,000 jobs for highly-qualified people has become 1,148 in the professional category. There will be another 541 persons employed extramurally, probably in universities and research institutes. There are 652 jobs classified as "technical", which means lab technicians who would have an undergraduate or community college standing. There are 620 "others" who turn out to be, in the words of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, managers, cleaners, animal keepers, statisticians and clerks. These are not what we would consider highly qualified scientists and biochemists. These jobs are almost menial in their level. Are these the kind of jobs to which we are committing a large amount of money?
What we have seen in the context of this particular Bill, as far as the Government is concerned, is that very little will be delivered for what it will cost all Canadians in terms of increased drug costs. The reluctance of the Government to accept the definition of "research" shows it is really in the pockets of the multinationals. The multinationals do not want to be confined and committed to a long-term investment in research in Canada.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise today to address Bill C-22, specifically the amendment setting forth the definition of "research"
Patent Act
proposed by a representative of the Liberal Party. In doing so,
I am a little sorry there are not more Members of the Liberal Party in the House to hear me, because I intend to start by praising the Liberal Party for its political courage in attempting to define "research". That political courage means more when we consider that it was the Liberal Government, after all, which brought in the Scientific Research Tax Credit which cost the taxpayers something in the region of $3 billion. I think it shows that in the development of a political party there are times when the great tragedies and failures that political party has inflicted on the country in the past must in a sense be set aside in the search for better legislative solutions in the future. Therefore, I see this as very much being an acknowledgement by the Liberal Party of how much it has cost this country in the past in not properly defining and limiting the eligibility of research expenditures for tax credit treatment.
I must say that, having grasped that particular nettle and acknowledged the grave derelictions in Liberal history, that Party has not come up with what I would accept as the best offer of a definition of "research". I will talk later about why that definition of research is so important to this Bill. It has come up with what I believe is a somewhat incomplete definition. I must say that even were there no partisan considerations involved, and of course there are, I would prefer the definition that has been put forward in Motion No. 43 by my very distinguished and erudite colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who, as I am sure every Member of this House is aware, has worked on this sort of problem and this sort of legislative project for very many years in the House. He has built up an enormous understanding of the significance of proper definition to the ultimate effectiveness of a Bill.
After all, what Bill C-22 aims to do, essentially, is open the floodgates to profiteering on the part of multinational drug companies. It aims to open them in such a way that the multinationals will not have to look at possible legislative differences between Canada and the United States when they are pushing a drug development project. In saying this I am not taking away from the significance, the relevance or, indeed, the hope for the future that some of these prescription medication development projects entail. I think we are well aware that, but for the progress that has been made over the past century in the development of medication, the public health scenario in North America and, indeed, in the world would be much bleaker than it is today.
But the existence of a system which sometimes produces excellent results and sometimes satisfactory results is no excuse for failing to attempt to develop or, indeed, in this case maintain a superior system. After all, resources are the common currency. Financial resources are the very language of government. The devotion of an excessive proportion of resources, as would be the case in the sort of profit-oriented regime proposed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), to the rewarding through the profit

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
mechanism of the multinational drug companies is not in the best interests of an intelligent allocation of resources or in the best interests of Canadian health care consumers.
What was wrong with the system that we had before the Government introduced its proposed amendments to the Patent Act as set out in Bill C-22? That system did not appear to deny Canadians access to new medication technology or to new medications. It could never have been said about that system that it crippled any of the multinational drug companies. It could never have been said that it drove them out of business. I do not think that it could ever have been said that under the present regime of patent protection the opportunities for drug companies to recoup their research were limited or in any way impaired below a reasonable expectation of return and a reasonable flow of funds for the development of future research. In going beyond the Eastman report in Bill C-22 the Government has essentially made a preliminary concession to the United States in terms of the trade negotiations. I am concerned about the status of these preliminary concessions because it seems to me that Canada is giving preliminary concessions in more than one negotiation in order to bring the other side to the table in a good mood. I do not think that is an appropriate basis on which to conduct bilateral trade negotiations. I do not think that it is an appropriate basis on which to negotiate the allocation of cod stocks on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. I do not think that it is an appropriate basis on which to go into multilateral trade negotiations, for example. But, indeed, this might become the expectation of those who go into negotiations with the Canadian Government, if a pattern is set, providing these preliminary sweeteners bring the other parties to the negotiation table.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), provided a very detailed and, I believe, a very precise analysis of just what the 3,000 so-called high technology research jobs that the Government is claiming come down to. I think it is worthwhile to put on the record again that this is essentially a chimera, that there are no guarantees attached to those 3,000 supposed jobs. The Government really does not have any worthwhile assurances that those jobs will in fact be created.
It is also worthwhile to remind the Government that the Canadian system of drug licensing and the Canadian regulations, with their lower limits on patent protection, are indeed something that have been the subject of study. I believe it was a U.S. Congressional committee which rather liked the Canadian example and felt that it lay within its responsibility-indeed it was its duty as legislators of our great neighbour to the south-to examine the Canadian system to determine whether or not it might be applicable to the United States.
I would like to point out also that the delayed effect essentially allows the Government to forever slide out of any analysis or any form of objective assessment of any benefits that may be realized under Bill C-22. We may expect that Motions Nos. 2 and 43 will be rejected by the House, since the Government will exercise its majority. However, without the
inclusion of one or other of these motions there will not be an opportunity for the Government and for the public of Canada to assess in some objective way if this Bill has achieved its objectives.
On the contrary, the Government wishes to proceed by regulation which, of course, is a hidden process. It wants to go by regulation since regulations can be changed virtually at will and virtually without any reference to Parliament or the public. It wants to go with regulation because that will allow the continuance of that obviously cozy, obviously mutually rewarding relationship which the Government has established with those same multinational drug companies. We know that in the case of powerful and committed lobbies, such as those of the multinational drug companies, regulations are at the mercy of those interests. Unfortunately, the natural order of things appears to be that regulations are involved to accommodate the industry and its appetite for profit and not to regulate it in the best interests of Canadians.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on this important amendment which would ensure that there is a definition of research in Bill C-22. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who has done an outstanding job on behalf of New Democrats all across Canada-indeed on behalf of the people of Canada-with respect to this legislation has proposed an alternate definition which, quite frankly, is more tightly drafted and is in fact preferable to the proposal of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), although I am certainly pleased to support his proposal as well.
The nub of this issue is the extent to which we as Members of Parliament are prepared to leave to Cabinet the definition of "research". I believe it is essential for us, as elected representatives of the people, as parliamentarians, to define this fundamental concept in the legislation. The whole thrust of the Government's amendment is that there will be a major expansion of jobs in the research sector in Canada if this legislation is adopted. The Government admits, as it has to, that the cost of drugs in Canada will increase, and in some cases increase dramatically, as a result of the passage of this legislation; but it says that it is prepared to accept those increases in the prices of drugs because, in exchange, it is going to create a lot of new jobs in Canada in the area of research and development.


An Hon. Member:: Not true.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I think we have to examine very carefully whether this basic foundation for the Government's legislation is well founded. We have to ask ourselves, for example, whether the jobs to be created in research and development will be jobs created in the area of basic research, or whether they will be jobs created in the area of clinical research. I suspect, Madam Speaker, as witness after witness
April 2, 1987

who appeared before the legislative committee on this Bill confirmed, they will not be primarily in the area of basic research at all; that they will be, overwhelmingly, in the area of clinical research.
As well, Madam Speaker, it is important that we underline the fact that the promise of additional jobs in the pharmaceutical industry is not one that is directly based solely on the passage of this legislation. We have to recognize that in Canada we have an aging population, and as the population ages the demand for pharmaceutical drugs increases. So, the projection of new jobs in Canada is not only as a result of the adoption of this legislation, to which only a small part would be attributable, but also, to a very significant extent, to the natural increase in the demand for drugs on the part of an aging population.
Madam Speaker, my constituents in Burnaby have asked me why it is that the Government is determined to proceed with a measure which is going to result in significantly increased prices for new drugs for the elderly, for the sick, for the disabled. As well, Madam Speaker, it is a measure which will result in an over-all increase in taxes in those provinces which have pharmacare plans.
I have been asked what is the basis for this. A senior citizen in the New Vista highrise in Burnaby asked me why it is that the Government is so determined to increase drug prices, what is the advantage of this, and whether it is going to create new jobs. One of the seniors said that she had received a letter from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) in which the Minister had promised that there would be a minimum of 3,000 high quality jobs for Canadian scientists and biochemists created over the next 10 years. She said to me: "I have a grandson who is studying chemistry at university, and we are concerned that there aren't enough jobs for young scientists in Canada. So obviously, if there is a real possibility of a significant expansion of jobs in basic research in Canada, that is something that all of us would welcome".
But, Madam Speaker, when one reads between the lines, as my colleagues have already noted, one finds that the promise of 3,000 high quality jobs for Canadian scientists and biochemists is a myth, is a fabrication. It is just not going to happen. The Government's own documents show that these so-called 3,000 jobs will not be jobs in the professional categories, let alone in basic research; rather, a significant number of those people will in fact be employed, to use the words of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, "as managers, cleaners, animal keepers, statisticians, and clerks".


An Hon. Member:: No PhDs.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the reality in Canada today is that some of our cleaners and some of our clerks are in fact PhDs, are people who, while highly trained, cannot find employment in their fields. As a result of the failure of this Government's policy, and the failure of the policies of the Government before it, many of these people are driving taxis or are in fact working as clerks or as animal keepers.
Patent Act
We in the New Democratic Party, Madam Speaker, believe that we should be using the resources of the people of Canada. We believe that we should be challenging our young people; that we should be encouraging them to engage in basic research-but not, Madam Speaker, in the way that the Government has proposed.
My colleague from Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has spoken, often eloquently, on the subject of the crisis in funding for post-secondary education in Canada. Instead of pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of multinational drug companies, why not put money into the future of the young people of this country by strengthening the system of post-secondary education in Canada?
When my constituents in Burnaby, Madam Speaker, asked me why it is that the Government wants to hit the old, why it is that they want to hit the sick, the disabled, I had a look at the Government's political agenda, and, Madam Speaker, what I found was very interesting. I found that part and parcel of the free trade negotiations between Canada and the United States is a commitment by the Progressive Conservative Government and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to the multinational drug companies in the United States that their concerns will be taken care of. That is the deal; that is the fix, Madam Speaker.
Clayton Yeutter, the chief U.S. negotiator on free trade, in a speech delivered in Chicago in October of last year, made the following statement:
We have longstanding concerns regarding the inadequate protection in Canada
of pharmaceutical patents, as well as the absence of copyright protection of
U.S. broadcasting which is picked up and retransmitted throughout Canada.
We wish to secure adequate intellectual property protection in both of these
areas.
So, what we see here, Madam Speaker, is an attempt to placate American national drug companies. And who is being sacrificed? It is those who are most vulnerable in Canada today: the elderly, the sick, the disabled. And it is the poor, Madam Speaker, whose taxes will increase with the increase in the cost of provincial pharmacare plans.
Recently, Madam Speaker, we saw a budget tabled in the Province of British Columbia which will result in a significant increase in the cost of drugs right away to the elderly, an increase of some $250 a year-and this to those who can least afford to pay. That increase comes as a result of the Vander Zalm Government proposal to add on the increased costs to the B.C. pharmacare plan.
The senior citizens of Canada, Madam Speaker, have spoken out strongly, and unanimously against this Government's proposal to destroy what is an effective plan to keep the price of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada down. My colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is in the Chamber. He spoke yesterday with fire and brimstone-


David Charles Dingwall: And eloquence.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -about the history of this matter. I do not think I have to remind Canadians, Madam Speaker, that it

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
was the previous Liberal Government which first set out to erode the protections in this area; that it was the then Liberal Government, Madam Speaker, that appointed Martin O'Connell to head a commission on the subject, an individual who in fact was buddy-buddy with the multinational drug companies. Canadians know that history, Madam Speaker. They are well aware of the fact that this is a process which was started by the Liberals and which is now being continued by the Conservatives. The only Party which has consistently spoken out in favour of the interests of Canadian consumers, the elderly, the poor, the disabled in Canada, is the New Democratic Party, and we will continue to speak out on their behalf.
You are signalling me, Madam Speaker, that my time is in fact coming to an end on this particular amendment.


An Hon. Member:: With regret.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Obviously, my colleagues will be continuing, during the course of the next weeks and months, to speak out on this important Bill. 1 want to assure, Madam Speaker, not only the people of Burnaby but all of the people of this country, that there is one Party which is consistent in its determination to keep the cost of pharmaceutical drugs down, to enhance the quality of research in Canada, to provide jobs for young Canadian scientists, and that Party, Madam Speaker, is the New Democratic Party of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?

Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the following motion: Mr. Dingwall, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line 34
at page 10 the following:
""research" is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways. New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the reevaluation of existing observations;"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division is deferred.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 13 to 18 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"consumption in Canada".


David Orlikow: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 18 to 49 at page 11 and lines 1 and 2 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"for sale for consumption in Canada until the expiration of four years after the date of the notice of compliance."


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 19 to 49 at page 11 and lines 1 and 2 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The prohibition under Subsection (1) expires in respect of a medicine four years after the date of the notice of compliance that is first issued in respect of a medicine where that notice of compliance is issued after the coming into force of this section."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 8 to 14 at page
12	and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a medicine where
(a)	on the day of coming into force of this section a notice of compliance has been issued to the patentee and a licence has been granted under Section 41 in respect of the medicine but no notice of compliance has been issued to the licensee; or
(b)	on the day of coming into force of this section a notice of compliance has been issued to the patentee and a notice of compliance has been issued to a person other than the patentee but no licence has been granted; or
(c)	on the day of coming into force of this section, a notice of compliance has been issued to the patentee but no notice of compliance or licence has been issued to a person other than the patentee."
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 28 to 32 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"or production of medicine."
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 3 to 7 at page
13	and substituting the following therefor:
"production of medicine".
He said: Madam Speaker, as a result of a ruling by the Speaker, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 15 have been grouped for the purposes of debate, but I believe they have been split for the purposes of a vote which will take place at a later time.
April 2, 1987

With regard to Motions Nos. 3, 13, and 15, they will delete product patents from the legislation, which is the purpose of the amendment. As the law now stands, only process patents can be granted. Bill C-22 would allow product patents to be granted as well. Canadian biotechnology firms say that this change will effectively put them out of business.
I thought it was the intention of the Government of the day to try to foster new economic activity in the country, not to retard or negative in any way those industries already in place. However, with the way in which Bill C-22 is drafted, it will have the opposite effect of the stated intention of the Government. Biotechnology firms want to keep the process of genetic engineering patentable, but because these substances are naturally occurring they do not believe that the product developed from the use of process should be patentable.
For example, companies like Cangene, which appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-22, made a very forceful, thoughtful, and reasonable presentation. Cangene extracts naturally occurring substances, genes, from healthy individuals and injects them into unhealthy individuals in a manner which triggers the unhealthy individual to manufacture the substance in his or her own body. The way the Bill now stands, it would prevent companies like Cangene, which are very actively involved in the biotechnology sector of the pharmaceutical industry or the health science industry, from carrying on their activities in a viable way.
As we debate the provisions of Bill C-22, I think it is important to try to maintain a clear and unequivocal objective. It is the stated intention, desire, and objective of our Party that we have a balanced approach to the vital elements which make up the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of the creation of new jobs, from the aspect of research and development and what will take place in Canada as a result of Bill C-22 being passed into law, or from the perspective of Canadian consumers who must purchase prescription drugs, it is clear that Bill C-22 will not allow us to attain that particular objective.
The Government is discriminating or unwisely prohibiting certain firms in that sector from prospering. We think that is wrong, Madam Speaker. If one has to have a Canadian pharmaceutical industry, one has to bring in public policy which addresses all of the concerns to achieve that result. Unfortunately, and I say this with great sincerity, Bill C-22 has major omissions regarding that objective.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 11, and I say this as simply as I can, Madam Speaker, because I know you are very attentive to these various amendments, deal with the recommendations contained in Dr. Harry Eastman's report. That report was commissioned by the previous administration whereby Dr. Eastman studied the subject at great length. It would be fair to say that from all perspectives he is indeed an authority on the pharmaceutical industry. Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 11, deal with Dr. Eastman's recommendations, namely, a four-year period of
Patent Act
exclusivity after the granting of a notice of compliance. Here is where one will probably want to talk about Dr. Eastman's recommendations regarding the pharmaceutical royalty fund. I know members opposite, particularly those who served on the legislative committee, had some difficulties grasping-I do not say this to be disputatious or to be mean-and comprehending the thrusts of Dr. Eastman's recommendations regarding that. In summary, companies would pay into the pharmaceutical royalty fund and would receive back a proportion in accordance with the amount of research and development they conduct here in Canada. Dr. Eastman has felt that by increasing royalties rather than unduly-this is very key- lengthening patent protection we would avoid the anticompetitive aspect of exclusivity.
Since the Chair has ruled that these motions have been grouped together for the purposes of debate, let me conclude in the few minutes I have by saying that the present amendment of the administration of the Conservative Government grants an extended monopoly provision to multinational companies in this country. One is concerned with trying to develop and enhance the Canadian pharmaceutical industry but the Bill has grave and serious omissions with other elements regarding consumers, research and development. It is acknowledging in Bill C-22 that the concept of intellectual property ought to be the main thrust of a possible tool, as I believe Bill C-22 could be, for economic development in Canada.
My Party has accepted the recommendations of Dr. Eastman because he is an authority and because he has studied the subject. We believe the recommendations to be reasonable. Having said all of that, I have to clearly and unequivocally dissociate myself from what the Government is attempting to do. I disagree with its extended monopoly provisions to brand name companies. Nothing has been done about prices other than to pay lip service. In paying lip service, they have acknowledged, quite rightly, that prices in Canada will rise by an exorbitant amount. They have done nothing in terms of clear enforceable guarantees, vis-a-vis commitments for research and development.
Bill C-22 has major omissions. We as a Party disagree with the thrust of Bill C-22. We have submitted these amendments to try to improve upon the Bill. I would hope that the Government would accept our amendments because they are both reasonable and, I think, address all of the vital elements that go into developing a Canadian pharmaceutical industry.
The committee has heard a number of witnesses from all walks of life who are opposed to the Government's desire and intention to give unfettered monopoly sanctions or provisions to the multinational corporations. The amendments we are putting forward today, and 1 know my colleague from the New Democratic Party has an amendment and will probably want to speak to that directly himself, are trying to address a very important element of the Canadian economy.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the thrust of these amendments, one of which,

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
Motion No. 4,1 moved on behalf of our Party. We should keep in mind the history of this Bill. Without going into a lengthy historical account, let me remind Hon. Members and the Minister that until 1969 our system of legislation for patent protection of prescription drugs was very much like the system in the United States. As a result we had the second highest prescription drug prices in the world.
A whole series of inquiries were held by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, eventually by a parliamentary committee headed by a member at that time, Dr. Harley, and it was substantiated very clearly that Canadians were paying far too much for prescription drugs.
In 1969 the legislation was changed. After companies had satisfied health authorities that a drug would be medically safe and adequate they could get a licence to produce the drug. This drug had already been researched and developed by another company, usually a multinational, and companies we call generic companies could produce that same drug after paying a royalty fee to the original company.
After 1969, as a result of that change in the legislation, prices for prescription drugs in Canada have been among the lowest of the industrialized countries. The multinational corporations were, to say the least, unhappy about this and they began very quickly to mount a campaign against it. They are very powerful politically. They have a lot of money to help political Parties, Members of Parliament or candidates who want to become Members of Parliament with campaign funds. Their parent companies which are usually in the United States have tremendous power in the United States.
The multinationals were not simply worried about what had happened in Canada, they were worried that the American public would see the success of the program we instituted in Canada and would begin to call for a similar program in the United States. That in fact happened. Congressman Waxman heads up of a subcommittee which has studied this question extensively. He is moving to bring in the kind of program we have had in Canada since 1969. Governor Cuomo of New York State has found that the state is facing increasing costs because senior citizens who qualify for Medicaid and Medicare programs in that state receive all or part of their prescription costs from the state. The state is looking at these escalating costs and is now taking steps to encourage pharmacists to use generic drugs when filling prescriptions for senior citizens.
The then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the Liberal Government, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), listened to the complaints of the multinational companies and wanted to do something about them. However, he realized that there would be a great deal of pressure in opposition to any major change so he appointed a professor from the University of Toronto, Professor Eastman, to study the problem. Professor Eastman conducted a very lengthy study, but by the time he brought his report to Parliament the
election had taken place and we had a new Government, a Conservative Government, but not a very progressive one.
What happened to Professor Eastman's report? Did the Government greet it with interest and hope? No, it virtually hid the report. The Government which talks so much about being open and wanting to listen to people then proceeded to try to achieve for the multinational corporations what they wanted, and that was a much longer period of exclusivity after having developed new drugs so that they could set prices at the levels they wanted. The Government proceeded to try to get for the multinational pharmaceutical companies what they wanted by arranging for secret meetings to be held between the members of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, representatives from the multinationals and representatives from the generic companies. The Government was telling the generic companies that they had better agree to something and give something up or else the Government would bring in legislation which they would like even less. There was very little talk about Professor Eastman's report or its merits.
When the many organizations that represent the people of Canada realized what was happening, they began to express their opposition to it. The Consumers' Association of Canada is not a very radical organization. It is an organization that is very cautious and careful. It very carefully examines issues which are of concern to consumers before it comes to a conclusion. As soon as that organization looked at the Bill which was brought in by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it made it very clear that it was very critical of the Bill and it has continued to oppose it. The Canadian Labour Congress and unions associated with it, seniors' organizations almost without exception and farm groups such as Keystone Agricultural Producers all opposed the Bill virtually from the day it came out.
Then began the waffling. We now have a Bill before us which supposedly implements the proposals of Professor Eastman's report. If one were to examine the Bill and compare it with Professor Eastman's proposals, one would see that they have very little in common.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has said repeatedly that, as a result of this Bill, the cost of prescription drugs will not rise or at least not for some considerable time. Professor Eastman on the other hand made it very clear, both in his report and in his testimony before the committee, that evidence showed that the cost of prescription drugs would go up and quite substantially. In testimony before the committee, he pointed out that as a result of this Bill, pharmaceutical companies would have an extra six years of exclusivity during which they could set prices.
Let me conclude by saying to the Minister that there is evidence before us now that the cost will rise. A few days ago, the Social Credit Government of British Columbia presented a Budget. In it the cost of prescription drugs that will be borne by a family in British Columbia, before the Government plan picks up the rest, has been increased to $250 per family. This
April 2, 1987

Bill is deficient. The amendment I moved and the amendment moved by the representative of the Liberal Party should be supported.


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), and Motion No. 4 put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). My constituents and the people of Prince Edward Island are very concerned about this Bill. Since this Bill was brought forward by the Government I have received, on a daily basis, letters and cards from my constituents protesting it. I have also received numerous phone calls in both my riding office and my Ottawa office. My office assistant tells me that at least 10 to 15 calls a day come in regarding Bill C-22 which the Government is ramming through this House.
These cards I have here inform me of the strong objection these individuals have to the proposed regressive changes to the Patent Act. They request me, as their Member of Parliament, to do everything in my power to see that this proposed rip-off of Canadians through exorbitant increases in drug prices is not allowed to pass. Among those who have sent me cards are Clifford Arsenault, Ferdinand Gallant, Michael Gaudet, Corinne Kay, Sidney Richards, James Fraser, Mitchell Kahili, James Douglas, Anthony Perry, Cindy Douglas, Earl Matthews, and Stewart McKenna. These people are from Ellerslie, Elmsdale, Summerside, St. Nicholas, Miscouche and Wellington, Prince Edward Island. They are all ordinary, hard-working Canadians with families. They are finding it extremely difficult to get along on the wages they are able to bring home. In times like this we see that tax increases on one thing and another are eroding the little bit of disposable income these people have. It is almost a disaster. It has gotten to the point where they can no longer afford any increases whatsoever in taxes or anything else. This Bill is a form of indirect tax and it is not needed. There is no need for the Government to change the Patent Act in order to allow the multinational drug companies to increase their profits.
The other day I referred to a letter that was sent to the Minister by Mr. Robert Wygant, a man who spent 25 years in the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. I read the letter into the record for a good reason. It was one of the best and clearest letters that I have ever received from a constituent on this subject. The man pointed out quite clearly the profits the drug companies are making. He also pointed out that it is wrong to think very much research is going to be carried out in this country when something less than 5 per cent of total research is done in the U.S. where they have patent legislation which prohibits these sorts of profits.
I have eight Royal Canadian Legion branches in my riding representing thousands of veterans. We all know those living on veterans' pensions are not living high on the hog. Those people are concerned about this legislation and I want to give
Patent Act
this House the thinking of one branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. The branch is not in my riding, but in the riding of the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass). The branch sent me a copy of the letter. The letter says:
The members of North Rustico Legion Branch 13 by a motion with 100 per
cent approval to write you as our representative in the Federal Government.
We are 100 per cent against the Federal Government's introduction of a bill to
amend Section 41 of the Patent Act.
It was signed on behalf of members of that legion branch by Joseph Pineau, Secretary/Manager, and Ferdinand LeClair, President. We are not going out and soliciting this kind of support. I have not sent any petitions to my riding asking people to sign them. I do not have to. They come to me. Since becoming a Member of Parliament in 1980, I have never seen such a hue and cry, such outrage as I have now except perhaps when the Government tried to deindex old age pensions.
The legislature of Prince Edward Island unanimously approved a resolution condemning the Government and asking it to withdraw this legislation. I have talked at length with the Minister for Health and Social Services of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Keith Milligan, and he wrote the federal Minister and made numerous overtures to the Government asking it to withdraw this legislation. It is not just the Government of the day in that province, which happens to be a Liberal Government, that is protesting. The Government of former Premier James Lee also made approaches to the federal Government asking it to withdraw this Bill and avoid increasing drug prices for Canadians.
Statistics point out quite clearly that Prince Edward Island has the highest percentage of elderly people per capita in Canada. I do not know whether that is because of the fresh air or the beautiful surroundings, but people live longer there, and there are statistics to prove it. We all know that there is more sickness and more need on the part of senior citizens to depend on prescription drugs. Those are the people who will be the hardest hit by this legislation. This legislation irks them, and it irks me as their representative. I speak out on their behalf, unlike the other three Members from Prince Edward Island. I have not heard them say one word on this Bill. Obviously they are following along the Government road of ramming this legislation through. They may not admit it, but at some time or other they have been told to follow the Government's lead. They have been told that some research will come to the Province of Prince Edward Island at the University of P.E.I. As they say in Prince Edward Island, that just ain't so. There will be no research at the University of Prince Edward Island because we do not have a medical component there. As I said before, this is a totally misleading statement because we have heard experts in the field say that of the total research that is now done on new drugs less than 5 per cent is done in Canada or the United States and there is legislation already in place in the United States which would prohibit this sort of research being done.

April 2, 1987
I would love to be able to speak for at least an hour if I could get the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Andre:: No.


George Roland Henderson: I am sorry that the Conservative Government does not want to hear the concerns of Prince Edward Islanders, the poor, the elderly, and the sick. That makes me feel very sorry and very disappointed in the Government and the Minister.


Harvie Andre: It's just you, George. We don't mind Islanders.


George Roland Henderson: Not only is the Minister gouging the people in respect of pharmaceutical drugs, he is also gouging them on postal service.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time allotted to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) has expired. It being 1.32 p.m. I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.32 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are beginning to wonder about the acid rain strategy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). His acceptance of research and demonstration as progress means that Canada is being sidetracked on acid rain cuts. Unfortunately, the debate is now on how much money should be spent, over how many years, for research and demonstration, instead of pollution cuts.
On the eve of the third summit, Canadians expect their Prime Minister to speak frankly and ask that the dumping of acid rain pollution into Canada be stopped. We urge the Prime Minister to put before the President next Sunday a blueprint for cutting acid rain crossing into Canada, including quantities, targets, and deadlines. We must protect the Canadian environment. Canada must spell out what Canadians want. The Prime Minister's acid rain strategy must reassure, not create doubts, in the minds of Canadians.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the federal Government has announced it will sign a tripartite stabilization plan for sugar beets with the producers and the provincial Government of Alberta. Unfortunately, even though Manitoba's Minister of Agriculture is a signatory to the national agriculture strategy, which recognizes that both levels of government have a responsibility to support agriculture, the Province of Manitoba is unwilling to make a commitment to this plan.
Tripartite stabilization agreements prove that the two levels of government and producers can work together to support agriculture. The tripartite stabilization plan for hogs, in which Manitoba does participate, is a good example of how productive that co-operation can be.
The federal Government, the provincial Government of Alberta and producers in both Alberta and Manitoba all support the concept of the proposed tripartite stabilization plan. These parties believe in the future of the sugar beet industry and are willing to commit to it. I hope we will soon see the same sort of commitment from the Province of Manitoba.



CHILD CARE


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, early this week the Government received a lot of advice on how to solve Canada's child care crisis. The common claim running through all proposals is that it provide child care choices to parents. Three key elements allow parents to choose child care uniquely suited to their family's needs. First, those child care arrangements must exist from which to choose. Second, the child care arrangements must be affordable to the family. Most important of all, child care arrangements must ensure quality care for children.
Canadians know these three elements cannot be achieved through Conservative tax credits which do not even cover the cost of care, and a laissez-faire free market attitude to child care. Canadians will reject the Liberal philosophy which sees child care as an extension of the welfare system. Canadians overwhelmingly told the Special Committee on Child Care that they want a publicly financed system developed at the community level with parent input, non-profit and accountable, with quality controls.
It is not too late for the Government to get a copy of the New Democratic Party's proposals entitled "Caring for Canada's Children".
April 2, 1987



DISASTERS


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, once again disaster has struck in the riding of Gaspe.
Last night, there was an accident at the copper mine in Murdochville in the Gaspe. Later that night, 56 miners were still trapped in the tunnels of the Gaspe Copper Mine.
At two o'clock this afternoon, we have had some relatively reassuring news about 33 miners with whom the rescue team is in constant communication, but we also know that 17 workers have not yet been reached. Six were able to get out of the mine, one of whom was taken to hospital and one, unfortunately, is dead.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that on October 19 last year, three young mothers and three children lost their lives as a result of an explosion in a pharmacy at Sainte-Anne-des-Monts.
Mr. Speaker, in a region like mine that already has so many social and economic problems, the impact of a tragedy like this one goes beyond the immediate family to affect every Gaspe-sian, both in the Gaspe and outside, as well as former and present miners across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you yourself and Hon. Members will join me in expressing our constant support for the miners, their families and the management of Gaspe Copper.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Government has abandoned tens of thousands of farmers when they are facing the worst debt crisis since the 1930s. Fully 30 per cent of Canadian farmers now face insolvency or serious financial difficulty. Last week the Agriculture Committee heard tobacco farmers who had been promised action to help them to adjust to declining markets, prices and land values, blast the Government for its lack of action. The Tories had promised these farmers five cents from the 25 cent-per-pack tax imposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in May of 1985 in an assistance program. That promise has not been kept, yet, daily, farmers are being forced off the land and a terrible personal toll is being taken.
These farmers were also promised a national marketing board by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). However, twoand-a-half years have passed and still no national marketing board has been established.
I call on the Government to keep its promise to these desperate farmers facing the loss of their farms, their livelihoods, and their homes.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at a meeting of the Acid Rain Committee, Premier Richard Hatfield advised that through negotiation with the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) he has reached the point at which he will recommend to the Government of New Brunswick that an agreement on the control of acid rain be signed. The Premier pointed out to the committee that New Brunswick has led the way in its sensitivity on environmental matters and has met its 1994 commitment of 185,000 tonnes of S02 many months ago.
The Premier assured the committee and the nation that New Brunswick's willingness to sign the agreement is consistent with its track record on pollution control and emphasizes the fact that the province has done, is doing, and will continue to do all that is necessary to carry its fair share and more to address this critical issue.



CANADIAN STUDENT LOAN PLAN


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, a Government which has admitted the need for action to reduce interest rates on credit cards should take note of another interest rate problem-the exorbitant rates charged students under the Canada Student Loan Plan. Students are still paying off loans at high rates of interest on loans taken out when the rates were higher. Some 200,000 students are paying rates of 16 per cent.
The high rates of interest are only part of the problem of the high debt load students are forced to assume. Some months ago now I took a number of particular horror stories to the Minister for action. He agreed that procedures needed to be improved in order to prevent such cases from recurring. So far nothing has been done.
Student leaders across the country agree that we need a national grant scheme, not just loans. Presumably this will be discussed at the forum on post-secondary education when it is held in the fall. In the meantime, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) should move to correct the deficiencies of the

April 2, 1987
present system. He should take immediate action toward the reduction of those interest rates. Students should not have to start their working lives with such crippling debts. Our students deserve a better break, and the federal Government has its role with the provinces in providing it.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton is known across the country and, indeed, throughout the world, as the chemical valley of Canada. The Canadian industry located there works tirelessly to remain competitive and productive in today's rapidly changing technological market. For this reason our Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) decision to establish and chair the National Advisory Board for Science and Technology is applauded by this industry in Sarnia-Lambton.
A locally based multinational company in my community, Polysar Limited, is the world's largest producer of synthetic latex and rubber. Polysar is one of Canada's largest exporters of manufactured goods and last year accomplished $1.8 billion in sales overseas.
To maintain its position Polysar is heavily involved in R and D. Its current research efforts rank Polysar in the top 15 of all corporations doing research in Canada. Last year over $40 million was invested by Polysar in research and development. As a result Polysar is about to introduce to the world a new product developed in its Sarnia R and D laboratories.
Canada's future rests in the advancement of science and technology. I join with local industry in congratulating our Prime Minister on his recognition of the important field of R and D.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians know that our farmers have been suffering from low commodity prices, whether it be with respect to grain, potatoes, or beef, just to name a few. Our farmers need all the help they can get, and the Farm Credit Corporation has to do its part.
I want to bring to the attention of the House the excessive lending rates charged by the Farm Credit Corporation. Its interest rate on five-year loans is 10.75 per cent, and for loans with terms over five years the rate is 11 per cent. At the same time chartered banks charge our farmers about prime plus 1
per cent, or 9.75 per cent. Farmers in my constituency believe that this is unfair, and I share their view.
This is the planting season, and farmers need financial assistance from the Farm Credit Corporation. I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to intervene and instruct the Farm Credit Corporation to give our farmers a break.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 48 per cent of single people under the age of 25 in Canada live below the poverty line; 100,000 young people with children also live below the poverty line.
The youth unemployment in Newfoundland is 32 per cent; in British Columbia it is 23 per cent; in Nova Scotia it is 25 per cent.
The unemployment rate for young people in Alberta is two and one half times as high as it was in 1980. Last year in Canada 170,000 students could not find a summer job.
Three times the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) formally committed himself in the House of Commons to introduce major new programs for youth by April 1, 1986. Yesterday was April 1, 1987, and the Prime Minister still has not kept his promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame! Resign.


John Napier Turner: This, Mr. Speaker, is a disgrace; and what is worse, it is a tragic waste of Canadian talent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-IMPORTANCE TO WORKERS IN CHURCHILL RIDING

Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition of the NDP and the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) to the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations is putting jobs in peril in that Member's own riding in northern Manitoba.
Statistics Canada figures show that 25 per cent of the people employed in the Churchill riding are directly employed in the primary industries, with almost every other job in the riding indirectly related to those industries.
April 2, 1987

Farmers in the Carrot River Valley, forestry workers in The Pas, miners in Flin Flon, Snow Lake, Thompson, Lynn Lake and Leaf Rapids, CN railway workers, all are dependent upon export markets.
Manitoba is an exporter of hydro-electric power, so hydro workers at Gillam and construction workers at the Limestone Power Project are dependent upon export markets for their livelihood.
With so many people in the Churchill riding dependent upon export markets, and particularly U.S. markets, I am surprised that the Member for Churchill is not supportive of our trade talks with the U.S.
Free trade will be good for the residents of Churchill riding, as it will be for all Canadians. The Member for Churchill should stand up for his constituents, instead of blindly following his anti-American socialist Leader, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).



REVENUE CANADA


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) and his Department-


An Hon. Member:: Careful.


Simon Leendert de Jong: They incorrectly answered only 36 per cent of questions asked in a survey this year. That is down from a level of 42 per cent last year. But then, in 1985, they were at 3 per cent in the Toronto Star survey.
Why is it that Revenue Canada agents, who receive 270 hours of training in Introductory Law, and over 100 hours training in specialized areas, cannot answer correctly inquiries from harried taxpayers?
Let us be fair. It is not their fault. It is the fault of the folks in the Finance Department. They have created a tax code so confusing that only highly paid specialists can understand it. For the average person, for those who have to depend upon Revenue Canada for answers in order to fill out their forms, the reality is that they should not expect Revenue Canada to know all of the answers.
Hopefully the long awaited promised tax reform will produce a tax code that is not only fair but simple and understandable for the average Canadian.
5. O. 21 CHILD CARE



STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF CHILDREN REQUIRING DAY CARE

William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the day care crisis in Canada, a crisis of which we have all been made very much aware during the past few days, and a crisis defined as being the need for 1.9 million day care spaces for Canadian children.
When day care advocates refer to the 2.1 million children in Canada who require day care spaces, their figures include all children under 12, where both parents work full or part-time, or where one spouse attends school for more than 20 hours per week.
Of the 2.1 million children referred to by the Opposition, I have discovered that over 1 million-actually, 1.1 million, to be precise-are children of school age.
While most of my colleagues in the House would agree that "latch key" children require some assistance, surely it is misleading to assume that all of these children are suffering from a day care crisis.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Mother of Parliaments showed us the way. The British House of Commons voted by a margin of 112 to defeat a proposed amendment to restore the death penalty for certain acts of murder in Britain.
Why is this important to Canada? It is important because the public mood in Canada is similar to that of Britain where about 70 per cent favour the death penalty. Our role is not to ignore public opinion but to make dispassionate decisions on public policy based on all the facts.
Why has Britain rejected the death penalty? British Members of Parliament said no to capital punishment because they know it is not a deterrent to murder. British MPs said no because they know innocent people have been executed. British MPs said no because they know that juries often fail to convict murderers if the accused is to be executed. British MPs said no because they know that many terrorists crave martyrdom. I suspect that British MPs said no because they know that it is wrong for the state, for the Government, to execute a human being.

April 2, 1987
5. O. 21 CHILD CARE



STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF CHILDREN REQUIRING DAY CARE

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) just pointed out that 1.1 million of the 2.1 million children who, we have been told, are suffering from the day care crisis are of school age. I would draw to the attention of the House that of the 1 million children remaining, 17.6 per cent are already in licensed spaces.
This leaves 842,000 children of whom 44 per cent are cared for by relatives. Where this family care has been established, it is difficult to understand how some advocates can claim that government run centres would provide better care than a family member. It is even more difficult to understand why anyone would advocate that licensed child care workers should replace the involvement of these families in bringing up their children.



THE BARD OF AVON


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker: To skit, or not to skit: that is the question: Whether't is nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous skits, Or by opposing end the skittishness of the PMO? Were thoughtful teenage thespians heaping calumny on the self-perceived kings and their consorts, Wherein would they catch the kingly conscience? And what perchance was it that the Brookfield thespians had in mind to prick the consciences of their imperial majesties? 'Twas Irangate, acid rain, and the noble tuna. The ministerial minions would have none of it. What cure lies herein for kingly "skitsophobia"? Thence they turned to the immortal Bard's Midsummer Night's Dream. So goodnight sweet kings, and may your minions long protect you for ever more.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, a joint Canada-Nova Scotia Livestock Feed Development Agreement was signed at the federal-provincial agriculture Ministers' meeting in Ottawa on Monday.
Nova Scotia's livestock industry has been highly dependent on outside sources of feed grains and protein crops. Because of rising transportation costs, this dependence has been seriously threatening the competitive position of livestock producers.
The Nova Scotia agreement includes programs geared specifically to the province's need to attain a high level of livestock feed self-sufficiency by the year 2000. The agreement will help ensure that livestock producers who grow their own feed, or feed producers who sell feed, can do so with the lowest possible cost of production.
In Nova Scotia's case, $11.25 million in funding will be made available. The federal Government will provide 80 per cent of this amount and the province the remaining 20 per cent.
This agreement proves that subsidies can be replaced by sensible programs which will achieve self-sufficiency. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for responding to the needs of Nova Scotia farmers and the requests of the Nova Scotia caucus.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Sad
to say, Mr. Speaker, but once again Quebecers have been led down the garden path by this Conservative Government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Having been conned about the shipyards and the international banking centre, we are now being hoodwinked with respect to GM in Boisbriand. As the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec put it, the grant made by the provincial Government will be used to save the jobs of Boisbriand workers in Quebec. Unfortunately, not only is the federal grant to Ontario used to save jobs, but it also creates new jobs. The people of Quebec will just have to remember that they have been ignored by their Conservative Members here in the House. Referring to all the members who are in the galleries, former Liberal Members of the House, never would such a betrayal of Quebecers have taken place when they were in office.



ILLNESS OF CLERK

Mr. Speaker:: It is with regret that I have to inform Hon. Members that the Clerk of the House, Dr. Bev Koester, was taken ill last week. I understand he is making progress and I know that the House will want to join with me in wishing him a speedy recovery and return to work.
April 2, 1987

I have asked, with the concurrence of the Board of Internal Economy, Mr. Robert Marleau to serve as Acting Clerk of the House of Commons during Dr. Koester's absence.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question I should like to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the families of the Murdochville miners, and I offer them my prayers.

I am sure, looking at the Deputy Prime Minister, that I can count on the Government to do everything the people of Canada can do to help the miners' families, and particularly also those people who are being ravaged by floods in Quebec and in New Brunswick.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. If there is unanimous feeling about anything in Canada, I would suspect that it has to do with acid rain. I would think also that one would command the virtual unanimous support of the House of Commons if one were to suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that he prevail upon his Leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, when he meets with the President over the weekend, to ask the President to sign with him another joint declaration, this time providing for joint emission controls over acid rain, with a specific timetable for acid rain cuts, so that we can deal immediately on this continent with a most urgent problem.


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is this: that which the Leader of the Opposition has called for, which is exactly the position of the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in Quebec City on March 23 as follows:
-we must continue to seek agreement with the U.S. on overall abatement targets and timeframes within which they must be achieved. Canada seeks to reduce acid rain to 50 per cent of its 1980 levels by the year 1994. Our objective continues to be a bilateral air quality agreement between Canada
Oral Questions
and the United States with specified emission control targets. We will not be
fully satisfied until we achieve that objective.
That position is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition himself has called for.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PROPOSE CLEAN AIR TREATY
John Napier Turner: The
Prime Minister has some good rhetoric there but he has not been very forceful in his handling of his counterpart, the President of the United States. I regret that he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are not here. I understand there is a Priorities and Planning meeting of the Cabinet being held contemporaneously with this sitting of Parliament. With all the respect that I owe the Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to suggest to him that responding to Question Period outranks any meeting of Cabinet or any committee meeting of Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to put another question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Would he impress upon the Prime Minister the need for some real action on acid rain, the pollution of our air, and would he propose to the President of the United States a clean air treaty for North America, similar to the International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 which went a long way toward mutual control and supervision of the Great Lakes system and our international waterways? Will he do that?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of the Government I would like to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and condolence to the victims and families of those involved in the mining tragedy and, of course, those suffering as a result of the floods.
With respect to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition's question, it seems to me that there is general agreement in Canada that we must address the very important issue of acid rain and other environmental problems, the subject of which will be discussed thoroughly when the President meets the Prime Minister in Ottawa this weekend. It also seems to me that rather than the nit-picking and carping we hear from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, this would be an opportunity for him to join in support of the initiatives taken by this Government under the capable leadership of the Right Hon. Prime Minister who has been way out in front of any previous administration in tackling this very important issue.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Deputy Prime Minister that we would be delighted to support any initiatives of the Prime Minister if we could see any initiatives of the Prime Minister.

April 2, 1987
Oral Questions


URGENCY OF PROBLEM
John Napier Turner: With respect to acid rain, Mr. Speaker, should the United States not have as much regard for Canada as they do for Mexico? Will the Prime Minister tell the President of the United States that we Canadians respect them as good neighbours particularly, but that as Canadians we are rather upset by the fact that the Americans do not have a policy nor a sense of national urgency to co-operate with us in the quest for solutions to the difficult but vital acid rain problem?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled by the question of the Leader of the Official Opposition. In his first question he called for a bilateral accord on acid rain between Canada and the United States. In his third question, his second directed to me, he cited the agreement between the United States and Mexico on acid rain as being a model for such an accord. The Mexican agreement with the United States places all the requirements on Mexico and none on the United States. The Mexican agreement simply says that the U.S. clean air law will be deemed to apply to Mexico. I do not know if that is the kind of accord the Liberal Party of Canada want for Canada, but it certainly is not what is in the interests of Canada.


REQUEST FOR NEW PROGRAMS
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. On March 3, 11 and 21, 1986, when he was under political pressure, the Prime Minister told the House there would be new youth programs before the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986. This was over a year ago and nothing concrete has been announced in the House. Will the Prime Minister keep his promise and unveil real programs for young Canadians?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to advise my colleague from Saint-Maurice that this question was put to me last Tuesday morning at the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration when he was absent. I am disappointed to learn that he was-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean J. Charest: I can understand the reaction. At the time I think I gave members attending the standing committee proceedings an answer which took into account the over-all problem facing young Canadians. Mr. Speaker, if we want to come up with a policy for young Canadians, and especially do
more than pay them lip service, one of the elements to be considered is the fact that we must convince the provinces to join us. That is what I am trying to do now.


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that I could not have been absent from the committee last Tuesday for the simple reason that I do not sit on that committee.


CHALLENGE H7-REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.

Many non-profit organizations, some of which are demonstrating on the Hill today, have seen their summer employment funding substantially cut since the Conservative Government came to power. Will the Minister change his priorities and increase funding for Challenge '87? This is something young Canadians really need.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, let me point out that Challenge '87 is a flexible, workable approach to the task of creating meaningful summer employment for students-


Mr. Boudria:: Who wrote that?


Jean J. Charest: You did. The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell wrote it in a column in his local paper.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question may I, on behalf of the NDP caucus, add our concern to the concern already expressed by representatives of the other Parties for the families of the miners in the Gaspe, and offer our co-operation to the House and the Government if there is any way in which we can be helpful.
Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister in a non-nit-picking, non-carping spirit. Has he had a chance to reflect on the suggestion I made yesterday and the day before, and which I have incorporated into a resolution which could possibly be passed unanimously by this House and which is based on the language used by the Government itself in the packet on acid rain distributed as part of the summit literature? Would he be prepared to indicate to the House that some time could be allocated for this, either today or tomorrow? We could very quickly, perhaps with a speaker from each Party, unanimously express the opinion of Canadians and all
April 2, 1987

Members of Parliament that action on acid rain is urgently needed on the part of our American neighbours.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this issue was discussed briefly at the House Leaders' meeting yesterday. I do not think there is any secret about that. The Hon. Member's House Leader just handed me a proposed resolution. I have not had an opportunity to examine it in detail, but 1 think the answer the Right Hon. Prime Minister gave to the Hon. Member yesterday certainly left the door open for that type of undertaking. We will certainly co-operate in every way we can. However, while the Hon. Member is an ardent advocate of environmental concerns, particularly acid rain, I would have thought that, given the 12 days allocated to the Opposition, they might have chosen one of those days to discuss the issue and we would perhaps have a better idea of what their proposals might have been for dealing with this very important issue.


REQUEST FOR ALLOCATION OF PARLIAMENTARY TIME
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 will resist the temptation to respond to that because we are not asking for something to be passed as a result of a motion brought forward by an opposition Party on an opposition day. We are seeking a special response by the House of Commons on a special occasion to a special environmental problem, that of acid rain emissions coming from the U.S. into Canada.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister give a commitment now that the Government is open to having such a resolution passed, preferably before Monday if that is at all possible? If he cannot say that, would he at least commit the Government to making a short time available, because it would not require much time, in the very near future, so that all of us here together can send a message, without the nit-picking and carping, to the U.S. Congress calling on them to enact acid rain abatement legislation which would reduce acid rain precipitation in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I have responded to that. We have certainly indicated that we were disposed to looking into this proposal. I have had preliminary discussions with the Minister of the Environment to look into the possibility of drafting an appropriate resolution. I think the Hon. Member is being somewhat hasty. The summit will take place this weekend and I think for the time being the most important initiative he and his Party could undertake is to support the Prime Minister in his efforts to deal with this issue in the positive way he has. He has clearly shown leadership. I call upon all Hon. Members of the House to support him in that endeavour.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FRIENDSHIP
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, without trying to be argumentative, that is precisely what we
Oral Questions
have in mind. What could be more supportive of the Prime Minister of Canada before sitting down with the President of the U.S. than a unanimous resolution of the House of Commons? This is not only for the sake of the Prime Minister. It is for the sake of the President who will be addressing this same House of Commons next Monday.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows there is a precedent for this. There was an all-Party agreement on a motion calling for July 2 and July 3 to be designated as Canada-U.S. friendship days. What can be more appropriate than using that same spirit of co-operation and mechanism to make it possible for this House, preferably today or tomorrow, to pass a unanimous resolution, using language we can all agree on, to send a very strong message to the American public, Congress, and President Reagan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the recent joint resolution approved by all Parties concerning the Canada-U.S. celebrations during the first week in July. That was the product of rather intensive discussions on an ongoing basis. The Hon. Member brought up this proposal yesterday and the day before. We indicated our willingness to act. I can give him the assurance we will act. I am not going to be put in a position of meeting a certain deadline or time frame. After all, the Hon. Member had two or three months to come up with this proposal, and in the eleventh hour he is expecting an instant response. At the present time I can give him the assurance that we will look into it. I have just been handed the resolution and 1 have not even had a chance to read it. He is asking me to accept it holus-bolus. That is like me asking him to support legislation which has yet to be tabled in the House.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF ACCIDENT AT GASPE COPPER MINES
Charles-Eugène Marin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Minister is probably aware of the situation at Gaspe Copper since last night. Could he perhaps give the House the latest news on the situation?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to convey the condolences of this Government and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the family of deceased and give some words of encouragement to those miners who are still trapped underground.

April 2, 1987
Oral Questions
Last night, around 6.30 p.m., the shift that was making the changes reported a fire that apparently started near a conveyor running through the new section of the mine.
On the basis of a conversation I had with those in charge at Noranda Mines, I can inform the House of the following: Twenty-nine miners were able to shelter in a holding area, away from the fire and smoke, and have been there for several hours. The mine's rescue team is communicating regularly with the miners who are getting an adequate supply of air and food.
Since this morning, six miners managed to escape on their own, by leaving the mine. There was the sad news that one miner was fatally injured.
A few minutes ago, I was told that 17 miners who were still missing this morning had been located. The teams have been able to communicate with them, and it seems they are also safe.
However, the heat underground is much too intense to allow completion of the rescue operations.
The rescue teams, which were quick to answer an appeal for help, include three teams from Noranda, two teams, I repeat, two teams from Thetford Mines in the Frontenac region, and a team from the Commission de la sante et de la securite au travail.
Although the Government of Canada has no direct jurisdiction in this area, we have given the miners' representatives and Noranda Mines the assurance that we are prepared to act on any request they may make.
Mr. Speaker, that was the latest report on the tragic occurrence at Murdochville, and once again, I want to express my condolences to the bereaved family, and I am sure everything will be done to get the miners, who have now been located, out of the mine as soon as possible.


PUBLIC WORKS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and concerns Place Vincent-Massey in Hull. Why did the Government cancel the lease with Entreprises Duroc eight and a half years before the lease was due to expire and then renew at a much higher cost, namely, $26 million instead of the original $11 million, thus wasting about $15 million? How does the Minister intend to justify this increase?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is ample justification for the decision. The decision was made on the recommendation of officials from the Department of Public Works after investigating all the circumstances which, succinctly put, are that the fire commissioner determined that that building had considerable deficiencies. Expenditures of some $4 million were required to bring the building up to par. There was no responsibility on the owner of the building to accept that burden. The Government decided it was in the best interest of the employees to pay that expense. It could only do so and protect its investment by entering into a new, long-term arrangement.


John V. Nunziata: Boloney.


Mr. Gauthier:: That's boloney and you know it.


John V. Nunziata: That's nonsense.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the decline of the Conservative empire goes on!


FORMER MINISTER'S ACTION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Duroc, the developer, met with the former Minister on December 20, 1984, and wrote to the Minister on January 7, 1985, which resulted in two actions by the Minister within seven days. How can the Minister explain the fact that his predecessor instructed his deputy to pay Duroc some $15 million more than it was entitled to against the advice of his officials documented in a report I have here signed by G. R. Oram of his own Department? How can he explain that? Who did Mr. Duroc and that company know in order to get that kind of preferential treatment?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Public Works was very much on the ball and took appropriate action.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It sounds like the ball was on him.


Mr. Penner:: I think he rolled himself out of the park.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The wrecker's ball.


COST OF REOPENING CONTRACT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the people of Canada have been taken for a multimillion dollar ride by Mr. Tessier in the negotiation of this contract. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The additional costs for bringing the building in question up to standard were about $4 million and the enhancement of this contract will result in a cost to taxpayers of as much as $35 million or $40 million.
April 2, 1987

Can the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister responsible explain why this contract was reopened at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of millions and millions of dollars? Why was this contract reopened in this way? Who made this decision despite the recommendation of senior officials in both the Treasury Board and Department of Public Works not to do this?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the assertion of the Hon. Member is ridiculous. Public Works officials recommended a 25-year lease-purchase agreement. That was accepted by Treasury Board because, compared with the cost of other lease properties at the time, that was very advantageous for the Government. The prevailing rate in Hull and Ottawa when the new lease was signed was $180 to $220 per square metre. The new lease was for $150 per square metre. That was in the best interests of the Government and it protected the capital outlay of $4 million which was made when there were only three years left on the lease. The expenditure was made in 1985 and the lease was up in 1988. You do not spend $4 million unless you are going to get a long-term benefit.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, you must ask yourself just who Mr. Tessier knew to get this cosy little deal.


INQUIRY WHETHER MR. ROY OR OTHER ASSISTANTS TO PRIME MINISTER INTERVENED IN ISSUE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in the past the Prime Minister has claimed that the involvement of his principal secretary, Bernard Roy, in awarding contracts in Quebec was entirely appropriate. Could the Minister inform the House whether there is any kind of link between Mr. Roy and Mr. Tessier and whether Mr. Roy or other assistants to the Prime Minister intervened here?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as President of the Treasury Board-the decision was ratified by Treasury Board-I can inform the House that at no time did Mr. Roy or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office discuss this matter with me. A judgment was made on the merits of the case, and a decision was made in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer.


LEASE RECOMMENDATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister and is on the same subject. He knows that his explanation is pure nonsense. In fact, the staff recommended that they continue with the existing lease. I have in my hand now the staff recommendation to continue with the existing contract, that is, to lease for eight and a half years at existing terms and conditions.
I would like the Minister to stand up and explain to the people of Canada why they were ripped off in this particular case.
Oral Questions


Stewart Donald McInnes: As
usual, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has only half the story.


John Napier Turner: Wait until we get the whole thing.


Mr. Rossi:: It will be much worse.


Stewart Donald McInnes: The fact of the matter is that one official at one time made the recommendation suggested by the Hon. Member. However, when regional officials looked at the entire case with regard to the best benefits for the Government, that suggestion was rejected. Treasury Board agreed with the officials of my Department.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CANCEL NEW CONTRACT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the new agreement that was signed with this organization was not in the public interest in that the people of Canada were required to pay substantially more for a product they already had pursuant to an agreement. The Minister is a member of the bar. In view of the fact that this new contract is not in the public interest, will he take the necessary steps to cancel the new contract and insist that the landlord continue under the terms and conditions of the old contract?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members and members of the bar know that you do not unilaterally rip up a contract.


Some Hon. Members:: You did.


Stewart Donald McInnes: With the consent of both parties.


Maurice Brydon Foster: For $15 million, I guess so.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Does one make an investment of $4 million for three years, or does one secure that investment by making a good deal for 25 years?


REASON FOR REOPENING CONTRACT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The Tessier proposal for reopening the contract for the Vincent Massey Building, which would cost the taxpayers $80 million, was rejected by both the Treasury Board and the Department of Public Works. Why was the contract subsequently reopened? Why did Mr. Tessier receive a nice cushy contract which will cost the taxpayers $35 million?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has forgotten that I indicated that the new contract was signed for $150 per square metre when the prevailing rate in the Ottawa-Hull area approximated $200 per square metre. Would the Hon. Member indicate how the people of Canada have been taken?

April 2, 1987
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER REPRESENTATION MADE BY MR. BERNARD ROY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the existing contract was half that, by reopening the contract we allowed Mr. Tessier to get $80 million; $4 million for the improvements to the building and $35 million for him to invest probably in some other building for which he has a proposal before the Government. My question is obvious. Mr. Tessier had connections-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John R. Rodriguez: Did Mr. Bernard Roy make representation to any Cabinet Ministers with respect to the reopening of this contract on the Vincent Massey Building?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to restate once again what I stated several minutes ago.


Mr. Tobin:: Answer the question.


Robert René de Cotret: I will answer the question if the Hon. Member would give me the opportunity to do so. The final decision-


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members will know that the question which was put was a serious one. The Hon. Minister is attempting to reply and I think it would be appropriate to give the Hon. Minister the courtesy of being able to give that reply.


Robert René de Cotret: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to assure all Hon. Members that the decision which was finally made by Treasury Board was made without any kind of representation by any member of the Prime Minister's staff or any other political member. It was made on the strict basis of the financial realities of the situation. It was made in the best interests of Canadians. I can assure all Hon. Members of the House that neither at that time nor at any other time prior to the decision, was I contacted in any way, shape or form, to influence the decision the Treasury Board would take in this case.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister is probably aware of the fact that we are now hearing the theme from Washington that research and demonstration projects are to replace the need for acid rain cuts at least until 1992 and possibly well into the 1990s. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the envoys' process is not working to Canada's advantage and that it is now time to
revive Canada's global initiative, a strategy which would generate international pressures on the United States to join us and the 20 nations which have already agreed to cut acid rain by 1994?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is probably aware that the United States is not a party to that international agreement, which underscores the monumental task Canada has in achieving our full agenda on acid rain in Washington. I think it is ironic that the Hon. Member should rise to his feet every day in the House of Commons and lecture the current Government on its lack of progress with the Americans on this issue, when the truth is that the Liberal Party of Canada was in power during most of the period of the Reagan presidency to date. If it was so darn easy to achieve the kind of objective the Hon. Member has in mind, why did he not do it when he was Minister of the Environment?


Mr. Caccia:: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we did initiate a global initiative which was dropped by the Tory Government. That is why we are raising it now. That is the whole point. It is very unfortunate that such an elementary step is not understood by the Minister.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if by Monday there is no agreement, no program agreed to by the United States of America, a parallel program which would match the Canadian program, will the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs take this issue to the International Court at the Hague on the basis that serious economic damage is caused by U.S. pollution to Canada's natural resources and human health?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the representation made by the Hon. Member is a solid one. My knee-jerk response is that it is positive. My own effort in this regard has been aimed at trying to get those countries which are not now signatories to the so-called 30 per cent club to become signatories. In that connection I travelled to London, England, a few weeks ago to meet with Hon. William Waldegrave and Right Hon. Nicholas Ridley to see whether Canadian resources could not be mobilized to get Great Britain to join up. We will do the same thing with the United States and with the remaining countries.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Nelson Andrew Riis: 1980s' version of the A1 Capone style rum-running and bootlegging. In this case the boot-legging is the illegal gasoline coming across the border from the United States without appropriate taxes being collected. Since this was brought to the Minister's attention many months ago, can he explain to the House and to the people of Canada, particularly to the Petroleum Marketers Association of Canada, the small independent Canadian marketers, why no action has really been taken by himself, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we know, and the Hon. Member knows, that in the recent Budget we took measures to help alleviate this problem. We are studying how effective those measures have been. We are very disturbed to hear about the boot-legging which may be continuing. However, a large part of this problem was removed by the measures put into the Budget.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. He will know that the situation regarding the tax changes which were made in the last Budget have done nothing to stop this boot-legged gasoline coming into Canada. Why has he not responded to the nine suggestions the independent marketers gave to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance, and the Minister of National Revenue as a way and means of stopping this illegal importation of gasoline?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not know whether the system is working or not. He is alleging it is not working. It is working to some degree, but not perfectly. We are considering those measures as well as others.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The presidents of 20 science and technology associations, representing more than 90,000 scientists and engineers across Canada, have today set up an action committee because they are concerned that the Government has abandoned its goal of spending 2.5 per cent of our gross national product on research and development and because the Government has failed to take steps to reach that goal.
Why has the Government abandoned the goal of spending 2.5 per cent of gross national product on research and development? When will it do something tangible to increase spending
Oral Questions
and establish a climate of confidence for scientists and young people who wish to pursue a career in science?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the initiatives taken by the action committee to which the Hon. Member referred. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we need all the help we can get, not just from other Governments but from the science community, industry and everyone else. The fact is that this action committee is designed to respond to the invitation and the challenge we have thrown out to Canadians to join together and form the necessary linkages between the public and private sector to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister answer a straight question? Why has the Government backed away from its promise to double spending on research and development? Why do all the policy documents which the Minister has tabled in the past few weeks not make one mention of the target to spend 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product on research and development? Will the Minister tell us why students, scientists, university administrators and teachers all across the country are so upset with his policies?


Frank Oberle: The message I am receiving, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a lot of enthusiasm and excitement. People who know what we are doing are not upset. The Hon. Member asks me when I will show some tangible results of the policy and strategy. The answer is, soon, very soon.


COST AND AVAILABILITY DATE OF STUDIES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth). On September 5 last year, Secor submitted a study of youth employment, which took three days to complete and cost $124,000, to the Wright-Gaucher Commission. When will the Secor study be tabled in the House as promised last November by the Minister of Employment and Immigration? And when will the Wright-Gaucher report be available, and could the Minister tell the House what this report will cost?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a report by Secor that was ordered by the Wright-Gaucher Commission, and to the fact that the report was completed in three days. I think he is mistaken. As far as I know, that was not the case. I am practically certain it was not. Furthermore, this particular

April 2, 1987
Oral Questions
study is not a report as such but a study that was ordered on specific points, and the Minister, in other words I myself, and the Commission were agreed that we wanted specific information on the way the youth problem was dealt with in certain countries. That was the object of the exercise at the time, and that is why we ordered this study. So as far as I know, there was no question of tabling a report in the House of Commons. Finally, I just want to add that Mr. Gaucher and Mr. Wright are working in an advisory role with the Minister of State (Youth).


TASK FORCE REPORT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, Wright-Gaucher provided a report in September of 1986. In fact, there has been a veritable paper shower of reports concerning youth on the Ministry of Youth which seem to melt just as soon as they hit the ground. There has been no action.
My question to the Minister is this. Will he confirm that he received a report, a special task force on youth report, on February 24, 1986, and will he table it? More important, given the Secor Report, the Wright-Gaucher Report, and the report from the Advisory Council on International Youth Year, with all this information is it not just about time that the Minister produced a report on a policy for youth? Or will he twiddle while the hopes of youth burn?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to play on words. What I can say to the Hon. Member is that what was undertaken by Wright-Gaucher, in accordance with an agreement that we had, was a study of very specific points that we felt at that time we wanted to look at. That is exactly what was done.
What the Hon. Member is asking me today, and I presume it is the new policy of the New Democratic Party of Canada, is to put forward a report. If I understand the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, that is what he wants today.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We want action. We want a policy.


Jean J. Charest: I take it that that is the new position of the New Democratic Party.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the Minister aware that Canada Post recently announced a staggering 30 per cent increase in the rates that
are charged for shipping perishable food items such as milk, fruit and vegetables into remote Indian and Inuit communities in northern Ontario and northern Quebec? What action is the Minister or his officials taking to persuade the Minister responsible for Canada Post, or the corporation, to roll back this huge hike in costs with respect to fresh food being shipped into these remote communities that are economically deprived as it is?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member expresses a concern that is shared by myself. I will be entering into discussions with my cabinet colleague. However, the Hon. Member must be aware that actions taken by other corporations are not the responsibility of the Government. Crown corporations make those decisions independent of government.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT TO REDUCE COSTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, of course I recognize that. Does the Minister think it is fair or right that Indian and Inuit people who live on fixed and very limited incomes should be faced with these big increases in the cost of fresh food? I want the Minister's assurance that he will work out some arrangement with Canada Post so that these enormous costs to these people in these remote communities can be reduced.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, again, I recognize the concern expressed by the Hon. Member. The enormous costs that he identifies are not known to myself at this time. I have said that I will enter into discussions to see what action can be taken. I also draw to his attention that it is my information that it is not just Inuit and Indian people but also non-native people who live in those areas who will suffer from the action that has been taken by a Crown corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the time I would ask Hon. Members to make their questions as short as they can, keeping in mind the importance of the matter. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Mr. Laugdon:: Mr. Speaker, that is a serious challenge.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Steven W. Langdon: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Statistics Canada has just reported a massive $616 million increase in profits, up to $1.4 billion, for insurance companies in 1986. Will the Minister launch an investigation through his Ministry to see how this huge jump in profits is tied to the 38 per cent
April 2, 1987

increase in car insurance rates which has taken place in the Province of Ontario?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what legislative authority the Hon. Member thinks might rest with my Department to make that kind of investigation. Certainly if there is any evidence of collusion or competition factors which have led to this increase, any evidence in that regard would be welcomed by the Department and an investigation would take place by the Director of Investigation and Research. Beyond that, I am not sure what the Hon. Member has in mind. We do not have a profit control regime in place in Canada through which I could act in the way that the Hon. Member has suggested.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister is responsible for the protection of consumers, and that could be the reason for such an investigation.
[ Translation]


PROTECTION OF MOTORISTS-MEASURES TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
Steven W. Langdon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister prepared to take urgent measures to protect motorists, and what is he doing now to protect them?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to give the Hon. Member a briefing on the consumer protection law within my Department and the responsibility within the Constitution that the federal Government has in this regard. However, I believe the actions which the Hon. Member is suggesting fall primarily within provincial responsibilities. I am at a loss what the Hon. Member might be referring to in terms of the authority. I am not the big brother protector of consumers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence. Again I ask Hon. Members to keep their questions short.


REFUGEES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians want to know if the Canadian Government is offering any protection or is prepared to intercede on behalf of Carmen Quintana, a young Chilean refugee living in Canada, who was horribly set on fire last July by Chilean government soldiers and who has just returned to Chile to stand in solidarity with her people when she meets the Pope who is now visiting Chile.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I will have to take that question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence on a short supplementary question.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PERMIT CHILEAN REFUGEES IN ARGENTINA TO COME TO CANADA
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of State for Immigration, in cooperation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and in a gesture of solidarity with the Pope who is now visiting Chile, prepared to announce today that he will permit the Chilean refugees in Argentina, who are desperately waiting for an answer from the Government, to come to Canada?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, our answer was clear. Concerning the two individuals whom our officials have found and who are genuine refugees, we will do everything we can to bring them here as soon as possible.
A few others are independent immigrants and, apparently, the Government of Quebec will issue provincial selection certificates. In the normal course of the immigration policy, they will also be admitted here if they can meet the requirements related to medical and criminal records.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question. I believe the Minister is still in the Chamber.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, my mail today contained a very interesting letter, a letter which detailed a Decima Research Limited poll commissioned by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association. The poll indicated that eight out of 10, or 82 per cent, of Canadians surveyed believe that the pending patent protection legislation is a good thing. This approval, however, is contingent upon adequate protection being in place to ensure that higher prices do not result.
My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the Minister assure the enormously large majority of Canadians who support this legislation that Bill C-

April 2, 1987
Business of the House
22 contains provisions which will effectively guard against the drug price increase concern?


Some Hon. Members:: Good question!


Harvie Andre: Well, it may be that it comes after Question Period normally ends, but we've finally got a good question, Mr. Speaker.
The Drug Prices Review Board, Mr. Speaker, will absolutely keep all drug price increases to less than the cost of living increase, less than inflation-and, according to the poll, 82 per cent of Canadians approve of that.
I think a responsible Parliament should get that Bill passed as quickly as possible-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Harvie Andre: -as quickly as possible so that 82 per cent of Canadians will get what they want.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on the usual Thursday point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) for his customary statement on government business, hopefully for the entire next seven days.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we will today continue the debate on Bill C-22, and tomorrow we will have a further day on the Budget. On Monday, the House will sit only to hear the President of the United States, when he will be addressing a joint session of the Senate and the House of Commons.


An Hon. Member:: Can we ask questions of the President?


An Hon. Member:: Will we have Question Period?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure what is the protocol in that respect. Perhaps the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) can enlighten us on that.


John Napier Turner: 1 would enjoy that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The other order of business, legislatively, will see us continue with the debate on Bill C-22, followed by debate on Bill C-37, that is, if the opposition spokespersons are available and are ready to go on it. Of course, in our usual
way, we will always co-operate with the Opposition in ensuring that they have all of their troops in line to debate these very important issues.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


B. Keith Penner: A point on the business of the House, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said that he will soon announce the details of the economic recovery package for northern Ontario. May I know whether "soon" will be some time next week? Will the announcement be made in the House in all of its detail, or will it be made in some other place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what relevance that point has to House business-


B. Keith Penner: It is right on. It is House business.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, I am not so sure of that. We were talking about the legislative order of business-


B. Keith Penner: Well, bring in the legislation. We will deal with that, too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, perhaps if we proceeded with Bill C-22 and a few other important pieces of legislation we would have more time to deal with the very important issue that the Hon. Member raises.



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 Motions No. 3 (Mr. Dingwall), No. 4 (Mr. Orlikow) and Nos. 5, 11, 13 and 15 (Mr. Dingwall, p. 4820).
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this second grouping of motions, and particularly on the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
Contrary to the information that was purported to be found in a sponsored poll, I do not think the majority of Canadians support this legislation at all, and the more they find out about it the less they are going to support it.
The fact is that up until 1969, when changes were made to the Patent Act that allowed for the production of generic drugs, Canada and Canadians were paying the second highest
April 2, 1987

prices in the industrialized world for prescription drugs. As a result of the changes that allowed for the production of generic drugs in Canada, Canadians are now paying the second lowest prices in the industrialized world for prescription drugs.The change in the price that is being paid for drugs, Madam Speaker, is directly attributable to the change in legislation which allowed for the production of generic drugs, and we do not want to see that forward move turned backwards. The Government apparently does.
The Government apparently has concerns, has priorities, other than the health of Canadians. The importance of prescription drugs to the millions of Canadians who depend upon them in helping them to deal with one health problem or another cannot be underestimated, and the costs of such drugs is of major concern to Canadians. Also, it is of major concern to provincial health care programs and provincial pharmacare programs. It is estimated that without generic drugs the costs of provincial pharmacare programs would increase by at least 20 per cent.
In Bill C-22 we are faced with legislation that is going to change that very positive provision that allowed for the production of generic drugs. This legislation would turn the clock backwards. Canadian people have to ask themselves why it is that the Government is doing this. It seems that it is some kind of fancy foreplay to the consummation of the free trade talks. It is in line with the elimination of FIRA; it is in line with the Government buckling under to the Americans on any number of issues.
The fact is, there has been a great deal of pressure from the American pharmaceutical industry and from the American Government to have the Canadian Government bring in these changes. That pressure was first applied to the Liberal Government. Some members of that Government were prepared to go along with it; others decided that they would try to stall it, and to that end they introduced the Eastman Commission. When the Eastman commission reported in June of 1985, it made significant recommendations, recommendations that I think completely cut the ground from under those who would turn the clock and make it more difficult to introduce generic drugs.
On the one hand, the Government is facing pressure from the American Government and the pharmaceutical companies to turn the clock back; on the other hand, the members of the New Democratic Party, along with Canadians from one coast to the other, have been rallying around this issue trying to emphasize the need to maintain the provisions of the Patent Act that allow for the production of generic drugs.
I have received countless letters in my office. Other members of the New Democratic Party caucus have received a number of letters, and I know that members of the other Parties have as well, including a great many Members on the government side. Why they are not acting on the basis of those letters, I do not know.
Patent Act
We have also had many petitions tabled in this regard. Some of the Progressive Conservative Members have been a little bit skittish about the tabling of some of these petitions, because they indicate very clearly that there is a very great concern about the way in which these very positive provisions in respect of the production of generic drugs are being negated by Bill C-22.
We are concerned, Madam Speaker, with Motion No. 4, among others, which would limit the exclusivity of patent protection of newly introduced drugs to four years. This four-year provision is a bit of a compromise. It is what was recommended by the Eastman Commission report. It is a much better provision than the provision in the legislation, which allows for 10 years.
The Eastman Commission points out the importance of some period of exclusivity. I should like to read a short passage from the Eastman report;
The pricing behaviour of firms introducing new drugs in the Canadian market and abroad is typically to set high prices initially when the novelty and uniqueness of the drug is greatest so as to maximize its profitability. As competition develops from imitative drugs either with patents of their own or as generics in Canada, prices tend to decline and so increase the benefit of the new drug to consumers and taxpayers.
An assurance of monopoly in the market at the most profitable early period after the introduction of a new drug ensures a satisfactory return and therefore constitutes an inducement to introduce the drug in Canada.
The Eastman report recognizes that there should be some period of protection for a new drug. It continues:
The question is to decide on the appropriate length of a period of exclusivity during which the innovating firm can charge prices well above the cost of materials and manufacturing to create a gross profit that covers all other costs including the high initial promotion costs.
The question is, what is the optimum period for monopoly protection? The Eastman Commission dealt with that wherein the report indicated:
The Commission was told at the Hearings by representatives of Merck Frosst that many drugs achieved large sales in the first year following their introduction and that drugs that took longest to establish themselves required from three to four years after which the growth in their sales slowed. This view is consistent with other information. The four-year of exclusivity that the Commission believes should be given new drugs reflects these estimates.
In other words, this four-year exclusivity period reflected in Motion No. 4 has not been pulled out of a hat. It was based upon the testimony of a pharmaceutical drug company before the Eastman Commission which indicated that the longest time it took for a drug to establish itself was some four years. It gives adequate protection for new drugs coming on the market.
We recognize that that is important. There should be adequate protection, but we do not think that there should be the kind of protection which allows drug companies to continue making profits after profits to the detriment of Canadians who must purchase the drugs.
In Bill C-22 the Government wants to give a period of 10 years of exclusivity for the manufacturers of drugs. Over a period of 10 years the makers of brand name drugs will then

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
have the opportunity to sew up the market in such a way that brand names will be so well established that even the introduction of generics will not have a sufficient downward impact upon the prices of those drugs. Even when generics are introduced, after such a long period they will not have a negative impact upon prices.
The American Association of Retired Persons was invited by members of my Party to appear before the legislative committee on Bill C-22. The Conservatives refused to allow the association to appear because they did not want to hear testimony from Americans about the way in which the system in the United States works to the detriment of average Americans who must purchase drugs.
I see that my time is up. I simply urge government Members to consider the implications of what they are trying to do by granting a 10-year period of exclusivity. It will mean that drug prices will remain high. They should look at the recommendations of the Eastman Commission which suggested a four-year period, based upon some solid reasons. They should listen to the voices of their constituents who urge them not to take this action which will result in higher drug prices for them and for their fellow Canadians. I urge government Members to pay attention to these issues.
[ Translation]


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-22 and to defend the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party. I am referring to Motions numbered 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 15. In these motions we talked about the period of exclusivity. The Bill is proposing a 10 year exclusivity period, and as all members know perfectly well, we in the Liberal Party are proposing four years, as recommended by the Eastman report. As for the date of proclamation, the House will recall that in 1986, the Government was unable to follow through on its Bill. However, in the Bill tabled on November 6, the proclamation date remained unchanged, which means that the legislation is retroactive, which is totally unacceptable. It means that the legislation is retroactive to June 1986.
And finally, regarding the motion on the priority status for process and product patents, we are proposing this amendment because it will have a very definite impact on development in the technology sector.
I would like to start by discussing the period of exclusivity. As I said earlier, the Eastman report recommended a period of exclusivity of four years. The reason was simple. According to the Commission of Inquiry, it was necessary to encourage pharmaceutical companies to do research. The Commission was well aware of the pattern followed by pharmaceutical companies: as soon as they enjoy too much protection, they tend to waste the funds this protection affords them. This argument is part of the Eastman report and Hon. Members will find it on page 338.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, there is a description of the consequences of too little and too much protection. I quote from page 338:
Another consequence of excessive patent protection and of the profits to which
it potentially gives rise is to induce patent holders-
-the multinationals in this case-
-to incur excessive costs of promotion through marketing and selling
expenditures designed to stimulate demand and maintain their competitive
position in the market.
Madam Speaker, it seems to me the Minister completely forgot this fact when he decided to give 10 years of exclusivity. This is a striking example of a recommendation which was totally ignored, and it flies in the face of a serious study which cost Canadians a pretty penny.
When he refused to answer our questions in the House the Minister promised he would give the committee all data on which he had based his decision. We soon realized he had no intention of doing that. The Minister simply told the committee that fours years of exclusivity was too short, and that was that. Where did he get this information? We did not find out in committee. I am sure that not one Conservative Member can tell me either, and that none of the departmental officials can give me a rational explanation. Why 10 instead of four years? Why not follow the Eastman recommendation? The only ones in a position to give us the answer are the multinationals because this decision gives them the upper hand.
A 10 year exclusivity period will have an impact on the profits of those companies. In fact, in his report Mr. Eastman provided a documented and wide-ranging explanation of the phenomenon associated with the protection a patent may afford. According to him, new drugs are always priced high to recoup development costs.
The shorter the exclusivity period, the higher the introductory price. When the exclusivity period is longer, the introductory price is lower, but it takes much longer to decrease.
My question is as follows: Is there anyone in the House who has made an assessment of the impact the Conservative Government's policy will have? How do we know which option will cost more? A short or a long period of exclusivity? No assessment has been made. Government Members may argue that the Opposition is wrong to say it will be expensive and that prices will go up, but what contribution has the Government made to this debate? Not a single Conservative has had the guts to rise in the House to speak to this Bill.
And furthermore, we have no indication of the impact the measures proposed by the Government will have aside from a partisan study by the Department.
Madam Speaker, Mr. Bill Haddad, a representative of the U.S. generic drugs industry who was refused permission to appear before the Committee, nevertheless came to Canada to describe to us the situation in the United States. He pointed out that research and development for most of the drugs originating in the United States had already been paid for by U.S. citizens. In fact, the multinationals were making so much
April 2, 1987

money they were researching the best ways to invest their excess profits. Considering all these factors, we can hardly accept a period of exclusivity for the duration proposed in the Bill.
As we all know, the Bill does not take into consideration the consumers of pharmaceutical products, and even worse, it fails to consider the needs of the biotechnological industry in Canada. I find it very difficult to accept the Government's defence of the need to adopt legislation that is similar to legislation in effect in the international community. The Government could have accepted, and it can still do so, the Liberal Party's amendment by which not only product but also process patents would be allowed as far as the biotechnological industry is concerned. This is a complex part of our amendments, but I wanted to have them included in the proceedings of the House because I think they are important. If the Government does not accept these amendments, it will be showing itself to be insensitive in the extreme and lacking in any understanding for the needs and the nature of the biotechnological industry in Canada.
Finally, I would like to talk about the drugs which, at the time the Government announced its intention to amend the Act last June, were still in the "pipeline". There were a number of specific provisions for the so-called pipeline drugs. In the new version of this Bill, the Bill that was tabled in the House several months ago in June, there have been no changes. An attempt was made to table the Bill in June and it was finally tabled in November, but nothing was changed which means that the Bill will be retroactive to June 27, 1986. That we cannot accpet. They could at least have changed this date for the date on which the present Bill was tabled, or as we state in our amendment, substitute the date of the royal proclamation. Once again, the Government has caved in to pressure from the multinationals.
This Bill does nothing at all for the whole sector of the generic and biotechnological industries, quite the contrary. This is why we are proposing an amendment to that effect. I want this to be very clear.
The 10 year exclusivity period is unacceptable, we believe that the four-year period recommended by the Eastman Commission is reasonable. Several interest groups share this view and gave us their support in the parliamentary committee. It is interesting to note that most interest groups are aware that it is necessary to provide better intellectual protection for patents, and this explains why they are prepared to accept changes to the legislation which dates back to 1969. Of course, they too realize the need for better protection, but they all agree that a 10 year period is too long and unwarranted. However a number of them would endorse the four-year period advocated by the Eastman Commission simply because most interest groups are reasonable and realistic.
The generic sector of the pharmaceutical industry told us it could quite probably have lived with a four-year exclusivity period for patent holders. We must bear in mind that the generic industry is the industry which copies.
Patent Act
My time has expired, Madam Speaker. Very well, I must accept your decision. I will be back for the next amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this particular motion. It refers to the problem about which many Canadians have registered concern time and time again through petitions, namely, that this Bill will give exclusive rights, I like to call it monopoly rights, to drug companies, largely foreign multinational drug companies, over a particular drug, which will result in higher costs than they would be under a competitive system. It does not take any imagination to recognize that if you have exclusive rights, monopoly control, you will not take advantage of that monopoly if you are in the business to make profits, to distribute to your shareholders. That situation, however, will occur in Canada in the future. I think back to the beginnings of the Canadian economy when the Hudson's Bay Company of Canada was given sole monopoly over the fur trading areas of all the lands drained by rivers going into Hudson's Bay. You could not compete with the Hudson's Bay in that area.
I find it surprising that the Minister with whom we are dealing in this matter is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). Presumably the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is interested in competition in the market-place to keep the prices of prescription drugs as low as possible. One of the very tenets on which the Progressive Conservative Party exists is a commitment, belief and value of competition in the market-place. I have heard hundreds of speeches in this House that try to remind us all that competition of almost any kind is good. Yet this Bill is totally contrary to that because it excludes competition for 10 years. You would be aware, Madam Speaker, that it was Dr. Eastman himself, the author of the original study conducted by the then Minister of Consumer and Corporation Affairs in the Liberal Government, who suggested that it would be fair for a drug company, having discovered a new drug, to have a monopoly for four years in order to benefit from the research money invested. All right, one could perhaps make that case, but this Bill extends the monopoly not for four years but for 10 years. That perplexes many of us, and that is why we oppose this aspect of the Bill.
Time and time again during this debate Members on the government side have referred to a recent poll. It indicates, as it is alleged, that eight in 10 Canadians are in favour of the Government passing Bill C-22. This is a very serious problem as I see it. The poll released was commissioned by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and done through Decima Research. If you look at the poll itself, it is printed on the letterhead of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. All of the people one is asked to contact for further information are people with the association or the PR

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
people for the association. This poll done by Decima was not an objective poll. The poll differs from any other that I have ever seen. I really wonder about Decima because it often prides itself on being on objective polling agency. We know it does a lot of work for the Conservative Party and we know that the Conservative Party is interested in getting this Bill through as rapidly as possible.
Consider the bias, Madam Speaker, which surprises me. Social scientists who conduct these polls pride themselves on devising questions that are as value-free and as bias-free as possible. We know that it is probably impossible to be free of bias, but there are degrees of bias that could be tolerated. In the Decima poll, Canadians were asked to respond to this statement: "If brand name companies double research efforts in Canada, health care and quality of life will improve because of early access to new, high quality cures". Of course an average Canadian would support such a statement. However, I would like to know if this statement is even correct. It is loaded with unproven statements and real bias.
There is nothing in the Bill compelling companies to double research efforts. The companies simply say that they will increase research and development efforts by 10 per cent of sales by 1995. We know better than to suggest that companies like these could be taken at their word. If this is serious and the companies mean what they say, why not put in the legislation that this is a commitment to research and development in Canada that the pharmaceutical industry is prepared to make? The legislation is mute in this respect.
There is no guarantee that this research will be basic scientific research. We have heard that much of the research that will be taking place in Canada will be market and clinical research, with basic research being only about 10 per cent of all research. We will see research into how best to market pills, how to get more mileage out of a certain coloured pill. That is not the kind of scientific research we want to have take place in Canada as a result of the monopoly control that these companies will have.
The primary objective of pharmaceutical research is to produce drugs that are big sellers. Let us not kid ourselves by believing that this is not so. The best way to produce these drugs is by imitating best-selling drugs using a slightly different chemical structure for what is known as a minor therapeutic gain. There is nothing in the legislation that will guarantee research. As a matter of fact, as we know from previous debate in the House, there is not even a definition of research in the Bill.
For this poll to suggest that research will take place once this Bill is passed is highly questionable. Quite frankly, I do not think it does the credibility of the Decima polling organization any good at all. In fact, an allegation of asking highly biased questions is very, very serious.
I would like to refer to what I believe is a much more appropriate poll taken by Reid. Some weeks ago, this organization asked Canadians to respond to this statement:
As you may know, the Government recently presented legislation which will give drug companies exclusive patent rights to manufacture and sell the drugs they invented for a longer period of time than they have now. Other companies will not be allowed to produce or sell less expensive copies of most drugs for 10 years. Do you yourself support or oppose this proposed legislation?
The results were interesting. In Canada as a whole, 58 per cent were opposed and 30 per cent supported it. In British Columbia, 66 per cent were opposed to it, in Alberta, 62 per cent were opposed to it, and in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 69 per cent were opposed to it. In Ontario and Quebec, 54 per cent were opposed to it and in Atlantic Canada, 56 per cent were opposed to it. When Canadians were asked if they believe that multinational drug companies operating in Canada ought to have exclusive rights and monopoly control to sell their new products for 10 years, eliminating any competition in the drug market-place, thank goodness an overwhelming number of Canadians said no.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part at this stage in the debate on Bill C-22. Perhaps I should remind the House that we are now on the amendments that were regrouped by the Chair and which deal with-amendments Nos. 3 . . . I'm trying to find the page, I won't be long. Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, I would like to say it is always easy to use the polls to support a point one wants to make, and in fact I too was surprised that the Government would use a poll ordered by the multinationals to justify Bill C-22, especially since we all know that in January and last year, a poll by the Reid Report and another by Gallup clearly indicated that Canadians were very much opposed to this Bill. According to the Reid Report, 58 per cent of Canadians were opposed to this legislation. The question that was put to Canadians was quite clear: Do you support this Bill? In the Decima poll referred to by the previous speaker, the question put by the company conducting the poll was somewhat different. The question was:

"After hearing all the various arguments in favour and against the proposed Bill," even though we are not finished arguing the Bill, "is it your impression that the Bill is a very good thing, a good thing, a bad thing or a very bad thing?"

Madam Speaker, obviously, Canadians were going to say what they thought and do so freely, but it is not very convincing when we know there were two polls, one by Gallup and the other by Reid, that produced the opposite results, while today we have a poll that says that perhaps Canadians think it might not be such a bad idea to review the provisions for protecting pharmaceutical companies and allow them to retain patent rights on certain drugs.
April 2, 1987

In any case, Madam Speaker, we object because we believe-and we have always supported the Eastman report that was ordered by the previous Government and which recommends a period of four years. We think that is satisfactory and sufficient, and we believe, polls or no polls, that people should listen to the points we have to make before jumping to conclusions.

The ruling having been made, we are discussing Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 15. These motions deal with a radical, retrograde proposal of product rather than process patents for pharmaceutical products. In the past, process patents have allowed generic companies which produce low cost copies of medications to improve upon methods of creating drugs for their own ease in producing the drugs and for gaining an advantage over competitors by producing the drugs in question at lower costs. The innovation process was endless and enormously beneficial to Canada.
We in Canada are very proud of having one of the best health care systems in the world. It is highly recognized for its quality, its universality and its transferability from province to province. It is accessible to all Canadians and, of course, it is non-profit, something of which we are very proud. We cannot say that that is the reality in the United States. We know that in the United States, there is no national health care program accessible to all Americans in a universal fashion. It is not transferable and it is therefore very difficult sometimes to be faced with sickness and disease. In Canada we feel very comfortable with the very sound system of health care we have developed over the years. That system is based not only on the services rendered by health practitioners, but also on access to a solid range of pharmaceuticals.
The myth that if we pass this Bill there will be $1.4 billion of research and development in pharmaceutical products sounds good. It looks fine on paper. However, we have never seen any commitment from the industry and we have yet to hear from the Minister how he will hold them to that commitment if it does exist. We are a small but proud country. We are not a large market, but we are a stable and very good market. As far as we in the Liberal Party are concerned, we have been very well served over the years by both the generic and the multinational drug companies which operate within our borders. The Eastman report was needed and the recommendations in it should be followed.
To get back to the amendments and what I call the radical retrograde step of proposing product rather than process patents for pharmaceutical products, what we are trying to do is to delete product patents from the legislation. As the law now stands, only process patents can be granted. Bill C-22 would allow product patents to be granted as well. Canadian biotechnology firms say that this change will effectively put them out of business. I want to refer to the transcript of the committee hearing of January 29, 1987, where a company
Patent Act
called Cangene appeared. That company developed a drug, Interleuken 2. For those who are interested, when mixed with a prostaglandin inhibitor it looks as though it will be a real cancer cure. It reverses in-place, solid tumours. This is what the company said:
Cangene is one of the few companies in the world that can do this, and we are ready to move to scale-up to clinical trials, and to manufacture. We have succeeded in this one instance, and there may be more, using Canadian ingenuity and Canadian money, operating under Canadian law.
It goes on and, referring to the Government, says:
On the verge of our success, you propose to change the rules. 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.
My time has expired, Madam Speaker. I would like to continue on the next amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Pharmaceutical Industry-Affidavit of Chairman of U.S. Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association-Request that Canadian Ambassador appear before Committee; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Immigration-Portuguese	refugees-allegations
concerning consultants and officials-Request for review of Department; the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-Fisheries-Request that Minister meet representatives of Star-Kist plant workers-Herring-roe fishery-leasing of licences.



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
[Stage Direction]
April 2, 1987
Patent Act
relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motions No. 3 (Mr. Dingwall), No. 4 (Mr. Orlikow) and Nos. 5, 11, 13, 15 (Mr. Dingwall) (p. 4820).
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, the issue addressed in the amendments presently under discussion is that of intellectual property. Before examining the contrast between the Eastman report's recommendations and the Government's proposals in Bill C-22, let us once more remind ourselves of the impetus behind this legislation resulting from pressure exerted from south of our border.
Both you and Canadians generally know the history of the cosy get-together between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President a couple of years ago which set this legislation in train. You will know of the frequent interventions of Mr. Yeutter to encourage Canada to recognize something called intellectual property. It was argued that Canadians offend against that property right held by Americans by virtue of our present patent legislation. You will know, too, that the U.S. Vice-President is a former member of the board of directors of one of the largest drug manufacturing companies in the U.S., to wit, Eli Lilly. You will also know that the Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Trade, E. J. Pratt, was president of another large U.S. multinational with interests in Canada. You will know that the legislation before us then represents an effort on the part of the Government to meet the demands imposed upon it by the Americans as a condition to the free trade negotiations in which the Government is presently engaged. You will know that in every respect the Government has, with great urgency, attempted to fulfil every demand placed upon it by the Americans.
It is interesting to note that the present legislation, which does so much offence to our system of public health, is not enough. You are as familiar as every other Member of Parliament with the list of demands the Americans have been mandated to make at these negotiations. Still appearing among those demands, irrespective of the existence of Bill C-22, is increased protection for American intellectual property. That includes their opinion that the legislation we are discussing today is not enough. Therefore, if Canadians are watching this debate with the assumption that Bill C-22 is all the harm that the Government will perpetrate upon them, then I am saying, and they ought to know, that there may yet be more of an attack on the system of drug availability which heretofore has been so consistent with the Canadian assumption that health services ought to be available to all irrespective of cost. I am sure you recognize that that is not an imperative in the American system.
It has been alleged by members on the other side, including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that in opposing this legislation New Democrats are somehow opposed to the concept of intellectual property. This is, of
course, unmitigated nonsense. Intellectual property is not something which can always be bought and sold. We are talking about intellectual property which leads to some kind of product, some sort of good which reflects the productivity of creativity.
You and I know, Madam Speaker, that if one examines the history of intellectual artistic endeavour one will see that the most fundamental contributions have not led to patents or to a penny. Surely everyone in the House recognizes that when Newton conceived of a way in which to express the relationship between material bodies his notion about gravity did not lead to any patent. To be even more relevant to the present discussion, let us reflect upon the discovery by Fleming of penicillin. The discovery of penicillin did not lead to a significant penny for Mr. Fleming. When Selman Waksman discovered streptomycin there was a patent and royalties were paid for it, but they did not go exclusively into the pockets of the corporation. They went to the universities and led to more discoveries in the area of antibiotics. Selman Waksman gained only a modest living therefrom.
The concept of patents is, of course, to provide some stimulus for making available to the general population products of intellectual effort and to provide a stimulus for making those products available in the market-place. It is for the convenience of the population at large and for the stimulation of those who, by virtue of their intellectual endeavours, create something which might benefit the population, to encourage that kind of creativity, but it is not absolute. It has never been conceived of as absolute. If it were absolute, patents would exist in perpetuity as would exclusivity, and they do not.
The reality is that when exclusivity existed for 14 years prior to 1969, the drug companies used this protection literally to steal money out of the pockets of the poor. Their profits were unquestionably excessive. The robbery imposed upon those who needed medicine was vicious. A situation was created in which it was clear to everyone that something had to be done to change the situation. As a result, in 1969 the present legislation was adopted by the Parliament and the Government of the time. There followed a period during which Canada became the heir of the best arrangement in the world for making drugs available to those who needed them. You will, of course, recognize that the mechanism was the compulsory licensing of generic drugs.
According to the arguments presented by the Government one might have thought that the multinationals must have virtually gone into bankruptcy, that they were looking at poverty as a result of the legislation. The fact is that their profits changed not a whit. In 1985, they averaged 22 per cent, and one of them had profits over sales of 51 per cent. Therefore, they are profitable. In fact, this sector is more profitable than any other manufacturing sector.
One must ask why the Government would suggest 10 years of exclusivity. Why were the recommendations of Eastman ignored? Why would a Government respond not to the needs
April 2, 1987

of the people, not to the recommendations of a well and carefully prepared report, but to the demands of an American Government? It is sinful that a Government would behave in such a way. One must remember that this is a Government which 78 per cent of the population regards as an appropriate Party for the Opposition. I, too, share with the Canadian people their hope that some day the Party which is in government now will be as effective in opposition when we are in government as this Party is today.


Roland de Corneille: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 15. These motions fall into two general areas. Motions Nos. 3, 13 and 15 profoundly affect the Canadian biotechnological firms which see this legislation as a grave threat to their survival. Motions Nos. 4, 5, and 11 fall into another grouping. Motion No. 3 deals with a subsection which reads:
(b) where the invention is other than a process, to make or use the invention
for medicine or for the preparation or production of medicine-
These motions are asking for the removal of these sections. I wish the Government would appreciate what the impact upon the biotechnological industry in Canada will be if these sections are not removed.
These motions are moved by the Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) who has been spending a great deal of time listening to and studying the representations made by Canadian and multinational drug producers as well as all the organizations and people who will be adversely affected by the general trend and development of the Bill itself. The Bill is a threat, not only to companies operating in Canada and the pharmaceutical business, but also to the taxpayer, the provinces, and their budgets.
It is a particular threat to those in weaker positions, the elderly, those more prone to the need for drugs, those who are handicapped and disabled, and to poorer people of our population. It is certainly a threat to the disadvantaged groups which often turn out to be various people of certain races in areas of our country which are economically deprived. I am thinking, of course, at this moment of our native Canadians whom we have already so badly disappointed. There is already a crushing burden in so many ways upon those who are weak and poor in our society and the regions of our country which are not benefiting from the present increase in employment. The benefits being enjoyed in the Golden Elorseshoe are not being enjoyed in areas like Newfoundland and British Columbia. It is for these disadvantaged that we speak because any increase in the cost of drugs ultimately, whether in the short run or the long run, will be a source of suffering for them.
We can talk about providing, perhaps, more research, and that case has not, to my mind, been proven. But even if there were more research in Canada, that does not solve the problem of the suffering that higher drug prices will mean to those who are poorer and less advantaged. It is for them that the Bill,
Patent Act
which allowed Canadian companies to enter into the generic drug field after a reasonable period of time, was originally passed, so there would then be that kind of fair competition which would allow people in Canada to buy drugs at a reasonable price.
Members of our Party certainly are not opposed, in fact, welcome the idea that there be some decent profit for those companies which have had the courage to go into private enterprise and do the research for drugs and bring them on the market. Obviously, if we did not give some kind of rewards to such companies there would be no reason for them to do the research they do. At the same time, it seems to us Draconian to think we are going to give such complete protection to multinational foreign companies to continue almost endlessly, at least for the living life of the drug itself, to charge the kinds of prices they wish to charge.
I know the Government will say there are some forms of protection so that drug prices will not be unreasonable. Even those who are involved confess that it will be quite some time before the hearings are completed, before the value of the drug is really assessed, and we are not at all persuaded that through such a long process the interests of the public will be served, especially those who are less well off financially.
It seems like a tragic form of inverted logic, or a form of hoodwinking, when Members of the Government try to persuade the Canadian people that a 10 year protection is something that is required in order to provide worth-while research in this field. We know that multinational companies have been profiting rather well. We know they are still selling their products in this country. We certainly feel there is a need for some kind of fair competition.
We have been trying as a Party to follow the recommendations of the Eastman Commission which studied this matter. It suggests that there be a moderate approach to this whole question. On the one hand there would be respect for the need for research and adequate encouragement and, on the other hand, generic drugs would be provided to the Canadian public in a reasonable time period. Because of policies we have followed up to this time, Canadians have profited by lower drug costs. We have one of the best pricing systems in the world. Yet, the research which has been done has not been any less. In fact, I think we can, if we wish, provide incentives to Canadian companies to carry on research here. There would be plenty of opportunity to do so.
What will happen if this Government's Bill is passed, ultimately, is that multinational corporations will make a large profit, and the Canadian public will not be protected by the possibility of lower generic drugs being brought on the market, which means they will pay higher prices than they otherwise would. All of the abracadabra of the Minister who tries to play around with these words about what is more or less, will not fool the Canadian public one bit. If there is no competition through generic drugs we know that drugs will cost more than they otherwise would if there were generic drugs available. It is that simple and logical. Therefore, when we say that the cost

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
of drugs will be higher, that is what they will be, higher than if the Government did not pass this Bill. If this Bill is not passed, the cost of drugs will not go up, and they will cost more if this Government's Bills are passed in future years.
The cost of health care is going to increase over the years as we have a larger and larger aging population. We still have not come under this Government's great era of supposed economic improvement. The same number of people are at the poverty line. As the provinces try to pay the cost of drugs to take care of those who, in larger numbers, are going to need those drugs, obviously the taxpayers are going to have to pay more money. Canadians will have to pay more money at the pharmacy. I do not think the pharmaceutical industry enjoys one bit having to charge more. I am sure it has appreciated the pleasure of seeing the availability of drugs to the senior citizens and poorer people.
I would suggest that the Government should go back to the drawing board and at least consider these amendments which are before it for consideration. I hope these amendments will be allowed to pass.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I am very glad to have a chance to speak on this group of amendments. The amendment I am promoting, of course, is Motion No. 4. This clause of the Bill would give a monopoly of up to 10 years, depending on circumstances, to the producer or manufacturer of a new drug. Our amendment would reduce that monopoly to four years. This is based on the study by Professor Eastman which received a very wide consensus in the country. He argued there should be some time protection for the patent, but not as much as 10 years. He recommended four years on the basis of intensive study. Why? He said that at the end of four years it was appropriate to let competition from the generic drug industry, which by now is well established in Canada and employs many people, lower or at least prevent a rise in price. His study estimates that in 1983 alone the present legislation saved people $211 million. This means senior citizens, young people, and persons who are mainly dependent on these drugs, would have paid $211 million more in total had the present generic drug legislation not been in place. That is the kind of benefit that will be considerably lost if this new legislation goes through without our amendment which would restore some protection to the consumers.
The point of view of the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States and the multinational profit drug industry, is that not only will they lose money-which they do not emphasize very much-but they will not create so many jobs in Canada, they will not produce new drugs in Canada and there will be higher prices than otherwise for any new drugs which are produced in Canada or elsewhere. We cannot take those arguments seriously. The fact is that the drug industry, which promised 3,000 new professional class jobs, turned out to be flim-flamming the public through the Minister. Only 1,148 professional jobs will be created. The large majority of the 3,000 jobs would be lower clerical and manual jobs. Of course, the industry does not mention that by
doing this the pharmaceutical multinationals would destroy or cut back the generic drug industry in Canada. This means that many jobs could be lost if the Bill passes without the adoption of the amendments we have proposed.
According to a study by the Consumers' Association of Canada the multinationals are doing very well at the present time in Canada in terms of their prices and their profits. If they wanted to establish research in Canada they have the profits with which to do it. When they say that to continue with the 1969 legislation would cost us these new jobs, they ignore the fact that before the 1969 legislation was enacted there were 12,645 jobs in the drug industry, almost none of them in the generic firms. However, in 1982, after the legislation had been in force for 13 years, there were 15,707 jobs, about 1,300 of them in generic firms. Thus if the 1969 legislation had any effect on employment, it was to encourage an increase of about 25 per cent or 3,000 new jobs.
With respect to whether research and development has slowed, the fact is that very little research was being done before 1969. There is little reason to suppose that the multinationals will change their habits. They now have highly centralized world-wide production with high technology and low labour components. It is not likely that out of friendship they will establish many operations in Canada that will produce jobs, especially good jobs. By the same token, it is not likely that they will develop any new drugs in Canada. They were not doing that before. With respect to new drug prices being lower if they are granted a 10-year monopoly, that has absolutely no basis in terms of the experience before 1969. So there is no reason to think that if we give the multinational drug companies a 10-year monopoly there will be any benefit to Canadians in terms of drug prices or in terms of new drugs.
With respect to the benefit in terms of jobs, there could very well be more jobs lost than gained. If they do put in place 3,000 new jobs, that would only balance the 3,000 jobs that were created as a result of the 1969 legislation. Such a move would simply replace those 3,000 jobs. So there would be no net gain in terms of jobs.
The best arrangement would be to keep the old Bill in place, or to make more cautious changes to it. If the new Bill is introduced, we will need the amendment which we are now discussing, which would cut the monopoly from 10 years to four years. Monopolies are a fact of life. Bell Canada is a monopoly. We all know the difficulty consumers have in terms of getting a fair shake for a fair price out of Bell. The gas companies are near monopolies. We all know the difficulties we have in seeing any real competition which would lower the price of gas. It will be the same among these multinational drug companies. They now bring in a profit of between 22 per cent and 59 per cent per year. They do not really need to take any more money from the senior citizens and the children of Canada who are the main beneficiaries of prescription drugs.
April 2, 1987

We have a good health system in Canada as compared to the United States, which is the home of the majority of the multinationals which deal in Canada. The health system costs less per person in Canada than it does in the United States. In fact, it produces a higher level of health for the people of Canada than the American system produces for its people. We are getting far more for our money in terms of health care than the people of the United States are getting for theirs. Part of the system that has produced this benefit for the people of Canada has been a result of the generic drug legislation which was passed in 1969 which kept a reasonable ceiling on the price of prescription drugs. Therefore, this amendment is to the benefit of millions of ordinary Canadians. It far outweighs any doubtful claim that the Government or the multinationals can make, or that President Reagan can make when he leans on our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that giving still more money to the monopolies will create extra jobs and new drugs and would, by some magic that the monopolies have never demonstrated, bring drug prices down.
I urge the House to adopt Motion No. 4 and the other amendments which are in the same spirit which would prevent the destruction, the erosion of the present generic drug legislation which has been of such benefit to Canadians during the last 18 years and which is basically very much needed by all Canadians, but in particular those most at risk, that is, senior citizens and children.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendement of my colleague for Cape Breton

East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I think it is important to remind our listeners what Bill C-22 is meant to amend. At present, as far as drug research is concerned, immediately after a new product has been introduced on the market, a so-called generic company can make a copy of the product and sell it cheaper. Such a legislation has been truly effective to meet the needs of Canadians. We should recall that that measure had been introduced by the Liberal Government in which Mr. Turner was Minister of Finance.
As a result of a review, especially at the request of the Quebec government and various socio-economic groups in the Montreal area, it was important to study the matter to see whether amendments should be made to protect jobs as well as research and discoveries made by our scientists.
Madam Speaker, I believe the amendment suggested by my colleague follows the recommendation that was made in the Eastman report following consultations, meetings with various parties involved and apparently with the approval of the majority. Unfortunately, as usual the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister yielded to the blackmail of both the American Government and the drug-producing multinationals, so they decided to allow a 10 year protection period, which is tantamount to inflating drug prices and hitting hard at lower and middle-income people. There are four million of
Patent Act
them in Canada, and they have no private insurance protection, nor any kind of coverage provided by employers or the Government.
The Government may very well claim that prices will not go up, but this is not true, and the question which immediately comes to mind is this: If the Government is convinced that prices will not increase because of the 10 year protection, then why does it make allowance in the Bill for something like $100 million to be given to the provinces to compensate for the higher costs paid by health ministries? We know that in terms of social assistance and in hospitals this means those people would face higher prices.
Hon. Members will recall as well-and this is not surprising since it came from the Conservative Government-that the Government chose to tax sick people to the tune of 10 per cent. The tax on sick people is now up to 11 per cent, and these include people suffering from diabetes or cardiovascular and respiratory troubles, but pressure groups and the Official Opposition got together and forced the Government to back down once more in this case and withdraw this 10 per cent tax on sick people. But even a minimum of drugs must be kept in the family cabinet, say a father and mother, or a single-parent family with young children, and the fact is that these people must now pay this tax. So this means that in Canada, the more people are sick because of bad weather, the more the Conservative Government is happy, because the more money finds its way into the coffers. Their reaction is the same with this Bill.
I would strongly urge Conservative Members to consider amendment No. 5, put forward by my colleague, which would quite simply bring that down from 10 years to four or five. I would have the following question for Conservative Members: When we come up with an amendment, why is there no agreement? Let us not bow to pressures from multinational corporations. We say: Let us try that for four years, and after four years we will get together, make an assessment, see what impact this has had on consumers, what impact it has had on the drug industry, on research, and what impact it has had on the generic drugs industry. And based on that four or five-year experience-we can be flexible as to one year more or less-we can then see whether we should, based on that experience, go ahead and ask for a longer protection or reduce the protection, whichever way experience tells us.
Unfortunately, this Tory Government once more is going the wrong way about it. They say: We will protect you for 10 years. We guarantee that. You can rely on us, you have a ten-year protection. But five years down the road, we will make a review, to know whether this is sound. Why proceed that way? This Tory Government always proceeds backward. There is nothing new about it, if we look at the matter of de-indexing Old Age Security. I know, Madam Speaker, you do not appreciate it when I refer to Mrs. Solange Denis, but I will refer to her, and I will keep on referring to her. If we look at what happened with the Old Age Security pensions, the early retirement pensions and now with this tax on the sick in this

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
Bill, it is easy to see that once again the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister are anxious to please the rich, not the ordinary rich, but the very affluent and the multinationals, which explains that they have yielded to blackmail.
On the other hand, I should like to remind Canadians of the position put forward by the NDP which completely opposes any amendment, thereby going against the interests and concerns of Quebecers. As evidence of this, I have here the report prepared by the Minister's Advisory Committee on the Montreal Region Development. Recommendation 36 reads, and I quote: "To change without delay the Federal Patent Act which amends Section 41(4) to provide a greater protection to intellectual property".
Madam Speaker, I wonder why the NDP, which is fighting for the Auto Pact-something I support-which guarantees jobs mostly in Ontario but forces Canadians to pay more for their cars, now that it is the jobs in Quebec which need protection why does the NDP object in an anti-Quebec action to have this Bill amended so that people would agree to pay just a little bit more, in order to protect jobs, research facilities and our young people in Quebec.
Madam Speaker, I was present at the economic summit in Montreal, and the person sitting on the Advisory Committee on the Montreal Region Development-was Mr. Louis Laberge, who is president of the Quebec Labour Federation, la Federation des travailleurs du Quebec who also attended the NDP convention, therefore I strongly urge the NDP Leader, if he does not want to have the same image as the Prime Minister, to be intellectually honest and tell Quebecers once and for all: In the unanimous request made by the Liberal Parties, the Parti Quebecois, the Montreal Civic Party, the Montreal Citizens' Movement, the three labour unions, and the Official Opposition of the Liberal Party, why is the NDP leader opposed to the demands made by Quebecers, why does the NDP leader simply refuse to listen and give an answer to Quebecers? He must respond clearly. He will have to put an end to such hypocrisy once and for all. Once and for all, if he wants to project the image of an intellectually honest man, something the Prime Minister cannot do, he will have to tell Quebecers, first why he is not prepared to provide a minimum of protection as most Canadians and all Quebecers want, and second why these people are going against the expert advice of the Eastman Commission-and my colleague from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) has defended this cause. Let him state clearly the reasons why ... if the NDP leader is right, all he needs to do is prove it to all Quebecers, meet with the Premier of Quebec and with the Leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec, but he must tell us why Quebecers are wrong.
Madam Speaker, if the New Democratic Party leader fails to reply and does not tell the truth to Quebecers, he will be courting disaster. This is his only chance to project a good image.
Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that the New Democratic Party Members who are here will convey the message-and the message is very clear-to their Party leader.
Madam Speaker, I should like to get back to the contents. For what reason do Quebecers-there has to be a reason-why do all Quebecers, regardless of political faction-the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois find it hard to share the same bed-but for what reason do these two ... Madam Speaker, I have one minute left... Why are those two Parties, why is the FTQ and Louis Laberge, which is part of the Canada Labour Congress, why is Mrs. Leblanc, President of the Federation de I'Age d'Or du Quebec, why is Yvon Charbonneau, hardly a Liberal and President of the Central Teachers' Union, why is Gerald Larose, President of the CSN, why are all these people who represent such divergent opinions agreed on the position taken by the Liberal Party of Canada and by the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (Mr. Turner), and thus asking for protection? It is simply because most pharmaceutical companies are located in Quebec, in the Montreal area. And that is where so many jobs were lost. I want to ask the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party if he is asking Quebecers, and this is just in concluding, Madam Speaker, to pay more for their American cars to save jobs in Ontario, to accept the amendment proposed by the Liberals to save jobs and universities in Quebec.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the amendment. Despite the claim of the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), what this amendment does is to insert into the legislation what Professor Eastman suggested in his study, and that is, that patent protection be given for a four-year period.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie spoke with a fair amount of wind, but very little substance-and perhaps that is understandable, Madam Speaker, when one considers that the political Party of which I am a member, the New Democratic Party, is snapping at the heels of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: For the first time, we have heard the members of the Liberal caucus from Quebec addressing the concerns of the New Democratic Party. They are not normally concerned with us-


An Hon. Member:: You only got 61 out.


An Hon. Member:: They represented thousands.


An Hon. Member:: We had more on one Sunday than you had-
April 2, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the Hon. Member who has the floor. I would ask all other Members to allow the Chair to at least to hear what the Hon. Member has to say.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is not surprising to hear the uproar coming from the Liberal benches. If we were not a threat, they would just laugh at us and ignore us. The fact is, we are a threat, and we continue to be a threat. We are closing in on them. And the reason for that, Madam Speaker, is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party, and in particular the hypocrisy it exhibits when it comes to this particular Bill. This is yet another example.
This is the Party, Madam Speaker, of Mackenzie King, who said: "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription." In this case, we have: Bill C-22 if necessary, but not necessarily Bill C-22. It is a Party, Madam Speaker, that is trying to cover every conceivable position. Other examples are the Cruise missile and free trade.
9 (1640)
The only way the Liberal Party could survive is if it were an octopus with many legs to cover many positions. However, in our society one must generally stand with both feet on one position-either one is for or against. One must let the people know where one stands. This is why I wonder whether the Liberal Party, after sitting so long on both sides of the fence, has some pain in its derriere and whether it is that pain which creates the outrage we heard this afternoon when its members attempted to address the motion.
What is our amendment? It is to amend Bill C-22 so that the pharmaceutical industry has four years in which it has exclusive patent rights. This is what Professor Eastman recommended in his study, one of the most exhaustive and competent studies of the pharmaceutical industry. In essence, it is what the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs advocated. At least he came close to it when he initially suggested six years. A little later, after a little more pressure from the multinationals, he suggested eight years. Now we see in the legislation that the Government wants the pharmaceutical industry and multinational corporations to have 10 years of exclusive rights.
We cannot go along with that. I think it perpetuates a rip-off of the Canadian people. Particularly it is a rip-off of those who are ill, the elderly, expectant mothers, people with chronic illnesses, and so on. We in the New Democratic Party just do not believe that those who are ill should be the object of exploitation, that their illness should allow others to exploit them for long periods of time. In fact, we find it immoral. Surely in this day and age it cannot be justified.
Government Members can claim intellectual property rights. I admit that when a corporation makes a breakthrough it should be rewarded fairly for the investment in the discovery of a new drug or whatever. I underline the word "fairly",
Patent Act
because while the corporation will have invested in the new discovery, the public has also made an investment. We invest in our educational system. We invest in our university system. We invest in public research. This assists the corporations and allows for discoveries to occur. There is a public investment in all new discoveries. I maintain that the public also has an interest and a right to enjoy the benefits of new discoveries without being exploited. That is what Professor Eastman also stated.
When Professor Eastman appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-22, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked him for his thoughts about the proposed legislation compared with what he recommended in his report. This is what Professor Eastman stated:
I have to come clean with you; I still prefer the proposals 1 made... I realize that persuasive though a commission's recommendations often are, they are not always accepted. .
We know that Professor Eastman recommended four years. What was the reasoning behind the four years? He stated that initially a brand new product comes out, not a copy or a variation of an existing drug, to address an illness in a new way. The first years are the years in which the largest amount of profit occurs. It is also the period of time when a large amount of promotion occurs to sell the new drug, to popularize the new drug, and to make the public aware of its availability. He stated that after the four-year period prices were well above what were the costs of producing and promoting the drug, that in the four-year period all investments made in the development of the drug were generally taken back by the corporation. In other words, it makes enough money in the first four years to cover more than adequately all expenses in developing the drug. This is why we asked the Government in our amendment to restrict the patent rights to only four years, not ten years.
Why should it be 10 years? Why should we allow the exploitation of the sick to continue for 10 years? Four years is enough. Four years will repay multinational corporations in a more than adequate way for the costs they have incurred in developing a new product.
Let me return to the central question: Why is the Government bringing in this piece of legislation? It knows that there are political risks. I refer to an article which appeared in the Friday, November 7, 1986 edition of The Ottawa Citizen entitled "Tories' medical drug bill a mistake". It indicates: "Bid to change generic drug law a political risk, says Andre". The Minister knows that it is a political risk despite the fact that he trots into the House with a phoney survey. He knows that Canadians are opposed to the legislation, yet the Government is willing to take the risk. I wonder why.
Perhaps the answer can be found in the following statement:
"We've been exercising uncommon patience but even our patience wears thin", says Clayton Yeutter, U.S. Trade Representative, in April, when he called on the Mulroney administration to keep its repeated promises to make the changes the U.S. wants.

April 2, 1987
Patent Act
That is the answer to the question concerning why the Government is introducing legislation to which it knows Canadians are opposed, legislation which will increase the cost of drugs to Canadians and will increase the costs of Governments. The costs in jurisdictions with drug plans will increase. Either drug plans will cover less items or there will be less service, or there will be more public expenditure.
I see you signalling, Madam Speaker, that my time is up. I conclude by saying that the Government is under the pressure of the multinational corporations in the United States. It is buckling under because it finds that it is in its interest to support the multinationals rather than support Canadians. Therefore, I am opposed to the legislation and in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair once again for this very important debate. It was very amusing to hear the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) speak about the virtues of the NDP in the Province of Quebec and trumpet the some 1,500 individuals at its annual convention. If Canadians only knew that of the 1,500 people attending that conference only 61 were Francophones, only 61 were from the Province of Quebec-


Mr. Nystrom:: Look at the polls.


Sergio Marchi: Let us not suggest that we are about to perpetrate something on the Canadian electorate that is not true. We must keep things in perspective. We must tell Canadians the facts. We must live with reality rather than with dreams. Therefore, when NDP Members begin to suggest that they are on the move, I would suggest that it is a lot of spinning wheels, a lot of fajades, and a lot of pushing their Leader forward when everyone is questioning the policy behind their Leader.
If you looked at the polls-members of the NDP said, "Look at the polls,"-you would find that Canadians are very worried about having the New Democratic Party heading our national Government. Canadians are worried about the NDP's defence policies, about an increase in taxes, about its position on NATO, and about its position on nationalizing the banks. When that grand microscope addresses the NDP in a specific way, Canadians will know what the NDP stands for. I do not want to get side-tracked, Madam Speaker. I do not want to play the New Democrat's game.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I would like to remind the Hon. Member who has the floor that it is very difficult for the Chair to make the link between his comments and the motion being discussed. I do know, and I will say to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) was not making things easy for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We now have nine minutes left in the debate before we go on to the next item on the Order Paper. Perhaps we should all listen to the Hon. Member.


Sergio Marchi: I was just getting to the Bill when I was talking about the microscope, Madam Speaker. I was talking about the microscope in the labs, which brings us to Bill C-22.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Attewell:: Madam Speaker, could you enlighten us as to what Beauchesne has to say about lovers' quarrels going on in the House?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Jealous lover.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, here we are debating a very significant piece of legislation and the Hon. Member, inspired by the coming of spring, is thinking totally different thoughts.
Let us take a look at Bill C-22. If one used a microscope one would see a lot of strange things. One has a difficult time understanding how the Government can proceed with Bill C-22. Canadians are trying to find the legitimacy of a Government proceeding with Bill C-22, which will have, among other effects, the effect of raising drug prices.
Dr. Eastman suggested that a patent should be for no more than four years. But we have a Government which is trying to suggest that the watershed should be 10 years. We have to ask ourselves why the Government is supporting this legislation, why the patent should be for 10 years rather than four, why drug prices should be increased, why the protection and the interests of consumer becomes secondary to the interests of the large multinational corporations.
The question of drug pricing in Canada should not be based on whether you have the money to pay. The question should be maximum accessibility, maximum fairness, and the health of Canadians. It should not matter whether you are an old Canadian, a young Canadian, a rich Canadian or whether you are a Canadian who lives in western or eastern Canada. If we are to have reform in the area of drug pricing and if we have to have changes and modifications, they should be made to strengthen the accessibility and the affordability of drugs for all Canadians.
When we look at patents, we should not be looking at extending the number of years by which companies have a monopoly on those initial drugs introduced into the marketplace. The question should be on reforming the royalties, which would imply that other companies can also manufacture those same drugs and thus keep the prices lower. Under that type of system everyone would win. The drug companies would be making profits in the first four years, subsequent to which
April 2, 1987

they will collect royalties. Other companies would be able to manufacture the products, make dollars, pay royalties, and consumers would be paying reasonable prices for drugs.
That is the type of progressive discussion and the type of debate Canadians would support and rally behind. But when we have a Government that is moving simply to satisfy the large multinational corporations and is taking its marching orders from the large multinational corporations to the south whose interest Bill C-22 serves, you will not get the support of average Canadians.
We had a debate in this House not too long ago on the whole question of deindexation of senior citizens' pensions. The Government thought it would win because it assumed incorrectly that it was going against a largely unorganized passive senior citizen community across the nation. How wrong the Government was. How wrong that piece of legislation was. That was demonstrated not only in this House of Commons by the two opposition Parties but also out in the streets, in the rallies, in the meetings, through petitions, and in telephone calls and letters to parliamentarians and to organizations. We had an emotional debate. It not only focused on senior citizens but it addressed Canadians of all ages who were able to identify with the plight of senior citizens. Bill C-22 is of the same cloth, Madam Speaker. It will mobilize that same constituency. For those people who fought the good fight, this legislation has the same definition that drugs should be accessible and affordable to all. This, together with the health care system, goes hand in hand. We are proud as a country to have had Governments which had the conviction to bring in a medicare system second to none. We are proud when we hear that senior citizens in the U.S. have to pay an arm and a leg and have to mortgage everything they have in order to have an operation in the U.S.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to raise this point of order but if you would check the Standing Orders, I am sure you would agree with me that the Member who is speaking at present is speaking in general terms to the Bill before the House. He is not referring to the specific motion. It seems to me that it is important, if we are to have any sense of decorum in the House of Commons, any sense of progress in this debate and any intelligent logic for people watching us, that all Members should speak to the specific motion on the floor. I refer you to Motion No. 4, Madam Speaker. If you would check the record and consult with your experts at the Table you would agree with me that the Member is speaking in general terms. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would also agree that he has been doing that as well. The member should be referring specifically to the motion before us. If you would check Beauchesne and the precedents on this matter, I am sure that you would find that the Hon. Member who is in the process of speaking is clearly out of order. I think that reflects upon all of us in the House of Commons.
Right to Life
I hesitated to interrupt the Hon. Member because I know he had a few minutes left but I am sure that if you were to consult with the Table Officers, Madam Speaker, you would find that my point of order is legitimate and that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) was clearly out of order, something that is not appropriate for debate at this point in time.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party, I would say that he is way out of order. In fact, my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), was not only addressing Motion No. 4 but he was also addressing Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 15. I know that the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House intentionally. He referred to the word "motion". Surely the Hon. Member will understand that we are talking about a group of motions.
For the benefit of the Hon. Member, I repeat that we were debating Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 15. All members on all sides of the House can readily understand that the logic of the Hon. Member's train of thought in debate was perfectly in order with the amendments and motions put forward. I am sure the Hon. Member who just spoke would want to rise in his place to withdraw his ludicrous comments with regard to my colleague.


Sergio Marchi: And I was speaking with such great passion too.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has listened carefully to both the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), as she has listened to the very passionate speech of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). Having listened to speeches on this very interesting subject for most of the day, I think that most Hon. Members at times have somehow gone outside of the very strict limits of the motions being debated. I believe every Hon. Member wanted to have his or her say, and this is what has been done.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 RIGHT TO LIFE OF UNBORN HUMAN PERSONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mitges:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982, to include unborn human persons, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great
[Stage Direction]
April 2, 1987
Right to Life
Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that
it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
And the amendment of Mr. Domm:
That the motion be amended in paragraph numbered 7 in the English version,
by adding immediately after the word "unborn" the word "human".
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Madam Speaker, in speaking to this motion, I would like first to congratulate the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) for his continuous and courageous defence of the rights of the unborn child. I would also like to congratulate those who have spoken before me in favour of this motion. They have dealt with it in an eloquent and convincing manner on behalf of the unborn child. In particular, I would like to congratulate the seat-mate I first had when I came to the House, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom), who on several occasions has spoken in support of the rights of the unborn child. I would also like to congratulate my present seat-mate, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson).
During my election campaign, a pro-life debate was held and candidates were asked to put forward their positions on the important question of the rights of unborn children. In that debate, I outlined three particular reasons for my position on this issue. I said first that I accepted that human life is different from other life forms on earth. Second, I said that on secular, philosophical grounds, I opposed the destruction of unborn children. I said that this is not a religious issue but that it is a human issue that crosses all societies and all races. In fact, one of the chief proponents of increased recognition of the rights of unborn Canadians, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is a leading pro-life advocate in North America and opposes abortion because it is the arbitrary destruction of human life. Dr. Nathanson is an atheist.
The core of my opposition to abortion on demand is a conviction that this is a violation of the civil rights of the unborn child. In earlier speeches in the House and particularly in the speech I made on January 17, 1986, in support of a private Member's Bill I introduced, Bill C-254, I put forward the case for support for the biological reality of life before birth. I said that the unborn child can sense pain, can respond to sweetness and sourness and can move. I put forward a description of the existing legal rights of unborn children and I made it very clear to all Hon. Members that when I speak about the legal rights of unborn children, I am not introducing a novel concept. Our existing body of law, both criminal and civil, recognizes that the unborn child has legal rights that can be enforced and that are being enforced in the courts today. I outlined to Hon. Members the wide abuse of our criminal law prohibition against abortion. Notwithstanding the prohibition against abortion that exists in Canada, there is a practice which in fact is abortion on demand.
Today's debate which focuses on a motion that calls for the entrenchment of the rights of the unborn child in the Canadian Constitution is one that is being watched widely by my constituents. Before I entered the House to speak today, I discussed this issue with a rural constituent of mine, Francis De Lorey, a very strong and courageous advocate of the rights of the unborn child. I spoke with others as well.
Today I will not repeat the arguments I made on earlier occasions with respect to legal rights or medical evidence. In my view, none of that is seriously disputed. I want to take this opportunity to deal with what I believe to be a false premise on which those who advocate abortion on demand base their argument, and that premise is that we as human beings have the right to control our bodies. That argument has a certain superficial appeal, but let us think a bit about it.
What is that right to control our bodies? Does any Member of the House have the right to be kept out of jail for committing a crime? Of course not. We do not have that right because our right to control our bodies is limited by the greater social interests of enforcing certain criminal laws. That is why we can be brought before justice if we commit a crime. We can be arrested. Where is our right to control our bodies if we can be arrested? Where is our right to control our bodies if we can be physically searched? We have no absolute right to control our bodies. The right to control our bodies is a limited one. It is limited by the rights of others and by the greater social good. We see this in many situations. We cannot, for example, speak in an irresponsible way. We have free speech, but we cannot publicly condemn other people and make false statements. If we do we can be called before the civil courts and penalized.
The right to free speech is a limited right. Therefore, when I speak to the argument being put forward, which has so much superficial appeal, that a woman has the right to control her body, I think it is a false argument. It is not borne out by our legal system or by the decisions made on a daily basis concerning the rights of individuals. This Parliament and others have decided that our rights can sometimes be limited. In the case of the unborn, we are talking about the most basic of all rights, the right of that unborn child to live. It is interesting that we talk about an "unborn child". By definition a child is a person. We admit that a person exists before birth.
To conclude, it is time that we amended our Constitution to reflect the biological reality and the legal revolution taking place in our society which recognizes that biological reality. It is time that Canadian jurisprudence explicitly reflected the right of the unborn child to life. In doing so it will reflect the balancing of civil and legal rights which is an ongoing part of the evolution of our society. I urge all Hon. Members to support this motion when it comes to a vote.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise to express my profound concern about and opposition to the motion presented by my friend, the Hon. Member for Grey Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). I recognize the strong and deep feelings
April 2, 1987

which he brings to this question. However, I must say that I believe the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution would bring profound difficulties to the Canadian system of justice. The implications in a constitutional sense are grave and far-reaching. Most important, the implications for the women of Canada who have the right to freedom of choice on this fundamental question are very, very serious indeed.
I want to note as well that the Hon. Member has also strongly advocated that a woman who knowingly, to use his words, snuffs out a life in her womb deserves to be punished the same as anyone else convicted of premeditated murder. When asked whether that meant he would support the death penalty for women who have an abortion when their lives are not in jeopardy, his response was, and I quote, "Absolutely". Here we have a Conservative Member of Parliament advocating the death penalty for women who seek safe therapeutic abortions. I find it extraordinary that not one of that member's colleagues has stood in the House to make clear his or her opposition to this incredible suggestion. What he is saying is that women who choose to have an abortion, and it is often an agonizing personal decision, must subsequently be themselves put to death for making that decision. What an incredibly offensive and destructive attack on the women of Canada. Yet that suggestion is greeted with total silence by his colleagues in the Conservative Party.
We in the NDP agree with the concerns recently raised by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

The President of the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Mrs. Sylvia Gold, recently criticized the lack of abortion facilities across the country and the serious problems arising from this situation. She pointed out that abortion facilities in Canada had deteriorated to the point that a number of provinces were facing a real crisis. For instance, in Prince Edward Island, women cannot have abortions. In Newfoundland, there are serious problems as well. There is one doctor who agrees to perform legal abortions, but now that he is ill, there no legal abortions are being performed in Newfoundland.

I think all Canadians would agree that we as a society have to take whatever steps we can to reduce the number of abortions in Canada. That means there must be effective sex education in our schools. There must be awareness, among our young people particularly and in society generally, of birth control. Groups such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada must be supported instead of having their funding cut as occurred recently.
It is interesting to note that when the Supreme Court of Canada was hearing the appeal of yet another jury acquittal of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Mr. Justice Willard Estey mused aloud that a person would have to be affected with what he called legislative blindness not to see that there are areas in the country where there is no access to abortion whatsoever. He
Right to Life
said we have whole provinces that are carved out of the process. He asked if this was some kind of local option which has slid into the Criminal Code. Of course he was asking a rhetorical question. We know, for example, that there are nurses in the Province of Newfoundland who must spend considerable amounts of time on the telephone arranging for Newfoundland women to have their abortions in Montreal or Toronto. This happens some 40 times each month. One-third of the women of Newfoundland seeking abortions are teenagers. Many of them have never flown before or even travelled outside of the communities in which they were raised. One 14-year old was 10 weeks pregnant before she finally summoned up the courage to tell her mother. That is not an uncommon occurrence. Many Canadian women have been obliged to go to the U.S. for abortions which theoretically are medically insured, legal and available in Canada. If that is the case, why is it that in 1984 over 400 women from Prince Edward Island went to Maine for abortions? Why did 1,200 women from Ontario go to New York for the same reason? Why did 700 women from Alberta go to Washington state? Surely the time has come to recognize that this is a procedure which must be taken out of the Criminal Code as the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Canadian Medical Association have both recommended.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has three essential recommendations. First, an abortion must be recognized as a medical procedure that need not be performed in a hospital. Second, the federal and provincial Ministers of Health must approve publicly funded freestanding reproductive health clinics that would cover the whole range of the reproductive concerns of women. Third, that abortion be removed from the Criminal Code. I have tabled a Private Members' Bill in this session, just as I have in previous sessions, which would repeal the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion and leave this important decision to a woman in consultation with her doctor. By accepting these recommendations the Government would be preserving the health and well-being of women's lives.
The proposal which has been made by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe to entrench this right in the Constitution of Canada could raise very serious concerns with regard to the implications of the interpretations of other legal rights in the Charter of Rights. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to pursue that particular issue, but I would like to raise briefly one other concern in this area.
There are Canadians who have recently learned of the activities of a particular organization called the Catholic Foundation for Human Life. This is a Canadian organization headed by a gentleman named David Little. Unfortunately, this organization uses treachery, deceit and dishonesty to lure pregnant women into its clinics. It suggests that if women come to their clinics they will be able to get objective advice with regard to abortions in Canada. Once they get into the office, they are instead shown films about abortion which

April 2, 1987
Right to Life
include a whole range of subjects, and it is suggested to them, for example, that they would be totally lacking in self respect if they went ahead and had a safe therapeutic abortion. It scares women and lies to women.
The Catholic Foundation for Eluman Life must be exposed for what it really is. In the United States a similar organization has been part of a congressional investigation. Action is being taken against it in the State of California for consumer fraud. In Canada other groups, including the well-known group, Birthright, have dissociated themselves from this particular organization. The founder of Birthright has said that their methods are harmful to the entire Pro-Life movement and that there is no reason to deceive at any time.
I hope that the Government and Members of Parliament will recognize that the time is long overdue for women in Canada to have access to safe therapeutic abortions, and for Canadians in general to have access to proper sex education and birth control devices. Freedom of choice must finally become a reality for all Canadian women.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate this afternoon. I would like to congratulate the Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) who introduced this motion. I go back quite a long way on this particular issue. It is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest over the years while I have been a Member of Parliament.
In January of this year I presented a petition to the House of Commons which was presented to me by a church group in my constituency. The petition asked this House to take action to protect the lives of unborn children. The petition contained dozens of names, and I am convinced that they represent only a small percentage of the people in my constituency, let alone Canada, who are concerned about the lives of unborn children.
It has become apparent to me, through the initiatives of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe, that a great many Canadians are watching this debate with a great deal of interest and hoping that some action will be taken to provide greater protection for the unborn in our nation.
I support the need for an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide that "a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, in 1969 an amendment was made to the Criminal Code which permitted abortion under three basic conditions: one, if the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy; two, if the abortion is performed by a medical practitioner; and three, if the abortion application is approved by a therapeutic abortion committee in an approved hospital.
While the law provides for a therapeutic abortion if the life of the mother is at risk-and I believe that if such is the case the life of the mother must take priority-the rights of the unborn child are, by the same token, too loosely protected.
Many doctors frequently ignore the life of the child when dealing with a pregnancy. It has been pointed out by other speakers that we should be dealing with a program of public education and accepting the responsibility of ensuring that unwanted pregnancies are avoided before conception. I believe that education, comprehension and prevention are certainly the most effective ways of avoiding unwanted children. I know that millions of Canadians share my view that abortion cannot be an acceptable method of birth control.
I am pleased that this motion has come before the House. In the constitutional debate of 1981 I spoke in the House of Commons and urged that the life of the unborn child be included in the Charter. As I said then, the fact that the Charter of Rights does not recognize the right to life and the rights of the unborn child is a very serious shortcoming. My position on this has not changed. I still urge the House to include such a provision in the Charter. I do not hesitate to point out that there are obviously those who disagree with me in my position on this matter. However, I have received a substantial amount of representation urging me to comply with the motion put forth by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe. I believe that there is no doubt that a great many people believe that no one has the right to take the life of an innocent human being.
I would like to quote from some of the letters that I have received from my constituents. One reads:
I am in full agreement with protecting the life of the mother. However, what I see happening in our country goes far beyond that. Abortions are being performed by the thousands in our hospitals as a matter of convenience to the mothers. It is common knowledge that in most hospitals the therapeutic abortion committees rubber-stamp the requests.
Another reads:
Please take a firm stand against the awful crime of abortion and speak out for the cause of justice, life and rights of the unborn.
Yet another reads:
What kind of society are we to allow killing of the unborn, unsuspecting fetus just because of their parents' selfishness and not wanting the responsibility to care and nurture them. This is what life is all about.
I have literally dozens of letters of this nature which have come to me from my constituents. There have been many charges made by pro-abortion support groups which basically say that pro-lifers are imposing their opinions on others. I do not believe that it is really a matter of imposing opinions of morality on others, but a question of defending the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. I submit that unborn children are human beings who, by reason of their physical and mental limitations, require special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection.
Prior to 1969, the law was steadfast in its protection of unborn children. Unfortunately, as a result of the Criminal Code amendment in 1969 there has come to pass a loss of protection for unborn children. As a result of that, there have been hundreds of thousands of lives aborted primarily as a means of birth control. This has committed society to place the quality of life of one person, that being the mother, above the
April 2, 1987

protection of the existence of another, that being the unborn child.
The most basic right of all, the right to life, has become undermined. Canada's legal system upholds the principle that no one has the right to take the life of another innocent person. What we are seeing here is that innocent human life may be taken to protect the quality of life of a person more powerful, a person with choice. I submit that we can no longer, as a society, permit that kind of focus in laying the ground work and rules for what we know is just not the proper position for a caring society to take.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grey Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights in order that human foetus or unborn beings are given full protection of the law. Since 1969, when the Criminal Code was amended, Canada has been split into two distinct factions on the question of abortion. I strongly believe that life begins at conception and therefore must be protected, as my seat-mate, the Elon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) so eloquently pointed out earlier on.
The question of the rights of the unborn has been with us since man has been able to affect his environment. Once man learned he could manipulate his surroundings and was able to apply his knowledge to further his existence, the question of life became his focal point. The Bible is very explicit on life. Deuteronomy 30: 19 states:
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before
you life and death, blessing and curse: therefore choose life, that you and your
descendants may live, loving the Lord your God.
All major religions have made the protection of life a major part of their beliefs. "Choose life" is what the motion before us today is all about. By entrenching the right to life of a human foetus, or the unborn, we will finally bestow the fundamental principles of justice on the innocent who have yet to be born.
My focus on this motion will be from a contemporary and scientific perspective, because I feel that science is much easier to understand and accept for most people as proof that life begins at conception and, as such, the rights of the unborn must be protected in the same way as our own rights.
Advances in science such as ultrasound and photographic histeroscopy have provided the solid evidence that life begins at conception, as Dr. Nathanson showed Members of Parliament on the Hill this week with his film Eclipse of Reason. The question as to when life becomes human is, never. Like life, humanity is continuous. Intrinsically and extrinsically, the sperm, ovum, the zygote and all the cells, tissue and stages which arise from the zygote, are human. None of them can every be categorized as belonging to any other species. Human life is not started, it is transmitted. There is no instant or
Right to Life
interval of time between fertilization and birth when the unborn offspring is anything but human.
Flanagan writes in The First Nine Months-. "From the first hour the human cells are distinctly human". The medical profession is in complete agreement with this statement. The international code of medical ethics states: "A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death". Similarly, the declaration of Geneva reads: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception".
It is apparent that human life is recognized as beginning at conception, and abortion must then be the taking of human life. An editorial in the pro-abortion journal California Medicine admits that abortion is the taking of human life. The editorial states:
The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of the
western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to
preserve, protect, repair, prolong and enhance every human life.
Since the old ethic, fortunately, has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, readily accepted, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra or extra-uterine, until death.
The considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because, while a new ethic is apparently being accepted, the old ethic, fortunately, has not yet been rejected.
The Pro-abortion Journal pulls no punches. It recognizes that the concept that life begins at conception is the tenet in which the majority of the population still believes. The only way to counter this is to describe abortion as socially acceptable and as a means for a woman to control her body. There is no thought given to the innocent life which is being barbarical-ly terminated. Yet abortions continue to be carried out at an average of 60,000 a year. Stop and think, Madam Speaker, 60,000 innocent lives are terminated each year in Canada for no reason whatsoever.
One may recognize that in some cases an abortion must be performed to preserve the physical health of the mother, but the overwhelming majority of abortions are made for purely social reasons. One asks how a human who possesses the capacities for consciousness, rationality and cognition makes such drastic decisions when it concerns human life. There is no thought given to the moral and physical obligation which is owed to the innocent life. Only the self is considered when such decisions are made.
Abortion is becoming the main means of contraception. Abortion has allowed individuals the freedom from responsibility for their actions. Individuals must accept responsibility for

April 2, 1987
Right to Life
their sexual acts. The end result of intercourse, with ensuing pregnancy, should be acceptance of the unborn child as a unique gift. Avoidance of pregnancy by responsible use of our sexuality is the only alternative to abortion. In today's society, there should be no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion cheapens the value of life. The ability to terminate a pregnancy with minimum discomfort gives individuals a lax attitude towards the sanctity of life. The greater ease with which abortion is conducted will serve to further desensitize the population to disregard the value of human life.
Respect for life is one of the cornerstones of our civilization. Any assaults on humans who are already born result in severe penalties on the perpetrators. Yet many in our society condone the barbaric acts inflicted on unborn human beings. We cannot have a double standard towards life. Either life is accepted as sacred for all or society runs the risk of cheapening the value of human life.
The main argument used to deny the unborn human the full protection of our laws is, meekly, that a foetus is not human because it cannot think. However, scientific evidence, to which I referred earlier, is clear that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg cell. Most pregnancies are not even detected until the sixth week. By then the baby's heart has been beating for three weeks, brain waves can be read, the nervous system has been complete for about two weeks and he or she is about to begin moving, although the mother will not feel it for another three and a half months.
There are on average over 20,000 abortions every year in Canada under nine weeks. Yet the foetus's brain is registering activity. The presence of the brain activity should be a major deterrent against abortion. Brain activity clearly indicates the individual's humanity, recognized even until death. By the eighth week the baby's skeleton, head, face, arms, legs, fingers, with finger prints, toes, circulatory and major muscle systems are complete. Yet abortions are done.
By the twelfth week, the baby already shows a distinct individuality in both appearance and behaviour, with the facial expressions resembling those of his or her parents. During the period between nine to 12 weeks an average of 35,000 abortions are carried out each year. However, abortions do not stop at 12 weeks. There are each year an average of 6,500 abortions carried out on unborn children over 16 weeks. In fact, there is no legal time limit on abortion. An abortion can be carried out at any stage of the pregnancy, up to the ninth month. This must be stopped.
With all the scientific evidence that has been accumulated and our moral history, it is clear that life must be protected. An unborn child presently has no protection. A criminal proven guilty has more protection under the law than the unborn. Just stop and think about it-a guilty criminal has more protection than an unborn human being. The unborn are innocent. Yet their fate is determined by very little or no consideration at all. Compare the consideration given the
unborn to that a criminal receives in our justice system and it becomes apparent that something is very wrong with our morality.
Once life has begun it has the same right to reach its natural end. By destroying life to ensure one's economic and social success the human race is losing its honour and dignity. The human race which is now reaching for the stars must not be allowed to regress to the level where life has only a relative value.
I urge all Members of the House to give the unborn the right to survive. The Bible, and now science, have provided us with concrete evidence that life begins at conception. I will be supporting the motion which is before us. I urge all Members to do the same.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be entering into this debate this afternoon to put my thoughts and my position on abortion clearly on the record. I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) for the introduction of this motion. I would also like to acknowledge the amendment, which was ruled on on January 26, 1987, which added the word "human" to this resolution.
I believe that the addition of the word "human" was very important to the wording of the motion. I think that one of the reasons people are advocating the pro-choice position is that they have tried for some time now to de-humanize the unborn child. By referring to the unborn child as a "foetus" they somehow indicate that it is something less than a person. There has never been any doubt in my mind that the unborn child is a human person and becomes one at conception.
Our individual biological system begins at conception and will end at death. It provides us with the very obvious fact that life is a continuum. At all stages of this continuum we are human, as the science of genetics can document. Thus our humanity does not depend on our size, our stage of development or our place of residence. Calling human beings "embryos" or "foetuses" serves the same purpose as calling them "adolescents" or "adults". These scientific terms are used to indicate where a person is in his or her development. They were never meant to imply that the unborn child is not human. As the infant is different from the adolescent in terms of development and dependence, so the foetus is different from the infant. Yet all are genetically human and therefore persons. When we consider that at the moment we were conceived our blood group, the colour of our eyes, the colour of our skin, our sex and all our inherited qualities were actually already determined, would it not then be logical to conclude that since we had our own blood group, the colour of our eyes and our sex determined that we began to exist at conception?
Another commonly held myth centres around the belief that whatever is legal is moral-in this case abortion. We all know, if we look back in history, that there were some regimes which tried to legalize, and in fact did legalize, things that they were doing but things that were very immoral. Probably the most
April 2, 1987

common example of this is what took place in Germany during the Second World War. Although Hitler did legalize what took place, it was certainly very immoral. It was roundly condemned by other nations of the world.
I think that most adults in Canada would realize that abortion is killing a human being. I understand that in the United States there is a law that states if a person is convicted of destroying the egg of a bald eagle then that person can be fined up to $5,000. I am sure that everyone understands the thinking behind this law. It is that if one destroys a fertilized eagle's egg then one has destroyed an eaglet since a fertilized egg represents a potential eaglet.
I think it is also important to realize that this debate really began in 1969 when some amendments were made to the Criminal Code. What really happened in 1969 is that Parliament completely replaced judicial control after the fact by medical control before the fact. This is the real change in the law as it concerns abortion. Even though the number of therapeutic abortions has increased significantly since the reform of 1969, it is not because the legal criteria allowing abortions was liberalized but because it was decided that the responsibility for applying the legislation would rest with the medical profession. Parliament did not, as some people still believe, liberalize the substantive conditions for access to therapeutic abortion by allowing it either on demand or for various other reasons such as having an abnormal child, incest, rape and so on. It merely removed the determination from the courts by means of a purely procedural technique which entrusted to an administrative body, in this case a therapeutic abortion committee, the task of judging whether such an abortion is necessary, while taking into consideration the traditional criteria of the danger such an operation could represent to the life or health of the woman.
There are some other interesting facts regarding abortion that I would like to read into the record. On January 30, 1984, while addressing the National Religious Broadcasters Convention the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, said:
-medical science doctors confirm that when the lives of the unborn are
snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.
This statement immediately provoked ridicule from many columnists and reporters who said things such as "appalling", "dubious fact from his store of demi-knowledge", "outright demagoguery" and "there is no evidence". One columnist even suggested that this was a "fact" culled from an anti-abortion journal. This revelation of the fact of foetal pain could not go unchallenged by pro-abortionists as research indicates that the more aware one is of the facts about life in the womb the less likely one is to tolerate abortion. Public knowledge of foetal pain, and everything else that really happens in abortion, would strip pro-abortionists of their self-appointed mantle of compassion.
As a result of this statement by the President, Dr. Irvin Nichols, Director of Practice Activities for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, purporting to
Right to Life
speak for the association's 24,000 members, supplied The New York Times with this statement:
We are unaware of any evidence of any kind that would substantiate a claim that pain is perceived by the foetus.
This statement was published in The New York Times of January 31, 1984. It prompted 26 other physicians, all specialists in the field, two of whom were past presidents of the American College, to denounce Dr. Nichols' official answer. They wrote the President the following:
Over the last 18 years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the foetal EKG and foetal EEG have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human foetus to pain, touch and sound . .. The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de nova at birth. Indeed, much of enlightened modern obstetrical practice and procedure seeks to minimize sensory deprivation of, and sensory insult to, the foetus during, at and after birth ... Mr. President, in drawing the attention to the capability of the human foetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.
At the First International Conference on Abortion held in Washington, D.C., in 1967, world authorities in genetics, biochemistry, biology, medicine, law, ethics and the social sciences concluded that human life begins at conception. Their almost unanimous conclusion, 19 to one, was made as follows:
The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastos stage and the birth of the infant, at which point we could say that this was not a human life.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson of New York, a former leading abortionist in the United States who presided over more than 60,000 abortions, came to the conclusion, with the use of ultrasound technology, that the foetus is an identifiable human being.
Dr. Heather Morris of Women's College Hospital in Toronto has said:
The unborn human is still a human life, and not all the wishful thinking of those advocating repeal of the abortion laws can alter this. Only those who are irrational or ignorant of science doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum, a new human being is created.
We are also heartened when we have decisions such as the one handed down by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, in her judgment of June, 1983, wherein she stated:
I believe that the state's interest in protecting potential human life exists throughout pregnancy. Recent studies have demonstrated increasingly earlier foetal viability. It is certainly reasonable to believe that foetal viability in the first trimester of pregnancy may be possible in the not-too-distant future.
I should also like to point out to my constituents, Madam Speaker, with some pride, that on this difficult issue, I was prepared to make a choice, a choice that I believe is the right choice, and to stand up in this honourable Chamber and let that choice be known.
I should like to quote some words of the late Right Hon. Member from Prince Albert, Mr. Diefenbaker, who was well known in this Chamber, when he said: "I may sometimes have been on the wrong side of an issue, but I have never been on the side of wrong."

April 2, 1987
Right to Life
In my estimation, Madam Speaker, abortion is this type of issue.
I should also like to quote Edmund Burke, who said: "All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I think in this particular instance we could say: "for good parliamentarians to do nothing".
Every hour, eight unborn Canadians needlessly suffer an agonizing death. If we avert our gaze and close our ears to their "silent screams", can we claim to be compassionate human beings? The answer is obvious.
The unborn cannot help themselves, except as their tortured bodies offer evidence that moves those already born. If the suffering of the defenceless does not arouse our compassion and move us to act on their behalf, nothing ever will.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the over 60,000 Canadian children who are aborted each year in Canada, I urge, not only Members of this honourable House, but all Canadians, to support the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, before entering the debate proper on this important issue, I should like to read into the record a letter that was sent to me by Sister Marie Philippe, who is in charge of the Grey Nuns Provincial House in the Town of Fort Smith, in my constituency.
It reads:
Dear Sir:
I am writing this letter to you concerning the Private Member's Bill of Gus Mitges MP. His Bill proposes that section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to read as follows:
"Everyone, including the human foetus or unborn being has the right to Life, Liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
I wish to make it clear that I totally support this initiative and amendment and respectfully request that you do the same.
And it is signed by Sister Marie Philippe.
Madam Speaker, I have received many letters, not only from other Grey Nuns but from people of many walks of life in my constituency, on this subject. Of course, I have to point out that I have received a few which take the opposite point of view to that which is set out in this particular letter. However, if the amount of mail in favour of this Bill is any measure, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) would certainly seem to have the support of the majority of my constituents. I congratulate him for bringing to the floor of the House of Commons such an important subject. It is a subject that will require much more debate before amendments to the Criminal Code that meet with general acceptance by the Canadian population can be brought forward.
As Members of Parliament, we are all, at frequent intervals, asked to expound on our views on this subject, and I, like most other MPs, am pleased to do so.
My views are based on the concept of the sanctity of human life. I am of the view that abortions are not to take place except in certain very special circumstances. Exceptions that I can think of would include cases where the life or health of the mother is at stake, or in cases of pregnancy due to rape.
Abortions certainly ought not to be used as a form of birth control. I recall some statistics for the City of Toronto, where the number of abortions performed exceeds the number of live births. That is something that is wrong; that is something that is not acceptable.
I have some doubt as to the extent to which legislators' private moral concepts ought to be imposed, by law, on the public at large-and if time permits, I shall get back to that idea a little later in my presentation.
We certainly ought not to support the idea espoused by the New Democratic Party, one of abortion on demand. Quite frankly, I am appalled that a national political Party in Canada could take such a callous attitude toward human life.
I know that, generally speaking, Conservatives believe in individual rights-and surely each foetus is an individual; and 1 know that my socialist friends believe more in group rights, rather than in individual rights. But I cannot see how that would lead them to take the view that abortion on demand is something that should be permitted.
If one takes the Conservative view, if one believes in individual rights, in individual freedoms, one has to be very concerned with the whole question of abortion and what we are doing to so many unborn Canadians. I shouldn't think that the NDP would be so unmindful of those rights.
This question is one that is correctly argued on moral and ethical grounds. I think there is a moral and ethical basis to most of the laws of Canada. We cannot disregard those grounds. They are of paramount importance in a debate such as this.
Because morals and ethics are so intertwined with the question, the religious community takes a great interest in it. There was an article in today's Globe and Mail that pointed this out. The hidden suggestion in the article is that there was something wrong with that; that there was something wrong with people with firm and strong religious beliefs entering into this argument in the way that they do.
I do not take that view at all. That is why I started off this afternoon with a letter that had been written by a very well respected Grey Nun from my constituency. I think it is good that the church, and members of the church, takes such an interest in this question.
But apart from that, I feel that there are important practical reasons to discourage the practice of abortion in Canada. In my opinion, Canada remains under-populated. We have 25 million people in a country with an area of something like 4 million square miles. We have lots of land in which to expand. We can add many, many more people to our population.
April 2, 1987

In fact, the birth rate rate now is less than 2.1 per cent, the level necessary to keep the population stable; it is down to around 1.7 per cent. In my opinion, it ought to be national policy to keep up the birth rate, thereby adding to the population of Canada.
I notice, Madam Speaker, that my time is rapidly expiring. I hope that the few ideas and thoughts I have been able to put on the record with respect to this most important subject will prove to be of some value.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on March 27, 1987, I put a question to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) regarding an affidavit of Mr. William Haddad, Chairman of the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association of the United States which I had introduced the previous day. He asserted that in his deliberations with the Canadian Ambassador in Washington, when they met with Mr. Pratt, the President's Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations, as well as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of one of the largest multinational drug companies in the world with profits for the first nine months in excess of $500 million, it was reported by the Canadian Ambassador that he could not determine whether or not Mr. Pratt was representing the interests of the United States and/or the interests of his own multinational corporation.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs took the opportunity to say that the affidavit was false. I then asked him to explain to the House what measures he undertook with the Canadian Ambassador in Washington in order to arrive at that particular conclusion.
For whatever reasons, the Secretary of State for External Affairs chose not to tell us in any detail what undertakings he
Adjournment Debate
took. Suffice it to say, from his perspective he said: "I spoke with the Canadian Ambassador and I believe him".
That is not sufficient. 1 would have thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have outlined some detail of the investigations he undertook on behalf of the Canadian Government, in order to clarify some of the assertions regarding the generic industry in the United States as well as here in Canada in the duly notarized and signed affidavit which was witnessed by legal counsel.
In a supplementary question to the Minister I asked to have the Canadian Ambassador appear before the Standing Committee on External Affairs in order that we would have an opportunity to examine first hand the representations he had received from the United States Government, as well as from individuals in the United States pharmaceutical industry.
The reason or the rationale for that is that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and International Trade (Mr. Andre) has persistently and consistently, inside and outside the House, said that he has not received any representations whatsoever from the United States Government and/or the pharmaceutical industry in the United States. We believe that to be patently false. We believe that some strong representations have been made to the Canadian Government. We know that the multinational corporations have lobbied long and hard to have changes and amendments made to our Patent Act.
For some reason the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, aided and abetted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, refuses to acknowledge that those representations have in fact been made.
1 have concluded from my investigations, from my knowledge of the file, and from the refusal of the Government to allow individuals to appear before standing committees to have the matter clarified once and for all, that the Government has something to hide when it comes to pharmaceuticals and the prices of drugs. It is clear that the policy now being put forward by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was not written in Canada but in major cities in the United States, the homeland of the multinational drug companies. In my view the Secretary of State for External Affairs is being very catty with regard to the entire issue.
Furthermore, it is extremely interesting to note that when Members of the Opposition question the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with regard to the policy on Bill C-22 or amendments to the Patent Act, the Prime Minister never avails himself of the opportunity to stand in his place and respond. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is anything wrong with that, but it is an interesting observation that if the Prime Minister believes so strongly in the legislation being advocated by his colleague in the Cabinet, he will certainly want to avail himself of every opportunity to buttress, enhance and support his colleague.

April 2, 1987
Adjournment Debate
The facts are very clear. They are as follows: Canadians, as a result of Bill C-22, will pay substantially increased costs for prescription drugs. There is no enforceable guarantee or commitment regarding research and development. There is no enforceable guarantee regarding the creation of new jobs pursuant to Bill C-22. What is obvious to every reasonable, ordinary Canadian is that this legislation is being promoted by multinational corporations which have won their way into the hearts of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, of course, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will come clean with Canadians as to why we are being forced to swallow this legislation written in another sovereign country, namely the United States.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Madam Speaker, I trust I will be able to clarify some of the allegations made by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).
With regard to the affidavit sworn by Mr. Haddad on March 23, 1987, officials of the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa have been in contact with officials at the Canadian Embassy in Washington and, through them, with Ambassador Gotlieb. As a result, it has been ascertained that the contents of the affidavit do not conform to the recollection of the meeting held by the Ambassador and the Canadian officials who were present. Embassy officials meet frequently with representatives of special interest groups, like Mr. Haddad of the generic industry and Mr. Pratt of the brand name drug manufacturers as part of their normal responsibilities. There was no confusion at any time as to Mr. Pratt's role. His representations on this issue were made in his private capacity as chairman and chief executive officer of Pfizer Inc., and at no time did Mr. Pratt speak, or purport to speak, on behalf of the Reagan administration concerning Bill C-22.
As we have said before, the amendments reflect a careful balance between the concerns of the pharmaceutical industry, Canadian industrial development goals and the need to control health care costs. They are based primarily on domestic considerations and will increase research and development investment and create employment in a vital high-tech industry.


FISHERIES-REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF STAR-KIST PLANT WORKERS. (B) HERRING-ROE FISHERYLEASING OF LICENCES
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, on March 3 of this year I asked the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) when he was going to put an end to the practice now prevalent on the Pacific Coast of leasing herring licences and doubling herring licences. The Minister replied that the herring industry advisory board did not recommend changes this year. I would like to point out that organizations representing over 90 per cent of the same fishermen in British Columbia, the people
most vitally involved with the herring fishery, have recommended that those practices be ended. I refer specifically to the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia and the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Guild.
Theoretically, the licences available for herring fishing are non-transferable. There are a number of ways of circumventing this, the most common of which is probably the 99-year lease. There is no requirement for licence-holders to own vessels. A practice has developed of renting licences to speculators and companies. Gordon Bisaro, a lawyer specializing in fisheries, pointed out that in 1986, the standard rate for a 99-year lease on a herring gill-net licence was $18,000 and on a seine licence it was $125,000. This year, the going rate is $45,000 for a gill-net and $300,000 for a seine. This amount of money is being paid for a licence for which the licence-holder had to pay the Government $200 in the case of a gill-net licence and $2,000 in the case of a seine licence.
The trade in these licences has gone completely crazy. The rental charged for a gill-net licence for a single season is $10,000 and it is between $50,000 and $100,000 for a seine licence. Some of the people who own or control these licences through 99-year leases have no connection whatsoever with the herring-roe industry or with the fishing industry itself for that matter. In some cases, it makes more sense for a licence-holder to sit on the beach and rent out his licence for $100,000, letting someone else do the work while he collects the money.
In addition to that, in 1981 the Government introduced a system of area licences. The coast has been broken down into several different areas and a licence covers just one of those areas. In recent years, there has been a doubling of licences. One person might control licences for more than one area. In order to pay for this, the people who work as crew members on seine boats are required to bid in for their jobs. In effect, they are required to buy their jobs. This is an immoral and uneconomical situation.
Because of the doubling of licences, many people who would traditionally work in the herring industry are unable to because other people control licences for more than one area. This year, up to 400 people who would traditionally work in the herring industry are sitting on the beach because they cannot afford to pay anywhere between $3,000 and $10,000 just for a chance to work on one of those boats as a crew member. That is a completely immoral situation.
As I pointed out, the organizations that represent the majority of the seine fishermen in British Columbia, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia and the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Guild, have all indicated that this situation should be changed. The Minister has known about this problem since at least January 14, 1983, when he sent a letter to Bill Procopation, the business agent for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. The letter reads as follows:
April 2, 1987

Dear Bill:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to the Minister of Fisheries
on the subject of roe herring licensing.
The two-licence system definitely raises some serious concerns, and it is a
matter of interest to a number of Progressive Conservative M.P.'S.
It then goes on to talk about some correspondence he has had. It is signed:
Yours very truly,
Tom Siddon, MP Richmond-South Delta
That was when he was in opposition. He was aware then of the very serious nature of the problem. He pointed out that other Conservative MPs were aware of it as well. Yet so far no action has been taken. We have to ask why.
The Government was elected on the basis of its promise to create jobs. It has instead allowed the loss of jobs in the herring industry to continue.
I would like to emphasize the fact that this is a growing problem. In 1983 there were 30 doubled licences. That increased to 54 in 1984. By 1985 there were 75. It dropped slightly in 1986 to 67. This year there are at least 79. We do not know where the people who have the leases on those licences are located. In some cases it is speculators, in others it is the companies. The purpose of area licensing when it was introduced in 1981 was to prevent boats from racing from one area to another. It was an attempt to share the wealth and organize orderly management of the resource. However, it is very obvious from the statistics I have presented here, and which members of the industry have presented to the Minister, that the situation is not working the way theory says it should. It has completely broken down. It is working to the detriment of the industry and the workers.
I want to emphasize that there is something wrong with an advisory process when the largest organizations representing the fishermen on the coast cannot get the Minister to act to solve an obvious problem which he has known about for four
Adjournment Debate
years. He says the Herring Advisory Council has not recommended action for this year. However, it is absolutely critical that action be taken and that this situation not be repeated in the herring industry next year.


J. Roger Clinch: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member pointed out, when this double licensing plan went into effect it was intended to prevent boats from moving from one area to another and infringing upon the rights of others. It was meant to spread the resource around, share the wealth, and allow for some management of the stocks. We know there were some problems with the plan at the outset. I know the Minister is very concerned about this.
With reference to the matter of the advisory process, I am in complete agreement with the member that the process must be made to work. The people concerned must be able to sit down with officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister in order to come up with some recommendations acceptable to all concerned. The concern of this Government is to consult with the fishermen and others concerned on the West Coast and come up with some way of resolving the problem to everyone's satisfaction.
I know the Hon. Member has been very patient in this regard and I know he will continue to be patient and make his representations and those of his colleagues known to the Minister. I am sure the Minister will be willing to sit down with the Hon. Member and other interested parties in order to resolve the problem through the advisory and consultative process.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, April 3, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers