1987-04-07

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Act, 1985, Chapter 8, Statutes of Canada, 1986, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the 1987 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.
Pursuant to the Act, this report stands referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-1185, 332-1195 to 332-1208 inclusive, 3321227, 332-1255 to 332-1259 inclusive, 332-1337, 332-1421 to 332-1434 inclusive, 332-1509, 332-1518 to 332-1520 inclusive and 332-1615 to 332-1618 inclusive.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association to the thirty-sixth seminar on parliamentary procedure and practice, which was held at Westminster from March 3, 1987 to March 20, 1987.
May I take this opportunity to record the gratitude of the Canadian delegates to the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to the General Secretary for sponsorship of this unique event.
It provides an opportunity for parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth to meet and exchange views on parliamentary matters. It is one of the most worth-while adventures of any parliamentary organization.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
On June 18, 1985, the Hon. James McGrath presented to the House the third report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. Since that time many of the reforms contained in the report have been implemented through the provisional Standing Orders. These Standing Orders are due to expire on the fifteenth of this month.
Your Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure has reviewed the provisional Standing Orders and has recommended changes. These recommendations come as a result of the experience we have had with these new rules and are designed to carry on the spirit of reform.
We recommend with the changes set out in our report that the provisional Standing Orders be made permanent.



ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

April 7, 1987
4908_______________________________
Petitions PETITIONS



OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO PATENT ACT

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions certified by the Clerk of Petitions to present this morning, dated March 27, 1987, for the benefit of my colleague who sometimes inquires about these things.
The petitioners exercise their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance.
Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or governmental medicare programs; whereas the federal Government's proposal would raise the already high costs of provincial health care programs; whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies, will result in an increase of drug costs and prices, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; and whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concession in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians, therefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by people from Kingston, Peterborough, Kitchener, Hawkesbury, Cambridge, New Hamburg, Guelph, Elmira. They are concerned regarding the changes being proposed to the Patent Act which they believe will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They call upon the Government to reject the continuing process of Bill C-22.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg in connection with Bill C-22. They 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 prices for Canadians.
I have another petition signed by residents in towns in Manitoba including Teulon, Stonewall, Selkirk and Winnipeg who say that the proposed measure within Bill C-22 will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and that the proposal of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial Government drug plans,
Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of residents in the Thunder Bay, Rosslyn Village, Murillo, Kakabeka Falls area in northwestern Ontario which has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, dealing with proposed changes to the Patent Drug Act regarding prescription drugs. The people of my constituency and that of my neighbour, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) express concerns about the impact on pricing. They are concerned that this is just another part of the free trade copout.



OPPOSITION TO CANADA POST CORPORATE PLAN

Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have three petitions.
The first petition indicates that the federal Government's proposals to seek financial self sufficiency by 1988 for Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs and deterioration in service of the Post Office which will consequently be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of the Canada Post Corporation and to instruct the Government to abandon its policy of closing rural post offices and cancelling rural routes. The petitioners are from across the country.



OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO PATENT ACT

Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the Patent Act.
The petitioners indicate that the changes proposed by the Government will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMPREHENSIVE CHILD CARE SYSTEM

Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my final petition deals with child care.
Whereas the Conservative Government recognized at the time of the annual conference of First Ministers in November, 1986, that child care is a priority measure ensuring support and the strengthening of the Canadian family as well as promoting women's economic equality, and whereas the postponement to March 31, 1987 of the tabling of the Special Parliamentary Committee's Report on Child Care suggests it is possible that the Conservative Government will not set aside funds in its next Budget for the development of adequate child care services, the petitioners call upon Parliament to negotiate



mmmmm
April 7, 1987

and sign by the end of 1987 a federal-provincial agreement that provides a detailed framework for comprehensive child care systems.



OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO PATENT ACT

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have seven petitions I wish to table this morning.
The first is signed by residents from Chilliwack, British Columbia, the home of the Speaker of this House. Whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies, will result in an increase in drug costs and prices and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act.
My second petition is signed by Canadians who reside in Thunder Bay, Ontario. They call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act. They believe this Bill will negatively affect senior citizens, the poor and disabled, in the cost of prescription drugs.
My third petition is signed by individuals from the great Province of Saskatchewan, particularly the Lloydminster area, who call upon the Government and particularly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to withdraw Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act, which they believe will negatively affect Canadians regarding the cost of prescription drugs.
The fourth petition is from the Province of Newfoundland. Whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies, will result in an increase in drug costs and prices and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, the petitioners call upon this Parliament and, indeed, the Government to withdraw Bill C-22 which they believe if not withdrawn will result in a substantial increase in the price of prescription drugs.
The fifth petition is signed by individuals from Peterborough, Ontario, Gander, Newfoundland and other parts of the Province of Newfoundland, whereby they call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act. They wish this Bill to be taken from the House because they believe if it is passed into law there will be substantial increases in the cost of prescription drugs thereby negatively affecting senior citizens, disabled and the poor.
The sixth petition is signed by a number of individuals in the Province of Ontario, St. Catharines, Willowdale, Dalton and other parts of Ontario. They call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act. They believe that if this particular piece of legislation is consummated into law that it will affect very negatively senior citizens, the poor and the disabled in this country as it relates to the escalation in the cost of prescription drugs. They hope that Conservative Members of Parliament will withdraw Bill C-22.
Introduction of Bills
My seventh petition, and in keeping with your wishes, Sir, in summary form, we have individuals who have signed this petition from the great Province of Saskatchewan, particularly the area of Saskatoon. Other individuals have signed from Ottawa and New Brunswick. They call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act. They believe that if this Bill is passed into law it will negatively affect senior citizens, the aged and the disabled as it relates to the escalating cost of prescription drugs in Canada. They hope that government Members will see the wishes and the wants of Canadians and withdraw Bill C-22 which they believe will negatively affect the people of Canada.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: I have several petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 106.

These petitions come from a number of parts of Canada, Halifax, Dartmouth, Sackville, Moncton, British Columbia, St. John's, Regina and Montreal.
All of the petitioners are exercising their rights as Canadian citizens to avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to them all in the certain assurance that the House will provide a remedy.
The petitioners note that the Government intends to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs and they note that this will increase prices for consumers, restrict the availability of such medication to average Canadians and increase the costs to provincial government drug plans.
They cite this as being another example of the Canadian Government making concessions in the interests of pleasing the United States in the bilateral trade agreement.

And they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



HOLIDAYS ACT


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an Act respecting Heritage Day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to introduce my private Member's Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to designate the third Monday of February as a legal holiday to be known as Heritage Day to reflect our country's deep and diverse history.

April 7, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 80, 88 and 97.


Mr. Riis: 1.	Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conduct an investigation into the activities of Deltonic Trading Corporation of Toronto, Ontario and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) on what dates did it commence and conclude?
2.	Were there any charges laid against any officers of the Corporation and, if so, against whom?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1. Yes. (a) The investigation was conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to determine if Deltonic Trading Corporation, Toronto, Ontario committed any infractions of the Export and Import Permits Act. (b) The investigation commenced on October 23, 1985, and concluded on October 30, 1986.
2. No charges were laid against Deltonic Trading Corporation or any of its officers.


Mr. Parry: Since 1982, did the Government give assistance, grants or loans to Three Buoys Houseboat Charters Ltd., Ontario Wilderness or Canadian Wilderness Adventure and, if so, for each company, by year and department, in what amounts?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Since 1982 an amount of $36,175 was given to Canadian Wilderness Adventure Ltd. under the Industrial and Regional Development Program (IRDP). While an offer for further assistance under the Canada-Saskatchewan tourism Agreement was announced on August 12, 1986, no payments have yet been made.


Mr. Blenkarn: Did the Government incur any expense with respect to the recent visit of the Red Army Chorus to Canada and, if so, what was the (a) total amount (b) amount spent on (i) hospitality (ii) transportation (iii) hotels?


Philip Derek Lewis: The Government did not incur any expense with respect to the recent visit of the Red Army Chorus to Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 83 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 83 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Did the Prime Minister visit Japan, China and South Korea in May, 1986, and, if so, what was the total cost to the taxpayer of the trip including aircraft tickets, charters, ground transportation, technical help, hotel rooms, etc?
2.	Were any aircraft chartered and, if so, in each case (a) from which company (6) what was the make and model (c) at what cost (d) what was the cost for landing fees in each country?
3.	(a) How many persons accompanied the Prime Minister (b) what were their names and specific roles?
4.	Were recorded video cassettes sent to the Prime Minister during this period and, if so (a) by what means (b) at what cost, and was such cost borne by the taxpayer?
5.	Where there any entertainment costs associated with the trip and, if so, what was the cost in (a) Japan (b) China (c) South Korea?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 7, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 2, 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, p. 4820), (Mr. Orlikow, p. 4820), and Motions Nos. 5, 11, 13 and 15 (Mr. Dingwall, p. 4820).
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to participate in today's debate.
Bill C-22, the Act to amend the Patent Act, is a very important Bill. There is a series of amendments before the House at this time, Motions Nos. 3, 5, 11, 13 and 15 as well as Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).

Mr. Speaker, it is important to have a debate on the issue of patents here in Canada. It is very important for Canadians. I was here in 1969, seventeen years ago, when the legislation was adopted by the Trudeau Government. At the time, we were discussing the issue of pharmaceutical products here in Canada, and the price of drugs in Canada was much higher than in the United States. If I am not mistaken, we were paying about 15 per cent more for drugs in Canada than in the United States. When the Trudeau Government, with the support of the New Democratic Party, proposed allowing generic drugs, there was a very big difference between the Canadian price and the American price.
According to the report by Prof. Eastman, who made an exhaustive study on the subject, ever since the legislation on generic drugs was adopted there has been a tremendous drop in drug prices here in Canada. We are now paying about 20 per cent less for drugs than in the United States. So seventeen or eighteen years ago, the big difference between Canada and the United States was that we were paying 15 per cent more, and now we are paying 15 or 20 per cent less for the same drug, the same pharmaceutical product, Mr. Speaker. That is a good thing for Canadians, for senior citizens in Canada and for large families. We must not forget that in our country many people live in poverty and it will be very difficult for these people to cope with an increase in the price of drugs.
Mr. Speaker, there will also be a further increase in costs for the provincial governments if Bill C-22 is adopted, because many provinces now have a medical insurance plan for drugs. If prices go up, the cost of these plans will also go up in provinces like Saskatchewan, for instance. Saskatchewan already has a massive deficit, and this would be just one more problem for the Saskatchewan Legislature.
Patent Act

The motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North proposes to amend the Bill in a very positive and progressive way following the advice of Dr. Eastman's very well-meaning and well-researched report published back in the spring of 1985.
Under the present legislation, the Conservative Party, bowing to the wishes of the pharmaceutical lobby and the huge American multinationals, wants to get rid of generic pharmaceuticals that allow Canadians to pay less for drugs here in Canada than Americans pay in the United States. The Conservatives want to give those companies 10 years of patent protection for new drugs and seven or eight years of patent protection for drugs in varying states of regulatory approval. There will now be 10 years of protection for the Conservative Party's friends in the big multinational drug corporations.
The motion of my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, proposes to reduce the 10-year period to four years so that after four years, there could once again be competition from generic companies to bring down the price of drugs for ordinary and average Canadians from coast to coast. That is a good amendment for ordinary Canadians. It is good for the poor people of Kamsack, the unemployed in Yorkton, the native people on reserves in my riding, and for the Saskatchewan deficit.
I cannot understand why the Conservative Party is going to bat for the huge American drug industry, trying to fatten their wallets. Why? Because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants to make a free trade deal with President Reagan and the U.S. Congress. There is no consensus in Canada going in that direction. All those public opinion polls, the ones that ask fair questions, show that people do not want to go in this direction.
Our present legislation is very popular and Canadians want to keep it. In September, 1984, they did not elect the Government to go in an extreme right-wing conservative direction by giving more and more to foreign multinationals. They got rid of the Liberal Party because they were tired of 20 years of the Liberal Party. They did not vote for a free trade arrangement with the United States which would jeopardize our sovereignty and independence. They did not vote for this kind of legislation which is the first step in that direction.
I want to make another point. I have had many farmers, including Conservatives, Liberals and NDPers, come to me in the last year and a half and say they want to expand the generic legislation to cover farm chemicals as well. Farmers want freedom from paying excessive prices for farm chemicals to big multinationals like Dow and Monsanto. They want the right to produce generic farm chemicals and bring down the price so they can get those chemicals at cost.
This legislation before us today will not only hurt Canadians in the price they pay for drugs, it will set back a campaign by farmers to have the right to produce their own chemicals at

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
cost. That is wrong. The farmers should have that right through their own organizations and co-operatives, or with provincial Governments in joint ventures. If we pass this Bill then farmers, along with other consumers, will lose an important right. I appeal to my friends in the Conservative Party to listen to the people who elected them in 1984 and not proceed with this Bill. If they do, then they should accept this extremely reasonable amendment.
I want to once again read Motion No. 4 so Members will understand what it means. It says:
"for sale for consumption in Canada until the expiration of four years after the
date of the notice of compliance."
Instead of giving free rein for 10 long, long years to foreign multinational drug companies so they can gouge the people of Canada by charging whatever they want for their new pharmaceuticals, instead of allowing them to fatten their wallets at the expense of the poor and the elderly, my colleague from Winnipeg North wants to reduce that monopoly to four years. After that time a new company can produce the same drug at a reasonable cost on paying a reasonable royalty.
Who do we represent here? I say we represent the ordinary, average Canadian. That is what the NDP does. The Conservative Party is in third place in the polls because they represent the wealthy, the rich, the privileged, indeed the big businessman in the U.S. There has never been in the history of Canada a political party in Government which has been in third place. That is the most unpopular Government in the history of Canada according to the Gallup poll. Little wonder.
I notice that the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) has come into the House on crutches. Perhaps he met one of his constituents who was angry with his Party because they are trying to charge higher drug prices.


Mr. McDermid:: He kicked an NDPer in the head and broke his ankle.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Dr. Eastman said that getting rid of generic pharmaceuticals in Canada will mean ordinary Canadians will pay more. This is simply because the Conservative Party wants its friends who own the big drug companies to get bigger profits and bigger dividends. It is about time they were turfed out of office just as the public opinion polls suggest. It seems to me every time the Conservative Party forms a Government in this country they so alienate the Canadian people that they are out of office for 20 or 30 years after that. Back in the 1930s R. B. Bennett destroyed the Conservative Party for 20 years. Then it happened again for another 20 years. This time it will happen for a couple of generations.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 15 because they get at one of the most serious flaws in this Bill. They deal with the question of not only putting a patent on the process but on the product itself. This is extremely important. If you look at the information provided to us by the biotechnology companies, Cangene in Mississauga, Ontario,
point out that this legislation will remove that protection. Only the process would be patented. Presently, companies like Cangene can produce drugs because only the process is patented, not the actual product. I hope the Government, when it comes to vote on this part of the Bill, will agree with small companies like Cangene and act to keep them in business.
There is a tremendous market out there for the kind of technological breakthroughs which companies like Cangene produce. For example, protein-based pharmaceuticals accounted for something like $2 billion in the world market and about $50 million here in Canada. In the future it will expand to some $250 million in Canada and $10 billion around the world. If we take away their right to produce generic drugs then we are simply turning that market over to the multinationals.

It is obvious that the Patent Act amendments are part of the free trade negotiations. We hear the Government talking about how great free trade will be. However, we will be imposing billions and billions of dollars of additional costs on families for pharmaceuticals. The increase will not be imposed on civil servants or Members of Parliament who have pharmaceutical drug programs attached to their jobs. They will not be imposed upon people who work for large companies and have unionized collective bargaining arrangements. They will be imposed upon the poor and the weak who do not have such protection. Four million of these people will be paying higher drug prices if this legislation is passed.
The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association estimates that if this Conservative program is put in place profits for the multinationals will rise by $3.5 billion over the next nine years. For every $3 made by the multinationals $1 will go into R and D. The Government promised that 3,000 jobs would be created. Using Statistics Canada figures, the loss of $3.5 billion in extra profits means a loss of 90,000 man-years of employment or about 9,000 jobs. The Government is talking about creating 3,000 jobs if this legislation is passed. However, an article in The Sault Star of December 17, 1986, is headlined: "Cleaners among 'quality jobs' to flow from new drug patent rules". The article reads in part:
But a document prepared last spring by Andre's department estimates only 1,700 of nearly 3,000 jobs-about 57 per cent-will be created in the professional category and filled mainly by PhD-level applicants.
Another 650, or about 22 per cent, are classed in the document as "technical," meaning they will go to laboratory technicians and require the services of someone with community college training or an undergraduate degree in science.
The remaining 620-around 21 per cent-will be filled by "others," which Consumer Affairs spokesman David Watters defined Tuesday as managers, cleaners, animal keepers, statisticians and clerks.
Of the 3,000 jobs we end up with only 1,700 for high-level research people. We will end up with a massive loss through this legislation because most of it is going to profits and there is no commitment in the legislation for jobs at all. As a matter of fact, the large multinational pharmaceutical companies can
April 7, 1987

just take the extra profits and run. There will be no benefits to Canadians.
Even the Minister would not claim that the additional costs of $3.5 billion over the next nine years will benefit Canadians significantly through jobs. This is just part of the free trade negotiations.
President Reagan's top adivsers are from the large multinational corporations. They tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that he must impose an additional $3.5 million on the Canadian people so that the multinational corporations can make many extra millions of dollars from Canadians who have been protected from this since 1969. The benefits are simply not there with regard to jobs. The down-side for Canadians is tremendous in additional costs to low-income and elderly people who are not protected by drug programs.
The Government had a complete format before it. The Eastman Report laid out a middle ground which would provide incentive for scientific research in drugs and pharmaceuticals. It recommended a royalty program for a three or four-year period and special royalties beyond that for people who did scientific research.
That the Government wants to jump on the bandwagon of the American multinational corporations shows the tremendous power which President Reagan and his advisers have over the Prime Minister. I find it unbelievable that when the Government is running at 22 per cent in the polls it is trying to curry favour with the American multinationals and socking it to ordinary Canadians who are not covered by drug programs.
Cangene is a small Canadian high-tech company operating near the riding of the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). I do not understand why the Member would want to put such a company out of business.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense. They won't be out of business and you know it. That's utter nonsense. Be honest.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The company has made it very clear that it will be put out of business by this legislation. It has lobbied the government and the opposition caucuses. If the Government does not accept this amendment it will be putting companies like Cangene out of business and the Hon. Member knows it.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense. They're doing much better than you and I.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. I have, of course, spoken on this legislation before but there is now an amendment before us. It is a pleasure to enter this debate, particularly when we hear heckling from Members on the government side who seek to participate in the debate by heckling rather than standing up and speaking.


Mrs. McDougall:: Unlike yourself.
Patent Act


John Horton McDermid: We want you to tell the truth, that's all. Be honest with the Canadian public.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I object to the Member across the way implying or stating that I am not telling the truth. If that Member wants to speak on this legislation he should have the courage to stand in his place and do so rather than casting false aspersions at Members on this side of the House.


John Horton McDermid: If the shoe fits.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Member says "if the shoe fits". He does not even have the honesty or courage to withdraw a false and unfounded accusation.


John Horton McDermid: If the shoe fits.


Cyril Keeper: The Members over there scoff but we know the reputation of the Government with regard to honesty and frankness.


John Horton McDermid: I just said "be honest". I did not accuse you of being dishonest. I said "be honest".


Cyril Keeper: He plays with words.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we get back to the clause, please.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I object to a member of the Government accusing me at the beginning of my speech of being dishonest. I think that is unparliamentary. It is typical of the Government which has no sense of fairness and which, through its own actions, has introduced dishonesty into public affairs in the country.


John Horton McDermid: We struck a nerve over there.


Cyril Keeper: I want to explain this amendment so Canadians will understand why we have moved it.
Since the Government has introduced legislation with regard to generic drugs, it should adopt as part of its policy the compromise drafted by Professor Eastman which has found a broad range of public support and for which there is political consensus in the country, with three major exceptions; they are, the pharmaceutical industry, the American Government and the Conservative Party.
We suggest that if the Government is proceeding with its legislation on patent drugs it should follow the will of the Canadian people rather than forging ahead with its own political agenda and philosophy, right or wrong. We suggest it should follow the democratic approach and the political consensus and adopt a policy that has been accepted by the Canadian public.
The Eastman proposal is a compromise between the legislation that is currently on the books and the legislation that the Government is proposing. The present legislation

Patent Act
allows generic drugs to be introduced into the market-place so that people can buy drugs at a reasonable price. There is no period of exclusive protection for the patent drug manufacturers in the pharmaceutical industry but they do have some protection because it takes time for a new drug to be approved and the various processes to be undertaken. There is a period in which patent drug manufacturers have some protection. However, there is no time period in law in which they have an exclusive monopoly.
Prior to this present legislation, which has served Canadians well, drug companies were gouging Canadians. The introduction of generic drugs made drug prices more reasonable although still expensive for the average Canadian.
The Government's proposed legislation will provide ten years of legislated exclusivity and promises a monopoly to the pharmaceutical industry for a full ten years. It can charge what it wants for ten years and, given past history of what patent drug companies have done, they will gouge Canadians for those ten years.
Of course, the patent drug companies should make a fair profit. It is common knowledge that the companies set out an agenda for the introduction of a drug, a plan to recover their costs and make a profit within a five-year time frame. Why should they be given a ten-year monopoly?
Professor Eastman has suggested a compromise which recognizes the good aspects of the present legislation and the need for patent drug companies to have some protection for a limited time with the introduction of new drugs. Professor Eastman proposed that this time period be four years, which seems to be a reasonable proposition since most drug companies plan to make a profit on a drug in five years. Canadians could then look forward to receiving drugs at a more reasonable cost in a shorter period of time.
The Government does not wish to follow the political consensus in the country and adopt a proposal that would serve the interests of the consumer and the generic drug companies while recognizing the legitimate interests of patent drug companies. That should be reflected in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say it is high time the Government realized there is a consensus among Canadians.. The public feels that Professor Eastman's proposals are good ones and that the compromise is a practical one and recognizes the interests of the pharmaceutical companies, the generic companies and the Canadian public.
I want to ask the Government why it will not act on this Canadian consensus. Why won't it adopt the compromise formulated by Professor Eastman? Why not reconsider your own ideas? And why are you and the pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Administration the only groups that will not be a party to this Canadian consensus on a new approach, an approach that protects the Canadian consumer?
April 7, 1987
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time this Government reconsidered its own approach and remembered that it is a democratic Government and that it needs the approval of Canadians for every measure it introduces in the House.
Finally, I simply want to ask this Government why it doesn't follow the Canadian consensus on this matter.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is another good example of the Government supporting its big business friends in this country to the detriment of Canadians.
There have been arguments that this legislation is not detrimental, but history has proven that such arguments are wrong. In 1969, when there was protection, drug prices were at their highest in Canada. Long-term protection means there will be a monopoly and some abuse of the system.
In a debate such as this it is very important to examine the various motions separately and discuss the substance of each one. According to the draft ruling, Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 3,4,5,11,13 and 15 are grouped for debate. They should not be grouped for debate in this way because they deal with entirely different topics. How can one debate or even vote for motions that are quite different? There is a conflict between these six motions and I think it is totally unfair for the Government to expect people to vote on two separate matters at the same time.
Motions Nos. 3, 13 and 15 deal with the kinds of patents which will now be authorized under the new legislation. On the other hand, Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 11 deal with the period of patent protection accorded to a patentee. Since the two groupings deal with entirely different subject matters, they must be debated as separate groups rather than just being voted on as one total group.
There is another good argument for this as well. Motions Nos. 3, 13 and 15 delete product patents from the legislation. As the law now stands, only processed patents can be granted. Bill C-22 would allow product patents to be granted as well.
Canadian biotechnology firms say this change will effectively put them out of business. I think that is going to be very interesting to the Canadian public at large because when one puts someone out of business one is simply helping to further corner the market. Canadian biotechnology firms are really concerned about this and want to keep the process of genetic engineering patentable. Because these substances naturally occur, they do not believe that the product developed from the use of the process should be patentable.
We can talk about companies like Cangene, as a further example, which extract naturally occurring substances, genes, from healthy individuals and inject them into unhealthy individuals in a manner which really triggers the unhealthy individual to manufacture the substance in his or her own
April 7, 1987

body. These things really should be explained in greater depth and hopefully will be before this debate is over.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 11 deal with the recommendations of the Eastman report. These recommendations deal with a four-year period of exclusivity after the granting of a notice of compliance. Here is where I want to talk about the 14 per cent royalty. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the pharmaceutical royalty fund into which all royalties would be paid, would be apportioned according to the amount of research and development performed by each company in Canada. It is rather interesting to note that the Government wants to protect the research and development of big business interests in Canada and the United States, but it is certainly not willing to put its money where its mouth is in research and development in many areas of activity. The Government has proven that by its actions over these months.
Dr. Eastman felt that by increasing royalties, rather than unduly lengthening the period of protection, we would avoid the anti-competitive aspect of exclusivity. Exclusivity in terms of this legislation and the Government's policy, means that the companies which develop the drug should have a 10-year period of exclusivity as opposed to Dr. Eastman's recommendation that there be a four-year period. This will mean that those major companies will have 10 years of exclusivity to protect their product and to set their prices.
We hear that this will be good for Canadians in the long run. I simply go back to the state in which we found ourselves in 1969 when Canada had the highest drug prices in the world and, as a result, some of the protection had to be taken away from the major drug companies.
It does not matter with what good intent the Government wants to talk about the 10-year period, what it is in fact doing is giving its big business friends, whom people are becoming very accustomed to hearing it support, a total monopoly on that product for a period of 10 years? Is it fair to allow a total monopoly on a drug, particularly one which is in great demand for treating cancer, arthritis or any of the major illnesses which affect people in such a painful way? Is it fair to give any major company an exclusivity or monopoly on that drug for a period of 10 years?
We have to seriously ask ourselves at this point what the price of that drug will be? What will be the mark-up, what will be the profit, and is it really going to affect not only the individual who still pays for his or her drugs but provincial health plans and other company plans which include purchase of drugs for their employees?
It is not just the individual who will be hurt. It will hurt the public funds and we know where public funds come from to pay for drug plans. They come from the taxpayers of Canada. The Government has brought in the biggest increase in taxes ever seen in this country in the first three budgets brought down by the Minister of Finance and it has been cutting back on provincial government financing. At the same time it is going to give a 10 year protection for major drug companies,
Patent Act
going against those health plans which are sponsored provincially and, particularly, those which are still paid for by individuals.
Why is it not fair to go the route of the royalty policy recommended by Dr. Eastman? There are some benefits in that policy for all drug producers, and he recommended a four-year protection period, which would seem very fair under all the circumstances.
The pharmaceutical royalty fund, joined up with the four-year exclusivity or protection clause for major drug developers, in our view, is a very fair system and a very fair way to go. It is much more fair than giving a 10-year monopoly on a drug, so that these companies can charge what they want, which will affect public health funds paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. It lays itself wide open for abuse because these companies can charge top rates for their drugs.
I call upon the Government on behalf of our senior citizens, the middle-income earners who are being taxed higher than ever before, and the lower-income earners, to have some pity and set aside its relationship with its friends for awhile and think of the average people of Canada.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to say a few words on the proposal by the Government to amend the Patent Act, particularly that section of the proposed Bill which deals with providing pharmaceutical companies with 10-years of patent protection.
I think it is worthwhile reminding the House again that what we are talking about here is providing 10 years of patent protection largely to multinational corporations.
There is clear evidence that by giving these corporations this increased patent protection, assuming that the historical pattern continues, we will see more and more of those corporate profits exported to the home base of the multinationals, something which I doubt very much will make much of a contribution to the Canadian economy or, indeed, to research and development in Canada on pharmaceutical products.
In considering this measure, Mr. Speaker, we should review what the Minister, in particular, has advanced as his main argument in favour of 10 years of patent protection.
Initially, the Minister made the argument that 10 years was not a severe or undue period of time for patent protection for these corporations, and in making that assertion he compared what happened in the brand name multinational sector to the experience of the Canadian manufacturers of generic drugs. He argued that because it took generic copiers some 11 years to get a product on to the market from the time they first began entry into the approval process with the Department of National Health and Welfare, giving the brand name manufacturers 10 years' protection would not unduly harm the generic drug manufacturers.

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
In making that argument, the period that the Minister was talking about, in all probability, was the short period following 1969, when patent protection was finally removed from pharmaceutical products. That is when the generic Canadian manufacturers were newly entering this whole field.
While it is quite true that it did take 10 to 12 years to get a copy on the Canadian market in that period, since that time the Canadian companies have become much more sophisticated, with the result that it now takes only four to six years to get a copy on the market.
So, the Minister's argument no longer stands up, Mr. Speaker. It also indicates that the Minister himself has a real lack of knowledge as to what is going on in this country insofar as pharmaceutical products are concerned. It makes one wonder why the Government rushed in with this legislation, in the face of all the reports that have come down over the years arguing against precisely what this Government is doing.
In the 1960s, prior to 1969, there were no fewer than three major studies conducted into the pharmaceutical industry in Canada-and for very good reason. There was a tremendous amount of pressure on governments from consumers across Canada, who were faced with the highest drug prices of any country in the world. Governments, in response to that pressure, set up various studies into the industry.
The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission brought down a report that concluded that the reason Canadian drug prices were the highest in the world was that the multinational companies enjoyed a monopoly on pricing in Canada. The Commission recommended that one of the ways to get around that was to inject competition into the field by removing patent protection for pharmaceutical products.
The Government did not act at that time, probably due to pressure from the multinational companies.
In the middle 1960s, the Hall Commission conducted a further investigation, arriving at exactly the same conclusions. The Government of the time ignored that. However, the pressure continued.
What the Government then did was to establish an all-Party House of Commons committee, under the chairmanship of the then Member of Parliament, Mr. Harley. That committee- and it was an all-Party committee-recommended to the House of Commons exactly what the previous two studies had recommended, that patent protection be removed and that, in its stead, there be some kind of royalty paid to the multinational companies by the Canadian generic drug manufacturers. In 1969, that is exactly what the Government of the day did.
When the Minister argues that somehow or other Canadian generic copiers, the manufacturers in that sector of the Canadian economy, are like scavengers who are stealing the research and development from multinationals, he does not mention that the Canadian copiers are required to pay the multinationals a 4 per cent royalty fee for the use of the product.
One might ask, why 4 per cent. The reason is that all of the commissions that studied this question concluded that, of the total sales revenues the multinational manufacturers received, 4 per cent was spent on research and development. Given that fact, it was felt that a 4 per cent royalty was fair compensation to the multinational companies for the use of their products.
The studies did not end with the commissions established prior to 1969. Following the amendments to the Patent Act in 1969, because of pressures from the multinationals-which never did accept that policy-other commissions and studies were set up. Between 1969 and 1983, we had four studies that I am aware of; and within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, an internal study was carried out. That study concluded that Canada's policy, as adopted in 1969, was a fair policy, and a good policy for Canadian consumers.
Not satisfied with that, in 1981 or 1982, Professor Harry Eastman was asked to conduct yet another study into the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Eastman tabled his report in the House of Commons in 1983.
In his report, Mr. Eastman concluded that the policy put into effect in 1969 was a good policy for Canada and for Canadian consumers. He pointed out that in 1983 alone, this policy had saved Canadian consumers some $211 million in drug costs. He went on to point out that if the multinationals believed they had an argument in favour of some patent protection, the period be set at four years. This was his recommendation after listening to all of the evidence and after looking at the arrangements in place in other countries.
In his report, Mr.Eastman pointed out some of the problems that lay within the Department of National Health and Welfare in terms of the approval process, and included recommendations to expedite the process.
But what did the Government do, Mr. Speaker? It ignored the Eastman report. Under normal circumstances, that report would have been referred to a parliamentary committee for further study and recommendation. But that is not what this Government did. Instead, it ignored the report completely and waltzed in here with the Neanderthal proposals that are contained in Bill C-22, which they are now in the process of trying to ram through the House.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Government is making a grave mistake. The majority of Canadians appreciate the legislation that we now have. It is legislation that protects the Canadian consumer, while being good for Canada itself.
In the generic drug manufacturing sector we have a growing industry that is purely Canadian, Canadian-based. The profits from this Canadian industry are flowing back into Canada, creating Canadian jobs. Given all of that, I, for the life of me, cannot understand why this Government, through this legislation, is trying to drive the generic drug manufacturers out of business.
No matter how one looks at this legislation, Mr. Speaker, it makes absolutely no sense.
April 7, 1987

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament who was in the House in 1969, when the original legislation was passed, I believe what the Government is attempting to do in Bill C-22 is completely wrong. 1 participated in the committee which studied the issue at that time and, as many Hon. Members have stated, it was clear that drug prices in Canada were among the highest in the world. I believe we were being unfairly treated at that time by large multinational drug companies.
There was much evidence to that effect in 1969 and, for that reason, the Liberal Government of the day brought in legislation to provide for compulsory licensing of patents on pharmaceutical products so there would be more competition in the drug business, so that drugs could be delivered to consumers at a cheaper price as a result of competition, and that competition would take place because we lessened the patent protection given to drug companies when they discovered new drugs.
Following the legislation in 1969, as Hon. Members know, there was a considerable lowering of drug prices to Canadians. The prices of drugs which were essential to old people, children, and people with chronic diseases came down considerably. However, following that period of time there have been complaints by large multinational drug companies. They felt that they were not being treated fairly and that they would only conduct research and production in Canada if amendments were made to the Act which would give them greater patent protection on the new drugs they discovered.
The previous Liberal Government took a serious look at the requests and set up the Eastman Commission. The commission spent a lot of time studying the matter and came to the conclusion that certain changes could be made to meet the legitimate concerns of pharmaceutical companies and at the same time protect consumers by giving them low drug prices.
However, what did the Conservative Government do? It did not accept the principal recommendations in the Eastman report. For example, the Eastman Commission recommended that drug companies be given a four-year exclusive protection on drug patents and then be subject to a licensing system, with royalties being paid by those to whom the compulsory licences were granted and the moneys from those royalties being distributed for further research to the companies developing new products. The Eastman Commission recommends four years of protection, and the Government decides to give 10 years of protection. It is out of line. It is beyond what was recommended by the Eastman Commission as being fair play in respect of pharmaceutical companies.
Recently we have received information indicating that pressure was put on the Conservative Government by American negotiators in the free trade negotiations. They wanted the drug Act amended, and this is the way they wanted it amended. It appears that the Government is more concerned with
Patent Act
pleasing the United States than listening to the recommendations in the Eastman report.
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 15 are before us at report stage. They have been presented by the opposition Parties, in particular the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) who put up a substantial fight against some of the outrageous provisions in Bill C-22.
At this particular time we are dealing with motions to delete product patents from the legislation. Under the present legislation, compulsory licensing is allowed on process patents but not on product patents. However, the Bill tends to include product patents as well. The purpose of these amendments if they are accepted by the House would be to take product patents out of the Act.
By the way, several Canadian biotechnology firms say that if the change as proposed by the Government goes forward and product patents are included in the legislation, it will effectively put them out of business. I ask government Members to take the pleas of certain Canadian biotechnology firms seriously and to consider seriously the amendments.
As well, Motions Nos. 4, 5, and 11 deal with a matter which I raised a few seconds ago. They would amend the Bill to put into effect Dr. Eastman's recommendation that only a four-year period of exclusivity be given to pharmaceutical companies on their patents, not a ten-year exclusivity.
They would also include the suggestion of Dr. Eastman that there be a 14 per cent royalty and a pharmaceutical royalty fund. Once a compulsory licence was given to a company to produce a generic drug under the provisions of the law and in competition with the company which discovered the drug, the royalty moneys would go into a fund and would be apportioned according to the amount of research and development performed by each company in Canada. The royalty moneys collected would be put to good use, and I think we are on good ground in proposing such an amendment. As I said, it was as a result of extensive study by the Eastman Commission.
The Eastman Commission was set up by the former Liberal Government in recognition that some change had to be made. However, in no way is there any justification for the provisions in the Bill now before the House.
I should point out that 15 per cent of Canadians are not covered in any way by insurance plans for pharmaceutical drugs. This means that four million Canadians do not have insurance plans, such as Blue Cross or whatever, to cover the costs of very expensive drugs which they must purchase when they are sick, especially those with chronic illnesses that can last from two years to five years who must buy drugs week after week. Of the 85 per cent covered, they are not totally covered. We all know this. I have a plan which has a deductible clause of a couple of hundred dollars. When I purchase prescription drugs, I cannot start collecting on my insurance until I have reached a certain amount.
In closing, I ask Hon. Members of the House, particularly members of the Government, to pay more serious attention to

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
these amendments. They are not only the products of members of the Opposition, they were put forward in the Eastman report and were contained in the briefs of many companies which appeared before the parliamentary committee.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss Bill C-22 and in particular Motion No. 4. This amendment is a compromise. The Eastman Commission recommended patent protection for four years as opposed to the Government proposal of ten years. Providing the extra six years, as proposed by the Government, is unfair to consumers and to generic companies which have proven to be a boon to the country in terms of providing low-cost, high quality pharmaceuticals to Canadians who require them.
We have found as this debate has developed that the government proposal is a direct cave-in to multinational drug companies, the U.S. Government and President Reagan. We have learned too that certain lobbyists and others in the United States were aware of some of the contents of the Bill and some of the Government direction prior to Members of this House and the Canadian public being aware.
In Motion 4 we are discussing the work done by Professor Harry Eastman and the Commission of Inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry, which report the Government seems to want to stick back under the carpet instead of dealing with, in the best interests of Canadians.
We have heard time and again from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) and other members on the government side that unless we go forward with Bill C-22 as it is we will not see the kind of scientific and research work being done in Canada that is being done in other areas of the world.
As Professor Eastman discovered through his commission of inquiry, four years lead time is all that is required for pharmaceutical companies to recover the costs of their research. Why is the Government proposing to give two and a half times that length of patent protection to the pharmaceutical industry after a commission of inquiry demonstrated through statistical analysis, evaluations and discussions with the scientific community, the pharmaceutical industry and with the generic drug producers, that four years was the recommended length of time.
Our Motion 4 is really a compromise. It deals with the work that Professor Eastman undertook and it provides the kind of realistic protection which the drug industry requires.
Professor Eastman's report was published only two years ago in the spring of 1985, but his recommendations and material have dogged this Government throughout the entire debate. It tries to pick and choose, take little bits of the Eastman report and put others aside, in particular the question of the ten years versus four years of patent protection, something which all Members of this House should be moving to support. The Government protects the existing industry.
What about the consumers who stand to pay, not just millions, not just tens of millions but hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs for pharmaceuticals?
Professor Eastman, although an academic, achieved what the Government has not, namely, a political consensus. Government Members are not participating in this debate in the kind of open way I think they should in discussing the guts of the motion before us, namely, why the Government feels so strongly that there should be 10 years of patent protection. We are relying on the results of the commission of inquiry which indicated that four years protection is absolutely all that is required.
The Government continues to spin its wheels. It is not addressing the fact that this is nothing short of a cave-in to the multinational drug companies, particularly those in the United States which want an extra six years of exclusivity on new chemicals coming on to the market. Professor Eastman produced a workable compromise which has proved acceptable to almost everyone with three notable exceptions; the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, the U.S. Government and the Conservative Party itself.
Why do Conservative Members not explain the necessity of the additional six years? What is the broader agenda? No wonder the Government does not like the Eastman Report, Mr. Speaker. No wonder the Government wound up hiring Professor Eastman for the Drug Prices Review Board in a bid to establish the Government's own consensus on the Bill and, to a certain extent, muzzle Professor Eastman.
Many of us can remember the Government's actions when the Eastman report was tabled. There was no press conference, no glowing endorsation by the Minister. The report was simply handed out the day before the Budget was brought down in the spring of 1985 and dismissed by the then Minister as a "Liberal document".
We all know in this House the difficulties the Liberal Party has had as a result of one of its former Members having become a professional lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.
Liberal Members have been giving a ringing endorsation to the proposal now before the House, which is not to have a 10 year period of patent protection but to stick with the four year period. However, the mud which the Government tried to flick at the Eastman report did not stick. That report is a good one which should have commended itself to the Government. It did not because the Government was already up to its ears dealing with the drug lobbyists, the American pharmaceutical industry and the wave of protectionism coming toward Canada.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and members of the Cabinet thought that with the 15 per cent countervail on softwood lumber, that if we backed down on fish, potash, shakes and shingles, gave the Americans the green light on the north warning system, allow them to test the Cruise, provide the Strategic Air Command with low-level bomb routes in western and northern Canada, and that if we backed down on
April 7, 1987

drug patenting then we would get some kind of move on this mythical free trade agreement. Even though the President of the United States was here yesterday and gave his endorsation, anyone who follows how legislation moves in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate knows that the protectionist move is in high gear and that the likelihood of Canada coming out on the winning end of any kind of a "free trade agreement" is pretty low.
The secret meetings conducted between the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, who are representing the multinationals, and the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association representing the generics is a story that has been told in this House before. The mediator was an old friend of the Prime Minister's, Paul Amos, from the Montreal law firm of Ogilvy, Renault. The meetings failed spectacularly even with the crony system.
Even at that stage, barely six months into the new term of the Mulroney Government, the Conservatives lacked the flexibility to see that Eastman's work was the way out for them, that a consensus would form rapidly around his proposals which would be acceptable to almost everyone including the Liberal Party when it finally dared to take a position on this Bill.
Instead, the Government marched to its own objective of reaching the free trade nirvana by successfully doing in the National Energy Program, the Foreign Investment Review Agency and Section 41.(4) of the Patent Act. The Government had no time to praise Eastman, the Government simply wanted to bury him, which it did by placing him on the review board. When the Government found it could not bury Professor Eastman and his work, many groups across Canada, seniors, the disabled, the Associations of Physicians and Nurses and those involved in chronic long term care, those millions of Canadians who rely on low-cost generics banded together. The elderly, those shut in who are sick and make use of pharmaceuticals for such things as diabetes, a heart condition or anything else, they started to rally around and realize that what the Government was proposing in terms of the prescription in Bill C-22 was not the kind of prescription Canadian consumers want to buy. They do not want to have anything to do with it.
The Government has yet to wake up to the fact that Bill C-22 is not in the interests of the scientific community, which is the rallying cry of the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because in my view just as much would be done in research and development of new pharmaceuticals in Canada with a four-year patent protection as with ten. The additional six years is just a straight giveaway by the Conservative Government to the multinationals. It is straight profiteering, Mr. Speaker. It is not the kind of government leadership that those Canadians who rely by the millions on pharmaceuticals want to see from the Government.
These amendments put a bit of Eastman and his report back into the Bill. It will be interesting to see whether the Government adopts any of them. One of the most difficult for the
Patent Act
Government to get around is what we have before us today in Motion No. 4, the 10 years of patent protection instead of four. I will be looking forward to hearing from government Members expounding and explaining to those Canadians listening today why the additional six years are required when that is nothing more than a straight giveaway to the multinationals. After all this money comes straight out of the pockets of Canadian consumers, many of whom can least afford it.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, several years ago Hon. Members on both sides of the House would rightfully complain about their minor role in the legislation process. More often than not we barely had time to read the bills drafted, as we know, by very senior officials who are paid for doing that. These people did not consult with Members to any great extent, but of course they had the ears of their Ministers who made sure the message would get through to the various caucuses just so such or such piece of legislation would appear on the Order Paper and ultimately become the law of the land.
Over the years there were a number of discussions among Members to bring about a parliamentary reform. This is how our colleague, now Senator Tom Lefebvre, came to produce his report and eventually everything turned out all right. Next we had the famous McGrath Commission whose chairman is now the Newfoundland Lieutenant Governor, as we all know. He was a former Minister and-I think this can be said of a Government Member, even by the Opposition-an eminent and very energetic parliamentarian who thought time had come indeed for Members to play a significant role in the House, in parliamentary committees, and in the legislation process. And so we came to the conclusion that most of the McGrath report recommendations ought to be endorsed.
One of our colleagues the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) sat on one of those parliamentary committees and never missed any of the proceedings on Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
So in keeping with the McGrath spirit Hon. Members thought they would have a leading role to play on the parliamentary committee to which Government Bill c-22 had been referred.
Members of the Official Opposition and their colleagues worked very hard in an attempt to improve this piece of legislation. They may not be right in every single case, but I would be inclined to believe that it is impossible for my colleagues in Opposition, especially those of the Official Opposition, always to be totally and invariably wrong.
After lengthy discussions, they introduced 47 amendments. If memory serves-and my whip would confirm this-Mr. Speaker decided to condense the 47 amendments into 18 debatable groups. We are now debating the second of these 18 groups of motions. By way of explanation for TV viewers watching the proceedings-and for the benefit of the Minister

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
who is giving us her undivided attention-47 amendments have been proposed and, in his wisdom, Mr. Speaker decided that they would be the subject of 18 debates and as many divisions.
Well, it seems the McGrath spirit has all but vanished because the 47 amendments, drafted by Opposition Members as a result of many representations made throughout Canada by consumer protection interest groups that listened closely, reflected, worked for months and now that we have reached the final stage but one, they turn around and say: Well, boys and girls, you have been wasting your time on those forty-seven amendments, because not one of them is going to be passed.
That is really discouraging. It is discouraging for the people sitting here in the House for the first time and who believe- for instance, I see the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) who is listening attentively and who believes in parliamentary reform. If she works on parliamentary committees, and all of a sudden, she sees an important Bill . . . I'm not saying that all forty-seven amendments should be acceptable to the Government, I am not saying that, but I find it difficult to understand why, in that case, Members should sit on a parliamentary committee and spend weeks and months preparing for that moment when they can at last say what they feel must be said. I am not saying that what they have to say is always the truth and is always acceptable. The Government has responsibilities and the Opposition does as well. However, the fact that all forty-seven amendments are rejected out of hand, with almost no debate, because we have not noticed any debate coming from the Government side, I think that is-
My friend would say that it was a setback for the new parliamentary procedures put forward by our hon. friend, the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, Mr. McGrath. It is sad.
The first amendment was a very simple one calling for a definition for research. We have a very stubborn Minister, and I believe that is acceptable parliamentary language. I could say more. However, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is very stubborn. He is also responsible for the post office, making two major catastrophes across Canada. The stubborn Minister does not want to define the word "research". That motion was disposed of by the House so the Chair will probably say that the debate on it has finished, and he would be right.
It is great to say that this will bring money and research into Canada and that there will be $1.4 billion-worth of research done here. I am sure my hon. friend from Quebec City who is listening attentively as she does most of the time would agree. It is all very well to tell Canadians to get excited about the $1.4 billion in research, but we do not even have a definition of research. I think that is not fair.
In his famous report, Dr. Eastman said that we have to be fair. I believe fundamentally that we must be fair to the brand-name companies because, after all, they do invest a lot of money. Therefore, they should be entitled to some protection.
That is probably where we differ from the socialist Party. We believe in fairness. If a company puts its money into a drug, it should be protected to a certain extent. Eastman said that there should be four years of full protection. I ask why the Government is still insisting on having 10 years of full protection. Is it not because very strong lobbyists are telling us to give the drug companies protection forever, but they will accept 10 years? Is it not because of pressure from the United States?
I did not happen to agree with some of the things the President of the United States of America said yesterday in the Chamber but I tried to behave well yesterday, contrary to some who really misbehaved. If one does not agree, one should go outside the House and disagree there. I did not agree with the President and the House is aware of my feelings about Nicaragua and the Contras. However, I do not like it when people misbehave.
I do not like to be told by lobbyists from the United States of America how we in Canada should behave and how we should run our own affairs.
I know my time has run out. I say to the Government that there will be other pieces of legislation on which Members have worked extensively in committee and have faithfully put all their energies into putting forward amendments. I hope the Government will some day realize that all members of Government are not right and all members of the Opposition are not wrong. That is impossible. There are 47 amendments because of a lot of work by my colleagues in both opposition Parties, and they have been totally rejected by a stubborn Minister because they do not happen to come from the majority or because they do not meet the requirements of strong lobbyists in Canada or, what is worse, strong lobbyists in the U.S. This is a sad moment for those who truly believe in parliamentary reform.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion which makes an effort to apply to this Bill some aspects of the Eastman report. That report leaves no doubt that the 1969 amendment to the Patent Act was a resounding success. The compulsory licensing provision saved Canadian consumers millions of dollars, $211 million in 1983 alone. This without having any discernible impact on profitability, growth or employment in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry as a whole. That industry remains very profitable for the patent holding and generic companies alike. By no stretch of the imagination can the Government claim that the multinational drug companies need higher profits in order to encourage them to do research and development in Canada.
April 7, 1987

The proposed changes to the Patent Act brings Canada closer to what is happening in the U.S. There the drug companies are even more profitable than those in Canada. A recent news report shows that the U.S. parent companies of the firms operating in Canada are embarrassingly cash rich. The Merck company had $1.4 billion in cash. Bristol-Myers had $1.3 billion in cash. Pfizer had $1.4 billion. Eli Lilly had a meagre $850 million in cash on hand. Those companies are looking for places to put that money. I suggest the Government has been duped and the industry is very profitable with billions of dollars in cash on hand, looking for a place to put it. They should be quite willing to put some of it into R and D in Canada without the 10-year restriction imposed by this legislation.
We should recognize that even four years of patent protection really means about seven or eight years before the generic equivalent is on the market. By extending protection for 10 years we are in effect extending it for 14 or 15 years. That is not necessary and it will cost Canadian consumers millions of dollars.
Dr. Eastman also makes it clear that despite what government officials seem to believe, the weakening of compulsory licensing and the granting of rigid patent monopolies to multinationals will not result in Canada becoming a major centre for either basic pharmaceutical research or the manufacturing of the active ingredients of those drugs. The monopoly these companies have had and will have makes it unnecessary to look to Canada as a place for development.
The compulsory licence holder must pay 4 per cent royalty to the patent holder throughout the life of the patent. Eastman suggests in his report that an increase in that royalty to about 10 per cent would be quite adequate and a reasonable alternative to extending the patent life. He suggests compulsory licensing should remain at the centre of Canada's policy towards the pharmaceutical industry.
The Consumers' Association of Canada agrees and suggests that we are only weakening the industry by bringing in further patent protection.
The CAC also suggests that consumers and taxpayers should not have to accept any increases in market exclusivity beyond the four years recommended by Eastman. Extending that exclusivity will cost consumers, provincial treasuries, and ultimately provincial taxpayers, millions of dollars. Eastman proposes that by increasing the royalty and leaving compulsory licensing in place, consumers would continue to save money on drugs. Compulsory licensing is not nearly as expensive as extended exclusivity and that is the direction you should be going in.
What we have in this motion before us is an attempt to retain compulsory licensing and royalties and the retention of exclusivity for a period of four years or perhaps a little longer.
I will complete my remarks after lunch, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport tried to make us believe that his Quebec counterpart had expressed unconditional support for Bill C-18 as drafted. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say this is a false statement because I have here a press release from Quebec Transport Minister Marc-Yvan Cote, along with a brief to his federal colleague in which he recommends at least eight amendments to Bill C-18 as we know it.
The Quebec Minister of Transport is wondering why Canada should attempt to negotiate a free trade agreement with a partner who will certainly not offer us anything on a silver platter, what with restrictions on lumber, pork and potash. How can we justify giving him unconditional access to our rail lines without a single concession on his part?
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members of the House to bring pressure to bear on the Minister of Transport in the hope that he might better appreciate and understand the requirements of Quebecers.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Canada-Israel Friendship Group it is a privilege for me to rise today to welcome to Ottawa the members of the national executive of the Haddassah-Wizo, one of Canada's outstanding voluntary organizations.
This year marks seven decades of public service by the members of this organization who have dedicated themselves to the assistance of children, youth, and women in Canada and Israel.

April 7, 1987
The executive of Haddassah-Wizo, 152 outstanding individuals representing more than 17,000 members, are a fine example of the energy, skills, and intelligence being mobilized every day throughout Canada by more than 40,000 Canadian voluntary organizations. Almost 3 million Canadians give their time and their talent to their country through the voluntary sector. It is time our country recognized the magnificent contribution of these dedicated Canadians.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about the negotiations which are taking place between the management and unions at Canada Post because we want mail service to be maintained. The Government has appointed a conciliator, which is a hopeful sign. However, it is disturbing that the appointed conciliator has no dates open on his calendar. He is operating on the basis of cancellations only. If another commitment is cancelled, he is available for the post office negotiations.
This is very disturbing, Mr. Speaker. If the Government is serious about reaching a settlement at Canada Post so that postal service can be maintained, we need the best possible conciliator and one who is on the job full-time. The Government appointed such a conciliator in the last round of negotiations and a settlement was reached. Why not take the Post Office seriously? We need a full-time conciliator in order that postal service may continue.



EXTERNAL TRADE


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Since 1984, Mr. Speaker, the number of Quebecers opposed to free trade has declined by 13 per cent, which means that only 27 per cent of them do not fully support our position. More than 57 per cent of the people of Quebec do approve our free trade efforts. In the opinion of such experts as Bernard Landry who so stated in Le Devoir this morning, neither the language nor the culture of Quebecers would be threatened by a free trade agreement. "A free trade agreement can only bolster our cultural and political identity." In light of these facts, Mr. Speaker, we must continue our quest for an early historic economic accord on liberalizing trade, the hope expressed yesterday in this House by both the President of the United States of America and our Prime Minister.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, at 5.30 a.m. on April 9, 1917, 70 years ago, Canadian soldiers captured Vimy Ridge.
It has been stated that almost every man who trudged up the slopes of Vimy Ridge on that gloomy Easter Monday in April, 1917, had been a civilian when war broke out in 1914. Four of the five Canadian Generals certainly were. They won this and other historic battles in Europe because they did not use the traditional battle techniques of longer established nations and, hence, had the power of unpredictability.
I believe very strongly that our present-day Canadian national spirit, which is still growing and maturing, was first born on the battle fields of Europe and from there has bloomed into the playing of major diplomatic roles in the world.
At Vimy 70 years ago tens of thousands of young Canadians sacrificed their lives or suffered wounds which kept them incapacitated for life. Why did they do it? They did it so the rest of us can live in and enjoy this great nation-Canada! I ask all Canadians today, do we really appreciate those forerunners of Canadian nationalism? Unfortunately we pay very little attention today to the history that those generations wrote with their blood and lived with their spirit. They sacrificed their future and died for their convictions.
For every Canadian who really cares, every day must be a remembrance day for those who first founded our Canadian spirit and nationhood.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a good news day for Canadians. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) met the President of the United States of America here in Ottawa. After the private sessions the Prime Minister, in a superb speech in the House, set out the guidelines. The President responded graciously in his own inimitable style and, as a result, all Canadians are better off.
The threat of acid rain, of such major importance to eastern Canadian lakes and forests, is markedly closer to solution. Free trade, the benefits of which will accrue to all Canadians, now has the full support of both administrations.
A side benefit, that of a continuing close and friendly relationship with our nearest neighbour and most important
April 7, 1987

trading partner, is also valuable. Even though a few may wish to flaunt their bad manners, I am sure that most Canadians applaud the good news.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 90 sponsoring organizations of the new Coalition for a Just Refugee and Immigration Policy today said that immigrant associations, immigrant service agencies, refugee associations, refugee service agencies, religious organizations, lawyers, human rights organizations, solidarity groups, unions, women's groups, and other concerned groups have joined together to demand justice in the Government's immigration and refugee policy.
They are all united in their belief that refugees who come to our borders seeking protection must be welcomed and that immigrants and Canadian citizens must be allowed to bring their families-siblings, for example-to Canada promptly.
Refugees and immigrants stimulate Canada's economic growth and create new jobs.
The Coalition is committed to working together to insist that the Government keep our doors open to refugees coming to Canada for protection; enact a new refugee determination procedure that provides for a fair and expeditious oral hearing with the right to an appeal for every person coming to Canada seeking protection; expand the definition of family to include all children and siblings, and facilitate prompt family reunification in Canada; and maintain special procedures to protect persons who are fleeing from natural or man-made disasters in their country of origin.



WORLD HEALTH DAY


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 7, is World Health Day. The theme for this year is "Immunization". Six diseases which every minute, around the world, cause eight children to die, and permanently disable a further eight, can largely be prevented by immunization.
Canada is among the world leaders in this campaign. In addition to several smaller commitments through Cl DA, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced at the recent Commonwealth and Francophone summits contributions totalling $71 million for India and other countries.
Canadian institutions such as l'institut Armand Frappier and the Connaught Laboratories, together with voluntary
organizations such as Rotary, have been making ongoing contributions.
Today the Canadian Public Health Association is launching a national campaign of awareness and fund raising. It behooves all of us, as Members of Parliament, to support the efforts of CPHA and other groups in achieving immunization of all the world's children and pregnant mothers by 1990.

[ Translation]



TRANSPORT


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record a letter of support I received from Mrs. Valoree Regner of Dawson Creek, B.C., on the subject of seat belts in cars. This is what she says:

I am writing regarding the legislation you are trying to change concerning rear seat restraint seatbelts. I became aware of the problems caused by the present rear seatbelts after watching The Fifth Estate ... I would like to know if there is anything the general public can do to help facilitate the changes you propose. I am a member of a "B.C.-wide women's group" and would like to make my fellow members in Dawson Creek, B.C. aware of the problems. I would appreciate any information you could send or any contacts you could give to obtain information about your proposal as well as problems experienced with the present seatbelts.
I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to begin a public campaign of information and education similar to the one against drunk driving in order to sensitize all Canadians to the need of wearing a seat belt and, more important, to wearing it correctly.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliament of Canada was listening to the President of the United States in these precincts. During the President's official speech, parliamentarians had to put up with the incredible lack of courtesy and the insolence of Members of the NDP present in this House who did not stop talking to each other during the President's speech, under the embarrassed but approving eye of their leader.
Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the majority of NDP parliamentarians in this House yesterday was unacceptable and an embarrassment to the reputation of Canada's Parliament, in this country and elsewhere. The shouts of hostility during

April 7, 1987
the President's speech, which we also heard, came from the same source and were the climax of the collective arrogance of these socialist parliamentarians.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to have to bring up in this House the immature and unconscionable behaviour of this party of sheep. Democracy and the Canadian public are entitled to a better class of parliamentarians.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in promoting support for the Bill to change the Patent Act in respect to prescription drugs, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) continues to speak highly of a poll conducted for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, but should he have confidence that such a poll is correct? It has been contradicted by previous Gallup and Angus Reid polls which gave exactly the opposite results.
It has been criticized by polling professionals for using misleading questions and biased information. It was based on the premise that drug prices will not increase by more than the cost of living under the provisions of Bill C-22.
I ask the Minister to demonstrate how he will ensure that the price of all drugs in Canada will not increase by more than the cost of living. That is only one criterion by which the Drug Prices Review Board will have to judge whether drug prices are excessive. Others include loopholes such as the price of a drug in the previous five years so that drugs which have increased at 20 per cent per year can keep on increasing by that amount.
No wonder the Government of Manitoba has said that not only are cost of living increases acceptable under this Bill but so are increases of 20 per cent, 40 per cent, and 50 per cent.
All of this is in the name of "consumer protection". As George Orwell once said: "When you see a clever Conservative, it is time to start reaching for your wallet".



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, as a proud Canadian I felt some discomfort and embarrassment when members of the New Democratic Party
heckled and yelled at United States President Ronald Reagan as he addressed this Parliament.
Members of the New Democratic Party used the defence of democracy and free speech as they tried to shout down President Reagan. Canadians who truly value democracy know that we can assert our nation's interests in a confident, proud, and civil manner. It is natural we will differ with others but there are many ways of constructive dialogue.
Perhaps it is acceptable in the NDP type of democracy to shout down those who disagree with it and its allies in Socialist International. Obviously, the NDP holds dear the principle of muzzling those with a different viewpoint.
All of us as children learned the timeless values of courtesy and the credo that we do not abuse a house guest. By rudely interrupting a visiting Head of State and by bringing shame on all Canadians, members of the New Democratic Party have shown once and for all that not only do they have no respect for democracy, they do not even have good manners.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EMPLOYMENT


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, the board of directors of the Bridging-the-Gap Training Program, which has offered training and job placement services to over 200 disadvantaged young people on the South Shore, learned that the program has been terminated by the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) half-way through its third year. No reason for the decision was given.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member. He is making his statement and I would ask that the proper courtesies be extended.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I call upon the Minister to change his decision and make an affirmative response on behalf of the people in that particular program.
The mandate of the Bridging-the-Gap Training Program is to assist severely employment-disadvantaged youth to acquire the knowledge, life skills, and employment skills necessary to seek and hold employment, and to assist those who participate in the program to secure regular employment in the community. The target population comprises youth between the ages of 17 and 24 years who have been unemployed or out of school for 24 of the past 30 weeks, who demonstrate a degree of motivation and commitment consistent with the finding and holding of employment and who are taking steps to control problems they may be experiencing in relation to drugs, alcohol, mental illness or law breaking.
April 7, 1987

I call upon the Government to change this decision.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of fair-minded Canadians are disgusted and insulted by the vicious anti-American conduct displayed in the House yesterday.
The outburst of the New Democratic Party during the President's address was unacceptable and showed how those Hon. Members would conduct Canada-U.S. foreign affairs.
Their calculated insult to the elected President of the United States was a direct insult to the American people.
Some two million Canadian jobs depend directly on exports to the U.S.A. The New Democratic Party claims to speak for working Canadians. Yet their vicious anti-American policies would result in tens of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs. Canadian social insurance programs, such as OAS, public assistance and post-secondary education, depend upon tax revenues from those two million working Canadians.
The NDP conduct shows that they are unworthy of filling high public office-


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what they would do if they ever got real power? Let Canadians beware.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, what are friends for? Give up? Well, I will tell you what their friends are for, Mr. Speaker.
1 have here an untendered contract in the amount of $25,000, the contract being to:

-provide general and specific advice on communications to the staff of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Oral Questions

I have another contract here, Mr. Speaker, this one being for $10,000, with the purpose being to "advise the Department and the Minister on appropriate strategy for implementing the communications aspects of the Government's policy on metric conversion"; and this one is to Nantel & Associes.


Mr. Nunziata:: Good old Roger!


Don Boudria: I have another one, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this one being to provide the Minister of Communications "communications services in relation to major departmental policy initiatives".
Let's see who this one was given to. This one was given to Synchrocom Communications, Mr. Nantel being one of the principals of that company, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Roger again!


Don Boudria: The amount of this contract is $41,000. And I have another one, Mr. Speaker, for Synchrocom Communications, this one being in the amount of $48,000: $40,000 for professional services and $8,000 for travel expenses. And this one is again for Mr. Nantel-


An Hon. Member:: Who is that man?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Oral Questions. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
[Editor's Note: There then followed, by their respective Party members, standing ovations for the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask for a delay of game penalty, but I got skated off by my own team.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It arises out of the visit to Canada by the President of the United States.
Not one word was uttered yesterday, either by the President or by the Prime Minister, on the plight, the desperate plight, of the Canadian farmer.
Did the Prime Minister ask the President to use his good offices with the U.S. Congress to change the U.S. Farm Bill so as to raise the price of world wheat?

April 7, 1987
Oral Questions
Did the Prime Minister complain to the President of the American practice of giving away one bushel of grain for every three bushels sold?
Did the Prime Minister raise this subject at all with the President; and if so, what was his reaction?
Western farmers are in a desperate situation, and urgently need some answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, agriculture and the plight of farmers, and western farmers in particular, took up a large part of our luncheon meeting yesterday with President Reagan and those of his Cabinet who accompanied him.
The President referred to the Canadian initiative of raising agriculture to the Tokyo Summit level last year, a plan that we put forward. He was aware of, and supportive of, the initiatives taken in regard to the Cairns moves. He offered the cooperation of the United States in regard to further initiatives that Canada will take at the Venice Summit, to bring some resolution to the complex problems facing farmers in general, and agriculture, resulting from the unfair subsidies provided by the United States and Europe and the damaging effects these have upon Canadian producers.
I want to tell my right hon. friend that not only was it raised at that level by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself, it came up with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade. I can assure my right hon. friend that the interests of Canadian farmers were fully and thoroughly discussed with the President of the United States and all his colleagues.
[ Translation]


ACID RAIN-STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES- PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, two years ago here in the House, I proposed a bilateral treaty on air quality with the United States. Sunday, the Prime Minister made exactly the same proposal to the President, but without any preparation. Why did he spring this issue on the President without notice and without preparing the terrain? Didn't he realize that he was again giving the President of the United States an excuse to promise to look into any measures that could eventually solve the problem, instead of dealing immediately and directly with the question of acid rain?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken when he says that the matter was raised without prior notice and without preparing the terrain. We have spent considerable time on this issue in cooperation with our own and U.S. authorities. The Leader of the Opposition is no doubt aware
that we have made further progress in this complex dossier. We have not reached a final settlement, but this is a step towards a settlement, and I think the Leader of the Opposition should support this approach because it will lead to a solution to the problem of acid rain that we inherited, and I know the Leader of the Opposition will want to work with us towards a definitive solution.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY IN ARCTIC
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, buttressing my contention that the United States interprets the matter differently, of course, is a statement this morning from Marlin Fitzwater, the spokesman of President Reagan on the environment, which indicates a number of more committees and studies and that the United States, in his opinion, has successfully postponed the issue. He says that a U.S. commitment to consider an accord was the commitment given, not necessarily a commitment to develop an accord. In any event, there was nothing on the U.S. Farm Bill before the House yesterday in the President's speech nor in the Prime Minister's comments. There was last minute smoke and mirror on acid rain and nothing concrete on Arctic sovereignty.
The Prime Minister used a photo opportunity humorously to show the President of the United States a globe and point out to him where the Northwest Passage was. Why did the Prime Minister not receive an unconditional commitment from the President of the United States recognizing in clear terms Canada's sovereignty over our Arctic, our waters, our land, and our air-complete sovereignty, unequivocal and unchallenged?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition finds photo opportunities so offensive. He sought one very actively with the President of the United States.


John Napier Turner: That is a cheap shot. The President asked to see me.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, I am sorry, I misunderstood. The President asked to see him.


John Napier Turner: That is right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I apologize.


John Napier Turner: You got it right now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I wonder what Mr. Fitzwater would say about that.


John Napier Turner: Oh, that is a great one too.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I indicated prior to the presidential visit that we were not looking for anything other than steady, serious progress in all these matters. I think we have made some progress. We have much more progress to make in all these
April 7, 1987

areas. We will continue working at it as best we can. We think Canadians recognize that some progress is better than going backward as had been the case. I hope my right hon. friend will co-operate with us in bringing these matters to fruition.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I must follow up on the question of Arctic sovereignty, because the Prime Minister completely avoided answering the questions of the Leader of the Opposition.
When you take the President's comments of yesterday and you read them together with the Prime Minister's comments on the program Meet the Press on Sunday it seems clear that the Government intends to compromise Arctic sovereignty by giving the United States unimpeded access, justifying this sellout, trying, if you like, to camouflage or disguise it as some kind of security arrangement with the U.S. Why doesn't the Government assert its sovereignty over the Arctic? It should not sell out Canadian interests in this way, certainly not on a dishonest pretext of a security arrangement.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the allegations of the Hon. Member are wrong. There was an unwillingness on the part of the former Government to assert Canada's sovereignty over the North. The Government of which the Hon. Member was a part would not allow that question to be considered by the International Court of Justice. That Government specifically barred its reference there.
We are trying to work out an arrangement which will, as the President said here yesterday, involve a mutual respect for sovereignty but will also take account of other interests. If that fails, we will be prepared, if challenged, to go to the International Court of Justice. That is an area of defence of Canadian sovereignty that was explicitly denied to Canada by the Liberal Government of which the Member was a part.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government of which I was a part was so respected that no one dared to challenge it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: No one dared challenge Arctic sovereignty. The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIME MINISTER'S TELEVISED INTERVIEW
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State apparently has not read the Prime Minister's comments on the program Meet the Press. If I may take just a moment to touch on the relevant part, when the Prime Minister was asked by Mr. Kalb about the right to free and unimpeded access over the straits, the Prime Minister
Oral Questions
replied-I am making it succinct-that we are members of the Alliance and NORAD and:
-we would look with favour, obviously, on arrangements that would facilitate
and expand those agreements between the countries. And therefore you can
draw some pretty fundamental conclusions from that.
The fundamental conclusion is that this Government is prepared to sell out Arctic sovereignty under the pretext of it being an expansion of NATO obligations.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is false, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: That is a quote.


Charles Joseph Clark: There was an arrangement before that limited Canada's ability to defend our sovereignty. We have removed those limits because we are sure of our sovereignty and we intend to assert it.
Let me say something about the Liberal Government of which the Hon. Member was a part. It was so respected that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition left it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. ACID RAIN-POSSIBILITY OF CANADA-UNITED STATES ACCORD


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the President's commitment yesterday to consider the suggestion of the Prime Minister for a bilateral accord between Canada and the United States with respect to acid rain.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he received any commitments from the President with respect to what kind of time frame we are looking at? Did he receive any commitment from the President as to when the President would tell, the Prime Minister, after having considered it, what his judgment would be concerning that suggestion?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as to timing, it was agreed between the two countries that we would begin immediately to discuss the possibility of a bilateral accord that would address the question of specific acid rain causing emission reductions on both sides of the border. We are going to proceed with dispatch and follow whatever progress is possible between two countries in the spirit of neighbourliness.


TIMEFRAME FOR REACHING AGREEMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of the Environment could tell us if he realistically expects such an agreement to be reached before the end of President Reagan's term in office.

April 7, 1987
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when our Government took office in September, 1984, the U.S. administration was still attributing acid rain to natural phenomena, including, as I have said in the House, trees, volcanoes, and even ducks. In two years we have made progress to the point where the President of the United States, on the floor of the House of Commons, said he is considering very seriously the possibility of an accord.


GOVERNMENT STRATEGY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of the Environment could give us more of an idea of what he means by dispatch and if it will involve actions on the part of the Government with respect to the United States Congress. I understand that the chances are good that we may be able to come to an agreement about a unanimous resolution on acid rain and that would be a good thing to do, as I think we would all agree. I wonder what else the Government might have in mind with respect to the Congress of the United States. What will be the Government's strategy in the coming weeks and months when proceeding beyond what was accomplished at the summit?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the President said in his remarks that he agrees to consider the Prime Minister's proposal for a bilateral accord on acid rain, "building on the tradition of agreements to control pollution of our shared international waters".
That is a fairly direct reference to the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which was an executive agreement that had to be given effect by the Congress of the United States. Obviously, in connection with this, if it is an executive agreement it would still require recourse to Congress and that is why our emphasis in our negotiations with the Americans is on working with both the President and the legislative branch in the U.S.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In Washington a few hours ago, President Reagan's spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, said that Canadians wanted a U.S. commitment to consider an accord, not necessarily to develop one, "and that is what they got". Does the Prime Minister really believe that if President Reagan were really convinced of the necessity of undertaking on the part of the U.S. an acid rain abatement program, something he did not seem to be very convinced of yesterday in this Chamber, he would go to Congress to get it to approve an abatement program?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of belief or credibility, the fact is that the Liberal Party of Canada was in office during most of the period of the Reagan presidency to date. I wonder if the Hon, Member for Davenport, who was Minister of the Environment during much of that time, would tell the House how many
bilateral agreements his Government achieved with the provinces and how many bilateral agreements he was able to achieve with the United States, agreements which attained specific targeted and scheduled reductions in acid rain-causing emissions.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to a federal-provincial agreement in March, 1984, and we are very glad to see the Tory Government continuing on the road we paved for it. Second, we achieved a Memorandum of Intent in August, 1980, under President Carter, but we now find ourselves in a phase that even precedes that Memorandum of Intent achieved by the Liberal Government.


PRESENTATION OF CANADIAN POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is still directed to the Prime Minister who seems to want to avoid questions. I can actually sympathize with him because he must today reflect upon what really happened yesterday. Does the Prime Minister not realize that if there were to be a summit in 1988, he would be dealing with a lame-duck President who could not deliver through Congress, and that the Prime Minister would then have to realize that he should have raised Canada's position squarely, openly and frankly at the first summit in 1985 without uselessly wasting three years waiting to put Canada's position forward to the President of the United States?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party was in government it signed a Memorandum of Intent in August, 1980, with the Government of the United States, and it made so little progress achieving anything with that memorandum that it cut off entirely negotiations with the United States on the subject of acid rain in June, 1982.
The Hon. Member moralizing on acid rain is like Lady Chatterley moralizing on sex-lots of experience but no credibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SOVEREIGNTY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It was reported today that an exchange of letters took place last week between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. In this exchange, the Prime Minister offered the U.S. a deal that would not recognize our sovereignty in the Arctic in exchange for a U.S. agreement to seek permission for voyages in the Northwest Passage. Apparently that deal was turned down by the U.S. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to
April 7, 1987

facilitate a full parliamentary and public discussion of the Government's offers, deals, and compromises on Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was present at a meeting of a Standing Committee of this House at which there was discussion by officials at some length about the situation in the Arctic. If she was not there, I could get her a copy of the transcript. I would be quite pleased to bring her up to date with the state of knowledge of her colleagues.
The other day one of the Hon, Member's colleagues asked me if I would enter into discussions with the Heads of Government of Yukon and the Northwest Territories regarding discussions fully consistent with Canadian sovereignty undertaken by Canada. I have had those discussions with the Heads of Government of both Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I would be pleased to meet with members of opposition Parties to bring them up to date on the discussions and I think they would share my satisfaction that here, on the floor of the House of Commons yesterday, the President of the United States expressed his interest in seeking an arrangement that would involve mutual respect for sovereignty. That is a very substantial step forward.


INTERNATIONAL SECURITY INQUIRY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Minister has ignored the letters means that he does not know about the letters exchanged between the President and the Prime Minister last week. Therefore, I would ask the Prime Minister to respond. Apparently we were willing to give up our sovereignty.
Instead of making all these secret deals, will the Minister facilitate public discussion? Will he explain more clearly right now what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke on NBC's Meet the Press television program and talked about expanding our military arrangements with the U.S. into the Canadian Arctic?
Does the Minister not agree that Canada's security, the security of the United States, the security of the Soviet Union and the security of all countries would be better facilitated if we focused on the demilitarization of the Arctic rather than the increasing of weapons there?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of assumptions in that question. One is the accuracy of the transcript which, in her own interests, I think the Hon. Member would want to verify.


Pauline Jewett: I already have, you dummy.


Charles Joseph Clark: The second is her assertion which I categorically deny that Canada has been engaged in any actions that would limit our sovereignty. Quite to the contrary.
Oral Questions
We inherited a regime that placed limitations upon our ability to express and defend our sovereignty.


Pauline Jewett: The public doesn't believe that.


Charles Joseph Clark: We changed that regime because we have confidence in that sovereignty. We intend not just to talk about it but to act on it.
Finally, if I may speak about the Hon. Member's interest in demilitarization in the Arctic, I hope she will bring her view to the attention of representatives of the Soviet Union who are now constructing submarines with substantial nuclear and subice activity capabilities.


PUBLIC WORKS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and concerns Place Vincent Massey.
On April 2, referring to this matter, the President of the Treasury Board said this:
A judgment was made on the merits of the case, and a decision was made in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Well, according to an article in La Presse, The RCMP are making an investigation into the Place Vincent Massey case.
If the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer were served, as the Minister claims, why would the police be inquiring into this matter?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on an investigation by the RCMP. All I can say is that, with respect to the terms and conditions which had been submitted to Treasury Board, the decision was made in the best interests of Canadians, and I am prepared to defend this decision before anybody. Should the Hon. Member have specific charges in mind, he ought to take the honourable course and make his accusations outside the House.


ALLEGED MISSING DOCUMENTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Can he tell the House why he initially refused to give me the documents concerning Vincent Massey Place? Can he say why to this date documents are missing from the file that was obtained under Access to Information? Why was the House not told of the RCMP

April 7, 1987
Oral Questions
investigation when the Minister himself knew of it last Thursday, according to a member of his staff to whom I spoke before Question Period?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the suggestion that I did not supply the Hon. Member with documents, I invited him to indicate exactly what he wanted and I have not heard from him to this date.
I want to put this whole situation in perspective. I have done a study of what the Hon. Member would have us do, which is to retain the present lease. I projected that over a 25-year period. The cost to the taxpayer would be approximately $40 million. By pursuing the course we did the cost to the taxpayer will be $39 million, and we will also own the building and all of the land. I ask: which is the better deal for Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the tragic death on Saturday of an Oakville teenager on Lake Ontario. That death highlights the lack of commitment by both levels of government to appropriate search and rescue services along the Great Lakes. What action are the Minister and his Government willing to take to ensure that Coast Guard rescue facilities, including helicopters, are adequately distributed throughout the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Ontario?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in charge of search and rescue is the Minister of National Defence. However, I want to point out that there is no inadequacy in the provision of search and rescue facilities along the Great Lakes, or across Canada generally. I think the services are certainly adequate. However, the lead Minister would have to be asked if he wants a detailed response.


COAST GUARD SERVICES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that the Coast Guard has now been transferred to the other Minister.
The Minister of Transport is responsible for the Canadian Coast Guard. What is his response to the police chiefs of Halton, Niagara, and Hamilton-Wentworth who recently asked him to provide better Coast Guard services for the area, particularly at one end of the lake?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am the Minister responsible for the Coast Guard.
The hon. gentleman asked a question about search and rescue. The Minister in charge of search and rescue for the Government of Canada is the Minister of National Defence and the hon. gentleman should know that. The Minister responsible for the Coast Guard is myself.
If the hon. gentleman has a question he wants to ask in connection with the Coast Guard facilities on Lake Ontario or in any other part of Canada, if he would let me have that question I will get him the details. I do not have in hand right now the details in connection with Coast Guard installations everywhere in Canada. I would like at least a little notice.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. As he has known for some two years, the administration of the farm fuel tax rebate for off-highway use discriminates between agents of oil companies and bulk fuel dealers. The bulk dealers must bear the cost of financing this tax between payment and reimbursement, and the agents do not. Has the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, completed his assessment of possible solutions to this problem, such as the provision of cash advances to bulk fuel dealers?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of my colleague in this matter. I want to assure him that the Minister of Finance and I are discussing it. We understand there are cash flow difficulties but I want to point out that this excellent program, one of many brought forward to assist farmers, has done a great deal of good. I am seeking to improve the administrative efficiency of this program in my Department to see what we can do to make it even more beneficial.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns the infringement of the personal sovereignty of a distinguished Canadian citizen. On Sunday an American official unlawfully and without authority entered the hotel room of Mel Hurtig, Chairman of the Council of Canadians, when that council was in the process of demonstrating on Parliament Hill. Will the Minister tell this House what the Government intends to do about this rather unfortunate incident?
April 7, 1987


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to clear up this matter for the Hon. Member.
In the first instance the American official was a member of the U.S. State Department. They had been checked into the sixth floor. They had been given all of the keys for the rooms on that floor. He went to the sixth floor with all of the keys given to him by the Chateau Laurier and was in the process of placing gifts in the various rooms.
He opened Mr. Hurtig's door. Mr. Hurtig had not as yet checked out. He was taking a late check-out. The U.S. official never crossed the threshold into the room. Mr. Hurtig has never made any complaint to the RCMP or the city police.
I would suggest that the Hon. Member observe the admonition of his Leader and research his material before making allegations of that nature.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR APOLOGY FROM AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General knows that the American agent had no business whatsoever being in that hotel room.


Some Hon. Members:: Why not?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Get hold of your group, John.


John V. Nunziata: The Tories might heckle Mr. Hurtig, but he is prepared to stand up for Canada when the Tories are not.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't he get himself elected? Why is he sneaking around hotel rooms?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, in the circumstances, that an apology should be forthcoming-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -from the American Government. Is the Solicitor General prepared to ask the American Government for an official explanation of what occurred-


John Carnell Crosbie: Ask the Chateau Laurier.


John V. Nunziata: -and ask for an apology on behalf of Mr. Hurtig?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that the Hon. Member is asking me to have the United States apologize because Mr. Hurtig was late checking out of his room?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Mr. Beatty:: Further supplementary.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to give the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood the opportunity to ask a question.


FILM INDUSTRY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who apparently set President Reagan straight about film distribution in Canada and pointed out that the takings go 97 per cent to Americans and only 3 per cent to Canadians.
Would the Prime Minister tell Canadians what he is going to do about the situation? In particular, is he willing to act on a recommendation from a task force, which recommendation has been sitting around for more than a year, that film distribution, as broadcasting for example, should be under Canadian ownership and control? Will we have some action to assert sovereignty in this area?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, this question certainly brings to the fore the value of the discussions which can take place between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. In fact, it was a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to explain to President Reagan what is intended by the legislation on film distribution which will be introduced. This legislation will deal with the Canadian domestic distribution problem. I am sure we can invite the Hon. Member's support for that move.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question on the same subject to the Prime Minister. The Minister has only undertaken to implement a very small portion of the recommendations. Indeed, the Minister is on record saying that she simply wants to ask for the agreement of the American majors on the subject.
Is asking for agreement from the American distribution companies enough? Is it not time we asserted sovereignty and Canadians took charge of this area of our culture? Should we not be acting and making those decisions rather than asking for help?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this problem has existed in Canada for 50 years. It is a problem which has not been addressed in the past.
I would be glad to send the Hon. Member a copy of the speech I made outlining the intent of the legislation in this area. I may say that this has received the applause and

April 7, 1987
Oral Questions
endorsement of many people in the Canadian film industry who are looking forward to this move.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Last Sunday more than 500 Riviere-des-Prairies ward residents of my electoral riding expressed dissatisfaction about the installation and use of superboxes.

Those people want door-to-door mail delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what the Minister plans to do to correct this situation?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to use group or community mail boxes was taken in 1978 by the then Government as an economy measure given the huge deficits the Post Office was running. We expect that within the coming year the Post Office will be in a break-even position and, if we are able to proceed with the corporate plan, will be in a position to start examining the service questions which we inherited and are trying to address in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

[ Translation]


INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The year 1987 has been designated as the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. A study released yesterday by the Canadian Council on Social Development showed that in Canada, more than 100,000 homeless were received in shelter centres. An instant survey on the night of January 22, 1987 found that 8,000 people had to use shelter centres that night: 1,800 in Toronto, 700 in Montreal, 700 in Winnipeg, 400 in Vancouver and 400 in Edmonton. My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: aside from
organizing a conference in September, what does the Government intend to do in the way of concrete measures to respond to the needs of the homeless in Canada?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have also looked at the statistics which the Hon. Member has brought to the attention of the House. Through the social housing programs of CMHC and the federal-provincial programs of the Canada Assistance Plan in 1987-88 there are an additional 45,000 units in social housing, a 10 per cent increase of the total number to 450,000. As well, the federal and provincial Governments are sharing a Canada Assistance Plan program of $8 billion, $4 billion from the federal side. As I am sure the Hon. Member knows, in order for additional moneys to be spent the provinces would have to trigger those programs for the federal Government to cost-share under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan.


NEED FOR ROOMS-REQUEST FOR MORE FUNDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: My
supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister or to the same Minister.
Is the Government prepared to commit itself-the Minister knows perfectly well that housing units are not the answer to meeting the needs of the homeless and that what is needed is rooming houses-is the Government prepared to commit itself to building 10,000 additional units in the form of rooming houses, with the resources, to meet the needs of the homeless? And is the Government prepared to set aside additional funding to double the number of shelter centres in Montreal and across Canada?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, in the last year we have dedicated the entire budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, namely $1.5 billion, to those most in need. In dealing with the plight of the homeless in this International Year of the Homeless, we have also given $1.7 million to various projects to research the problem and make recommendations. We are holding an international congress in Ottawa this fall to review those reports.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will be aware that some American shippers are circumventing Canada's countervailing duty on U.S. corn. Cheaters on both sides of the border are getting around the countervail by
April 7, 1987

mixing corn with sorghum and soybean meal, then separating the mixture and selling the corn in Canada. Does the Minister have specific plans in place which will immediately stop this illegal bypass of our U.S. corn countervail?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question on this important matter. As he knows, this corn countervail has generated a great deal of interest. Our Department is looking into these allegations. I will check more closely and report to the Hon. Member. However, I can assure him that we are aware of the situation and are moving to take measures.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, other entrepreneurs are circumventing the corn countervail by bringing truckloads of corn into Alberta duty free via British Columbia. What really is the government policy on U.S. corn imports? Are those countervails in place and are they enforceable?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, of course they are in place. As a matter of fact there will be a hearing on May 26, I believe, to look into the public interest aspect of this. In the meantime there are certain administrative difficulties which the Hon. Member has pointed out. However, I can assure him that we are aware of these and are monitoring them.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
Sunday afternoon, people from Riviere-des-Prairies were very upset because they were not getting home delivery. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier gave him the assurance that a year from now, the superboxes would be abolished and they would be getting home delivery.
Is this true or is this part of a strategy by Canada Post and the Government to get people to accept the superboxes temporarily and later to introduce delivery by superboxes on an indefinite basis?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I said in answer to a question earlier today, the decision on group or community mailboxes was taken by the Liberal Government in 1978. That policy has been in place. The fact is that to reverse that totally right now
Oral Questions
would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars per year. If the Hon. Member can suggest a way in which that money can be transferred to the Post Office, we will consider fulfilling his and my desires.


REQUEST FOR HOME DELIVERY SERVICE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the Minister. In 1978 the green boxes were installed temporarily until the subdivision was organized and sidewalks were built. It was after 1985 when his Government installed the permanent supermailboxes. Will you stop treating Canadians as second-class citizens and deliver the mail to everybody?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member read the Marchment committee report which studied the post office system. If he wants to lay blame for the problems the Post Office has now he will see a succession of Liberal Postmasters General who were responsible for the mess out of which we are now trying to dig ourselves so that we can provide the very best service to all Canadians.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why did the Minister refuse to meet Montreal lawyer Noel St-Pierre who is on Parliament Hill today and who went to Buenos Aires to pick up the statements of Chileans requesting refugee status?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have had many opportunities to refer to this matter in the House, and the information we have been given until now does not enable us to identify other cases of Chilean refugees in Argentina. Should Mr. St-Pierre have additional information to warrant a review of these cases, he should convey such information to our embassy in Argentina where officials would weigh new evidence. We would then make the appropriate recommendations.


REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF CLAIMS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I put into the Minister's hand an hour ago a two-page summary in both official languages of the statements of ten of these Chileans who were imprisoned, beaten, tortured or raped by the Chilean

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
military before they escaped from Chile. Will the Minister read those two pages and direct that all 70 remaining cases be re-examined in light of Mr. St. Pierre's new information?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the answer I gave a moment ago. We were given four or five different documents concerning the evaluation of Chileans in Argentina. The number dropped from 36 to two. We consulted the people who are officially authorized to evaluate refugee cases outside this country; two were referred to us and I agreed to recognize them. Apparently Quebec has issued immigration certificates to eight or nine other applicants. Again I would suggest that the same procedure be followed and if new cases do come up they will be submitted to Canadian officials for appropriate recommendations to me.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Member for York West, which will be the last opposition question. There is one government question to come.


REQUEST THAT FILES BE REOPENED
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it concerns the same subject. The Canadian lawyer documented evidence that these individuals whom the Minister deemed not to be bona fide refugees were beaten, raped, tortured, jailed, fired upon, and intimidated. Why did the Minister ignore such clear-cut evidence of persecution? Why did he mislead Canadians by suggesting clearly and concluding that they were not refugees? Will he not re-evaluate or reopen the files so that, in the quest to get tough on immigration policy, legitimate refugees will not be ignored or sacrificed?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the same thing for the third time: on behalf of Canada, people in that country have been specially authorized to make official evaluations of applicants for refugee status in Argentina. People may indeed claim that some of the refugees were tortured and persecuted. Such evidence must be submitted to Canadian officials who will make their evaluation and recommendations. This is the third time I have said so.


POSSIBLE IMMEDIATE REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS WHO FORESEE LIFE OF TORTURE AND POSSIBLE DEATH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, considering that the evidence on torture has been completely ignored, that the interview process has been botched, and that the UNHCR was not asked to make their recommendations before the Minister rejected them, I ask: Would he not admit that the entire decision making process was unfair, and then ask for an
immediate review of cases of individuals who foresee a life of torture and probable death?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have just said and have told my friend many times that unfortunately we do have to refer to the people who have the right to assess. He is wrong when he says that we have not considered the recommendations of Miss Herrera. It is not possible for her to make any recommendations, but she told our office in Buenos Aries that in her opinion we could consider 16 people. Our officers considered all those people again and they recommended that the Minister agree with two cases. That is what we did. It must be very clear that we must always deal with the officers who are especially appointed for this responsibility on behalf of Canada. I will not change that policy.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for York East.


BRITISH COLUMBIA EXPERIMENT USING ELECTRONIC MONITORING ANKLE BRACELETS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. He is aware that the Province of British Columbia is experimenting with the use of electronic ankle bracelets to keep track of provincial prisoners who are out on the street on parole. Does the Solicitor General have any intention to introduce the use of electronic bracelets to keep track of federal prisoners who are out on parole, a group which will soon include those who have been convicted of first degree murder?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. We have no plans at this time to install such bracelets on prisoners to monitor them, but we are watching very carefully the results of the British Columbia experiment. We will see whether or not that might be feasible some time in the future.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Dingwall,
April 7, 1987
[Stage Direction]
p.4820), Motion No. 4 (Mr. Orlikow, p.4820), and Motions Nos. 5, 11, 13 and 15 (Mr. Dingwall, p.4820).
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the amendments. It is my understanding that when we concluded debate at one o'clock an Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party had the floor. If that is the case, how much time does he have remaining?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member who had the floor had completed his remarks. The floor is open. In the usual course it would go to the Official Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to this grouping, we will vote on Motion No. 3 and that vote will apply to Motions Nos. 13 and 15. We will then vote separately on Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 11.
The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall):
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"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 4. Mr. Orlikow moved:
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."
Is it the pleasure of the House of adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.
Patent Act


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Dingwall moved:
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."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Mr. Dingwall moved:
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 license 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 license 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 license has been issued to a person other than the patentee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

April 7, 1987
Patent Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 12 will now be debated and voted on separately.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 11 to 14 at
page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"licence has been issued in respect of the medicine or a notice of compliance in respect of the medicine has been issued to a person other than the patentee."
He said: Mr. Speaker, despite the repeated claims by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that the passage of Bill C-22 will not increase the price of prescription drugs, the fact is that with the exception of the Minister and the multinational drug companies there are no individuals or groups who appeared before the committee and made representations to members of the House who did not make it very clear that in their view the cost of prescription drugs will rise very substantially.
This question has been debated for years. In the late 1960s we realized that Canadian people were paying the second highest prices for prescription drugs in the industrialized world. That realization, which was based on a number of studies conducted by Government departments and Parliamentary committees, led to the change in the patent law with respect to prescription drugs which permitted generic companies to produce drugs under licence after paying a royalty to the company which did the original research and development. That led to a situation where we had virtually the lowest prices for prescription drugs in the western world.
That change in the law has saved the Canadian people hundreds of millions of dollars. Dr. Eastman, who conducted the most recent thorough study on this question, estimated in 1983 the people of Canada saved $211 million. The savings would be even greater if we continued with the legislation because the price of new drugs is escalating very rapidly.
Provincial governments made it clear to the Parliamentary committee, and to the Minister, that the cost to their drug plans would rise very substantially. The Province of Nova Scotia made that clear to the Minister. The Province of Manitoba appeared before the Parliamentary committee. The Province of British Columbia in its recent budget increased the amount of money a family has to pay, before its pharmacare program takes over part of the cost, to $250 per year.
Yesterday we learned of how tough things are going to be in Saskatchewan. Representatives of the Government of Saskatchewan who appeared before the Parliamentary committee which studied this Bill seemed to feel that province would not be very adversely affected. However, let me put on the record the text of a news item which was part of the CTV National news last night. The province of Saskatchewan is cutting its spending to reduce its deficit of $1.2 billion. In the latest move, a group of doctors lost their jobs. Some Saskatchewan social agencies have already been warned their funding will be substantially reduced for things such as the shelter for battered women.
Because of the slump in the oil industry and agricultural revenues, the Government is spending $300 million more than it takes in. Vital services such as health care are on the block. The main teaching hospital is forced to let go all of its medical specialists, including the only AIDS specialist in Saskatchewan.
The Government is also delaying construction of another university building. This latest move has brought strong protests from all students. The Province of Saskatchewan plans to announce more funding cuts this week before proceeding with next month's budget.
Can anyone doubt that the Government of Saskatchewan will be placing a substantial fee on the residents of Saskatchewan and that its drug plan will have to pay substantially more for prescription drugs when this legislation passes?
What this legislation does is extend the period of exclusivity during which time the multinational companies can charge whatever they want without fear of any competition. It gives the multinational drug company an extra six years of exclusivity and it does that despite the recommendations of Dr. Eastman that the period of exclusivity should be limited to four years and in return companies wishing to receive a licence to produce the drug would pay a 14 per cent royalty.
Bill C-22 does more than that, Mr. Speaker. It gives the multinational companies an extra protection, inasmuch as it would eliminate the many licence applications by generic drug manufacturers already in the pipeline. I understand that there are 150 such applications which have not yet been processed. Should Bill C-22 pass, those applications would not be proceeded with, thus depriving the people of Canada of lower priced drugs.
Bill C-22 says that the restrictions in Section 44.11(1) do not apply if the compulsory licence or a notice of compliance had been granted by June 27 last, the date upon which the first generic drug Bill was to be introduced. The Bill says that the licence and the notice are required.
The amendment I have proposed, Mr. Speaker, is one suggested by the Consumers' Association of Canada, which said:
April 7, 1987

In the case where a company has received either a compulsory licence or a notice of compliance but not both it is unfair to grant retroactive exclusivity of seven (years) to the patented drug.
Mr. Speaker, this was a statement with which Dr. Eastman agreed when he appeared before the legislative committee. In fact, he mentioned it twice in his appearance, and it was one of three recommendations which he made to the committee. He said:
I think the legislation could be improved by these three things: allowing the R and D ratio of individual firms to be revealed; allowing the board to remove, if need be, the exemption from compulsory licensing from all the patents of firms with excessive prices; and then-
And this is the part of his remarks which refers to this amendment:
-and then the most telling change would be to reconsider the transitional arrangements and allowing firms that have compulsory licences to exercise them when they receive an NOC.
There is also a good practical reason why this amendment should be accepted; it will save Canadians a good deal of money. One example of this was provided by the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, a member company which had a generic equivalent of the ulcer drug Zantac ready for introduction this year. If Bill C-22 is passed, the introduction of the generic equivalent of Zantac will be postponed for seven years, and that generic equivalent was to be priced at one-half of the brand name Zantac.
Thousands of Canadians suffer from ulcers. Here we have an opportunity by a legitimate generic drug manufacturer to bring on to the market a generic equivalent to Zantac at substantial savings to the people of Canada being lost. In the generic equivalent, we had a product that meets the requirements of the present legislation, and we had a manufacturer who was willing to pay the royalty required.
The opportunity for the people of Canada to realize the savings that are made possible through the availability of generic drugs will disappear with the passage of Bill C-22.
Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have outlined, I move that Bill C-22 be amended in accordance with the motion standing in my name.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that the amendment set out in Motion No. 12, put forward by my hon. colleague of the New Democratic Party, makes eminent good sense. For purposes of the record, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read the amendment, following which I shall address the House on it.
The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 11 to 14 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"licence has been issued in respect of the medicine or a notice of compliance in respect of the medicine has been issued to a person other than the patentee."
This particular amendment, along with previous amendments, and indeed those to follow, in my view, both in substance and its consequential effect, will improve the over-all thrust of what we believe to be a deficient Bill C-22.
Patent Act
We had hoped to bring about improvements to the Bill during committee consideration. As I understand it, the purpose of committee consideration is to find ways by which to improve legislation. We did in fact submit some amendments during committee consideration of Bill C-22, but those amendments were, by and large, rejected by the majority of members on the legislative committee.
To my disappointment, there seems to be a reluctance to try to improve the Bill, and this notwithstanding the fact that we had substantial evidence adduced from different witnesses in favour of amendment.
Bill C-22, without amendment, is flawed. It is my hope that Members opposite will reflect seriously on this amendment and its consequential effect on other aspects of the Bill.
Many of the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-22 expressed, without qualification, the fear that they had with respect to the cost of prescription drugs, the lack of enforceability with regard to research and development, and the lack of jurisdiction of the Patent Medicines Review Board-something which has been part and parcel of the Act since day one, Mr. Speaker.
It should be kept in mind by Members opposite that there is an opportunity now to participate in improving Bill C-22- something which I hope will be the objective of all Members of Parliament. For some reason-a reason alluded to, perhaps, in testimony before the committee, as well as in the oral presentations in the Chamber-the Government is determined to proceed with this Bill, unbalanced as it is, to the benefit of multinational corporations situated to the south of the Canada-U.S. border and to the detriment of the Canadian generic drug industry, Canadian consumers, and also, in my view, to the detriment of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, as public policy-makers enacting legislation, presumably for the benefit of Canadians, that we should ensure that the pillars or the underpinnings, if you will, of any piece of legislation are in place. In this particular instance I speak of the interests of consumers; 1 speak of a public policy which addresses the Canadian pharmaceutical industry: research and development, the jobs, the opportunities, and the further enhancement of that particular sector in its linkages with biotech industries, and what have you. It seems to me that we would want to have public policy which addresses all of those concerns.
As I have said, without this amendment, Bill C-22 is flawed. The Government has not, either through its members or through the witnesses it asked to appear before the legislative committee, been able to adduce substantive evidence to refute the arguments that we in the Opposition have been making. It has, however, had some of the lobbyists from multinational corporations circulate to Members of Parliament convenient polling data that they were able to construe from a certain polling company in this country, data which seemed, at the time, to meet its needs and achieve its particular objectives. It

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
failed, however, to give the other side of the coin in terms of polling data readily available to Members of the House which showed the concerns of Canadians with regard to Bill C-22.
Dr. Eastman was appointed by the Government, of which I was a member back in 1983. He reviewed very carefully the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. He came up with a number of recommendations which collectively, not individually, met the objectives of a sound Canadian pharmaceutical industry. The Government has gone in the opposite direction. Perhaps the rationale for doing that is that we appointed Dr. Eastman back in 1983, and the Government does not want to have anything to do with his recommendations in 1985. I hope that is not the case. We should look with an open mind at the recommendations of this distinguished individual, both their substance and the effects they will have upon Canadians.
As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) advocated today, one recommendation took into consideration some of the testimony educed at committee stage, even from Dr. Eastman when he appeared before the committee, which gave credence to the substance of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North. However, Hon. Members opposite rejected any positive amendments we tried to put forward during committee stage.
I do not wish to comment upon the intentions or motives of Hon. Members opposite, but it is quite appalling, if the legislation is so good, so wonderful, and serves the best interests of all Canadians, that Hon. Members opposite would have availed themselves of the opportunity to stand in their places and refute either the substance of our amendments or, in the alternative, clearly fail to point out to Canadians from where benefits will come as a result of the passage of Bill C-22 unamended.
I cannot predict with any degree of certainty how the House will conduct itself at the end of report stage in terms of voting on the various amendments. However, it seems that it would be beneficial to Hon. Members on this side of the House-and 1 speak of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party-if we had some indication where Hon. Members on the government side stand on the amendments. In that way we would assist you, Mr. Speaker, in your responsibilities in this great institution by facilitating swift passage of the amendments. We do not want to take up the time of the House unduly in terms of debating the amendments. However, if it is the intent or the motivation of Hon. Members opposite to refuse to accept the amendments, both in terms of their substance and the spirit in which they were put forward, and to vote them down with their huge majority, it presents another set of circumstances with which we must deal.
I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker, that I have a minute remaining. In summary, I support the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North who served with a great deal of distinction on the legislative committee examining Bill C-22. I urge all Hon. Members to give serious consideration to the amendment. I
hope they will respond in the affirmative when, at the end of report stage, the Speaker puts the question on the particular motion. It is a good amendment. It will improve Bill C-22. I think Canadians would want to see us as legislators coming to some consensus on this particular aspect of Bill C-22.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to express my appreciation for the intelligent, prescient, and perceptive words of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) in recognizing the tremendous work of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), along with him, particularly in committee under circumstances which I think all witnesses would identify as difficult. I mean by that witnesses to the proceedings of the committee as well as witnesses who appeared before it in an attempt to have their voices heard in respect of the legislation presently before us. They certainly must have left the committee feeling that there was a serious flaw in the way in which parliamentary committees operate. In many instances, particularly when they consider that the legislation was not in their interest and so expressed themselves, I am sure they found themselves, to say the least, ignored by the majority of the committee which represents a Government totally committed to the enactment of the legislation presently under debate.
I will not review again the history of the legislation in detail. However, I simply call attention to the fact that we have a reversion to a period of time before 1969 when multinational drug companies enjoyed a considerable period of exclusivity in respect of the manufacture of certain drugs under patent.
Subsequent to that date, legislation was introduced which provided for compulsory licensing. We know how well the system worked, and we are deeply disturbed that the Government chose to turn back the clock, in effect, to accord to multinationals the same advantages for exploitation which they had in the past, and to subject ordinary Canadian citizens in need of medication to a situation which existed before 1969. At that time they were completely open to the exploitation of their ailments for the benefit of excessive profits by the multinational drug companies which, in collusion with the Government, produced this legislation for the House.
As the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond identified, the Eastman Commission examined the situation which was extant in Canada between 1969 and 1985. Although he saw some deficiencies in our arrangements, Dr. Eastman recommended, after a thorough examination and study-and perhaps it was the most thorough examination of the drug market and drug legislation in Canada-some fine tuning of the Patent Act in respect of patent drugs. In spite of a very erudite, well researched, well informed, and well written report, the Government laid before us this legislation.
I call particular attention to the discussion contained in the Eastman Report on the question of patents. I do not want to burden the House with a detailed examination of the intricate arguments advanced by Professor Eastman, suffice it to say
April 7, 1987

that he reached the conclusion that there was an appropriateness, a suitability, a measure of justice and some advantages in providing for some period of exclusivity. He posed the question: what would be an appropriate length of time for such exclusivity? In looking at 10 years or longer periods of time he saw certain dangers. He found that the chief danger was a discouragement of significant real research designed to produce genuinely new pharmaceuticals. He asked the question, how much time would be necessary for a pharmaceutical manufacturer, the originator of a patented drug, to recoup what research expenditures and whatever promotion costs were necessary while retaining some sort of balance between the role of the patent in his view-that is to stimulate the availability of novelty-and a drifting off into the almost useless research into a drug, not quite the same as a drug already patented, which could be patented at the disadvantage of patients needing new means of treatment and cure?
The Government rejected the arguments and provided instead for a 10 year period of exclusivity. We have already advanced amendments which the Government has voted down. They would have attempted to reduce the period of exclusivity to the period recommended by Professor Eastman.
My colleague has indicated that no Members on the government side have seen fit to participate in the debate. Surely at this stage when we are considering an amendment that would apply the period of exclusivity in a fair way, the retroactivity of exclusivity in a transition period to drugs that may be licensed or which have a notice of compliance must be a situation to which members of the Government would object. We know that in the past they have taken righteous objection to the retroactive application of new legislation.
I am sure if government Members would participate in the present debate they would prove capable of enlightenment on this simple situation. We have a situation in which drugs which have a licence or a notice of compliance are subjected to periods of seven or eight years of exclusivity. Our amendment would provide that any drug that has either a compulsory licence or a notice of compliance would not fall under the restrictions of Subsection 41.11(1). This makes a great deal of sense. It made a great deal of sense to Professor Eastman when he appeared before the committee. Doubtless members of the committee will not remember this, having paid so little attention to him, but in respect of changes that ought to be made in the legislation, the most telling change "would be to reconsider the transitional arrangements allowing firms that have compulsory licences to exercise them when they receive a notice of compliance".
The issue of retroactivity is not the only issue. It is really a question of fairness but it is also a question of cost. As it turns out, the drug known as Zantac was on the verge of being made available in its generic form as ranitidine. This will not now be available as a result of the way Subsection 41.11 is presently worded, and it will cost the consumer money. In terms of
Patent Act
fairness and of opposition to the retroactive application of legislation of this sort and in terms of maintaining at least some measure of concern for ordinary Canadians for whom the cost of ranitidine in the form of Zantac will be much higher than otherwise without this amendment, I would urge the Government to consider very carefully the proposition being advanced in this amendment and support it enthusiastically, and I would hope vocally.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Administration of justice-Confidence in system-Minister's position; the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson)-The Constitution- Request for inclusion of property rights; the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille)-Human rights- East Timor-(a) Invasion by Indonesian troops, (b) Request for representations to United Nations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 12 (Mr. Orlikow, p. 4936).
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the Government is not going to heed the request of our Party to approve Motion No. 12, which I think offers a very good and helpful suggestion, one that is in the best interests of Canadians. I really do not understand why the Government is taking such a hard line with respect to Bill C-22. It is obvious that the people of Canada are very concerned with the trend being developed by the absolute determination of the Government to bulldoze this legislation through the House of Commons in the form in which it is presently set and which will ultimately lead to higher drug prices for Canadians.
There is no solace in the minds of Canadians that there will be increased investment in research and development over the next 10 years. They do not believe that we are going to see the $1.4 billion in investment. Canadians, especially older

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
Canadians who will be most affected by higher drug prices, realize that before 1969 very little research and development was done in Canada. At that time Canada had the second highest drug prices in the world, second only to the United States. It was not until 1969, when the then Liberal Government introduced regulations to allow generic drug companies to be a factor in drugs in Canada, that Canadians were able to see their drug prices come down to at least a reasonable level. I would say that at the present time Canadians are enjoying savings in the amount of about $211 million a year as a result of those changes in 1969.
At a time when other countries are looking upon Canada as having a very humane and straightforward approach to drugs, we are becoming regressive and want to roll the clock back prior to 1969. This is not only alarming Canadians but people of all countries. Why are we doing this? We are doing it to please the United States to buy a free trade agreement from the United States with our more or less friendly attitude through Bill C-22. But it is not only the United States that manufactures drugs, many other countries do, particularly Switzerland. This will not be helpful to drug companies in Switzerland.


John Horton McDermid: Why? Explain that.


Mr. MacLelian:: I cannot really understand how we are going to benefit Canada with this policy. Even if there were $1.4 billion in additional investment, how will we compensate for the $3 million, $4 million or $5 million of additional drug prices and expenditures that Canadians will have to pay over the next few years? It is very sad indeed that this is being foisted on Canadians.
It is unfortunate that the recommendations of the Eastman report were not accepted. Those recommendations took a step in the direction the Government wishes to take. However, they were not the steps the powerful drug lobbies from the United States wanted the Government to take. It is unfortunate that what we are doing is dictated not so much by the interests of Canadians but by the interests of forces outside Canada. It is so very obvious that this lobbying has been done strongly by the drug companies and lobbyists in the United States. Pretty well every Canadian organization and interest present in Washington has been lobbied, and particularly the Ambassador. It is obvious as well that the drug companies in the United States had advance information with respect to the contents of Bill C-22.
It is alarming that this Bill is harsher than the Bill proposed last June. I do not know why that Bill was not simply renumbered and reintroduced in the new session. It seems that that was not acceptable. I am concerned that the Government feels that it really does not have to listen to the amendments that are being put forward. With its majority, it feels comfortable in pushing the Bill through as it presently reads.


John Horton McDermid: How about committee, now, Russ? Be honest.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Yes, I know it was in committee and it received a good hearing there. However, some very good amendments have been proposed by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) and even by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I feel that it would be in the interests of all Parties to examine closely these amendments that are being presented during report stage of Bill C-22.
I hope the Government will allow members of the Opposition to continue this debate because there are a great many issues of concern that really ought to be discussed. I do not know if we will have the opportunity to discuss all of the amendments that are before the House. There are some amendments that we have not debated, but I hope that the Government will listen to this debate. We will continue to discuss this Bill in the hopes that some changes will be made. It does not seem likely that the Government will withdraw this Bill, so I now hope that the Government will at least listen to some of the suggestions that are being put forward.
I do not think that we can honestly expect drug prices to hold indefinitely. I do not think we will see drug prices rise immediately because existing drug prices will not increase, but I do think the prices of new drugs will increase. What confirms that in my mind is that if the federal Government and the provinces did not think that drug prices would increase, why would the provinces be offered $100 million over the next four years at $25 million a year as compensation?
We could go on and on but we do not seem to be changing the mind of the Government. I hope the Government will relent and will make some changes in the Bill. I hope it will listen carefully to the Opposition and will carefully examine the suggested amendments.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Motion No. 12 moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I would like to say a word of appreciation to him for the hard and dedicated work he has been doing on behalf of Canadians. He is trying to bring the Government to its senses so that it will realize that what it is doing is not only harmful to the financial situation and health of Canadians but is harmful to the Government itself. The Government will pay a price for foisting this kind of legislation upon Canadians.
Quite frankly, I wish more Conservative Members would speak up on behalf of their constituents. We have been tabling petitions and receiving letters on this issue, and I am sure Members on the government side have as well. I recall, for example, the courage that was shown by my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who spoke up against the deindexing of seniors' pensions. He knew that there was a substantial number of senior citizens in his constituency so he spoke up on their behalf. Because he and
April 7, 1987

other members of the Conservative caucus did that, they helped to bring the Government to its senses and the Government did not go ahead with deindexing as it very much wanted to do. I do not hear government Members speaking in support of the very sensible and intelligent amendments to this Bill that have been moved by the Opposition, amendments that would at least ameliorate the worst conditions in the Bill.
Motion No. 12 would provide that the restrictions in Clause 41.11(1) would not apply if the compulsory licence or a notice of compliance had been granted by last June 27, the date on which the first generic Bill was to be introduced. This Bill on the other hand provides that both the licence and the notice are required. This is a form of retroactive legislation. When in opposition, Conservatives were very opposed to retroactive legislation. They felt that retroactivity was a great legislative sin. I think they should take the same position now that they are in government rather than retroactively robbing Canadians of the right to purchase generic drugs.
Day after day in Question Period, members of our Party tried to have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) come clean and admit that this Bill would result in higher costs for Canadians who had to purchase drugs. Day after day, the Minister attempted to stonewall us. Finally, it came down to a semantic dispute between a higher price or a higher cost. The average Canadian has a great deal of difficulty understanding the very fine distinction the Minister has made. Whether the average Canadian has to pay a higher price for drugs or drugs have a higher cost, he or she will have to reach into his or her pocket and take out more money to get the drugs needed to maintain health.
This legislation will not only result in higher costs down the road but it will result in higher costs almost immediately. As an example, when it appeared before the committee, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association said that it had a generic equivalent for the ulcer drug Zantac ready for introduction this year until the retroactive legislation took effect. This generic drug, which was priced at one-half the price of the brand name product, is now going to be lost for seven years. Canadians will be hit with higher drug prices almost immediately. Some 153 applications have been filed by generic companies on brand name drugs. This higher cost will not hit Canadians somewhere down the line, it will hit them right now. it is retroactive legislation and most unfair to the generic drug companies and those people who depend upon drugs to maintain their health.
The Consumers' Association of Canada has asked for an amendment such as this and in doing so it said that in the case where a company has received either a compulsory licence or a notice of compliance but not both it is unfair to grant retroactive exclusivity of seven years to the patented drug. Dr. Eastman agreed when he appeared before the committee. Of course the Government did not accept the Eastman report recommendations. One of those recommendations was that
Patent Act
there should be a period of exclusivity for four years, and the Government said it will be 10 years. In that time brand names will become so solidly established that it will be very difficult for a generic drug to have any real effect on prices.
Dr. Eastman also said the legislation could be improved by three things. One, allow the research and development ratio of individual firms to be revealed. Two, allow the board to remove, if need be, the exemption from compulsory licensing of all patents held by firms with excessive prices. Third, and this is the one that matters, the most telling change would be to reconsider the transitional arrangements and allow firms with compulsory licences to exercise them when they receive an NOC.
I have already pointed out that this retroactive provision in the legislation will cost Canadians money. It is bad legislation both because it is retroactive and because it costs Canadians money. It is the kind of legislation this Government should not be trying to foist on Canadians. In the name of fairness, good legislation, and concern for the well-being of the health of Canadians as well as their financial ability to pay for the drugs, I urge the Government to accept this amendment.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion proposed by my hon. colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The purpose of the amendment is very clear. It is a very important amendment which I hope Members of this House will see fit to adopt. The Government is seeking to extend significantly the time during which patents will be protected, this despite the recommendation of the Eastman report. This legislation not only denies Canadian consumers new generic drugs for 10 years, but also denies them for seven years or eight years those drugs which are in the regulatory approval mill, in other words, generics which may have been licensed but not yet approved by the health protection branch. This amendment attempts to deal with that situation and was suggested by representatives of the Consumers' Association of Canada. It would amend Section 41.11 which says, in Subsection (4):
Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any licence pertaining to a medicine where on June 27, 1986, a licence has been granted in respect of the medicine and a notice of compliance in respect of the medicine has been issued to the licensee.
This is in effect retroactive legislation. I recall Tories standing up in the House many times to express their strong and vigorous opposition to any notion of retroactivity in legislation. Yet by backdating this proposal to June 27, 1986, the Government is imposing that very thing. The amendment would make it clear that the restrictions in Section 41.11(1) do not apply if the compulsory licence or a notice of compliance had been granted by June 27, 1986, the date on which the first generic drug Bill was introduced. In other words, if the proposed generic drug was in the mill and being analysed by the health protection branch, these new provisions should not apply. Surely that is reasonable.

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
In suggesting the amendment the CAC said that where a company has received either a compulsory licence or a notice of compliance but not both, it is unfair to grant retroactive exclusivity of seven years to the patented drug. That is exactly what the Government is proposing. I suggest that the amendment is very sensible and will introduce some fairness and equity to this proposal.
Professor Eastman studied this issue exhaustively and with care. He examined some of the difficulties created when a patented drug has too long a period of protection. The Government's proposal is two and a half times the length that Professor Eastman recommended, and therefore it is important to remind the House and Canadians exactly what Professor Eastman said.
While it could be argued that this is a quite a complex and difficult issue, in many respects it is very straightforward. We are talking about the right of Canadians to low cost prescription drugs. We are talking about the right of Canadians to have a Government that will not cave in to pressure from multinational drug companies south of the border as part of a free trade deal. Every Member of this House remembers Clayton Yeutter's complaints about Canadian drug patent laws. We know the Government is caving in to that pressure. A period of 10 years for compulsory licensing is far too long.
My colleague from Winnipeg North has spoken on this point and led the fight, not just on behalf of this caucus but on behalf of all Canadians, against this Draconian legislation. I want to join with my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands in saluting the work done by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He is carrying on in the finest traditions of Members of Parliament from the north end of Winnipeg, including of course Stanley Knowles.
What did Professor Eastman have to say about this suggestion of a 10-year period of exclusivity? He said, and I quote from his report:
Patent protection may also be too long. This occurs when the period of patent protection is such that the innovator expects to earn profits in excess of the minimum necessary to justify the investment. Inventors' profits from innovation might on the average exceed the rate of return obtainable from other uses of the resources invested in research and development.
He then makes this comment:
Patent life also has an effect on the choice of research projects.
If the rewards of investment in research from the temporary monopoly are low, investment in marginal research projects, which are the least promising ones innovators carry on, are foregone even though their benefit for society would exceed the resources used.
He then makes this important point:
If average patent life is too long, it leads to a reduction in social welfare due to duplication and to overinvestment in marginal projects. The result of excessive patent protection is the attraction of too much investment in research and development and the consequent dissipation of the gains from research.
Innovating firms may be induced to compete for the high profits on new inventions by increasing their research activities with the result that the
discoveries of research which is marginally attractive to the firms bring negligible benefits for society.
In other words, new products do appear but the resources that have been spent to produce them would have benefited society more if they had been spent elsewhere. That argument by Professor Eastman is obviously a very powerful argument in terms of an undue delay in the area of patent protection. Certainly the suggestion of a 10-year period of patent protection is quite unreasonable.
Doctor Eastman also voiced his support for an amendment of the nature of the one which has been proposed by my hon. colleague, the Member for Winnipeg North, when he appeared before the standing committee which studied this issue. He said:
I think the legislation could be improved by these three things: allowing the R and D ratio of individual firms to be revealed; allowing the board to remove, if need be, the exemption from compulsory licensing from all the patents of firms with excessive prices; and then the most telling change would be to reconsider the transitional arrangements and allowing firms that have compulsory licences to exercise them when they receive an NOC.
That is otherwise known as a notice of compliance. I would like to pick up on one of those points, that with respect to excessive pricing. Ministers of the Government have gone around the country telling Canadians that their proposals with respect to compulsory licensing will not increase the price of drugs in Canada. If that is the case, why is the same Government promising $25 million a year for a four-year period to compensate provinces which have pharmacare plans? It does not make any sense. On the one hand the Government is saying there will not be any additional cost and, in the next breath, is saying that just to be on the safe side it will give the provinces $25 million to compensate in case there are additional costs.
That is Tory logic. My constituents in Burnaby, particularly senior citizens and the disabled who are dependent on drugs and have already been hit by the actions of the provincial Government of British Columbia, do not accept that form of logic. They do not accept that because they know this is simply an excuse of the Tory Government for making a cosy deal with the multinational drug companies as part of an over-all free trade package.
Who will suffer as a result of these proposals? It will not be the friends of the Conservative Party. It will not be the high-paid lobbyists who were busily lobbying the Conservative Government from the law offices of Ogilvy, Renault and elsewhere on this legislation. No, it will be those who can least afford to bear the burden.
I hope that Hon. Members will recognize the importance of this amendment, the fact that it will save Canadians a great deal of money on a wide range of drugs including the ulcer drug, Zantac, which is ready for introduction this year, the generic version of which is one-half the price of the brand name drug. I hope that government Members, including the very distinguished Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), will be prepared to rise in their places to speak in support of this amendment.
April 7, 1987


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very pleased to stand in my place and speak on Bill C-22, particularly with reference to Motion No. 12 proposed by my friend in the New Democratic Party. Bill C-22 is an important piece of legislation for all Canadians. Through Motion No. 12 we are suggesting that in addition to the entire issue of a 10-year patent protection being somewhat unfair, it is unfair with regard to new drugs introduced between first reading of this Bill and the present time. Should the exclusivity clause be triggered, it should not affect those drugs introduced before the Bill was approved by the House of Commons.
Canadians are asking themselves why the large multinational corporations which are discovering drugs are being given a 10-year monopoly. Professor Eastman, a recognized and well-respected expert in this field, has suggested that an exclusivity period of four years is ample time for the multinational corporations to get a return on their investment and register a profit, and that after that time the generic companies in Canada should have the opportunity to duplicate these drugs for the use of Canadians in exchange for a royalty paid to the discoverers of the drug. He suggested that in the end the consumer would also win with a four-year equation.
We must look at the entire equation. We must recognize that the corporations which are investing resources, capital and brainpower to discover new pharmaceutical drugs to cure various diseases and illnesses must have some protection too. The four-year equation recognizes that the generic firms also have to live in this country. I have perhaps the largest of the generic drug manufacturers, Apotex, in my riding. It, too, has invested a great deal of resources and man and womanpower. It has doubled its buildings in the last number of years. It, too, would be affected negatively if Bill C-22 becomes a reality. The resources and jobs in that company are on the line as are the taxes it pays to the City of North York. In addition to the large multinational corporations which propose those arguments, the generic firms which employ Canadians from coast to coast are meritorious of our consideration.
The third player in the equation is the consumer. Under a four-year equation the multinational corporations will make a return on their dollar; the generic firms will be able to compete, expand and pay royalties to the multinational corporations; and the third player, the consumer, will also win. The consumer would be able to obtain drugs at an acceptable and accessible rate. We should not lose sight of the consumer in this equation. We in this Party believe that all Canadians, whether rich or poor, whether young or old, whether living in Toronto, Vancouver or Halifax, who need prescription drugs have the right to have drugs at their disposal which will not cost them an arm and a leg. That was the vision of Professor Eastman in his recommendation of a four-year plan. Canadians want to know why the Conservative administration wishes to increase patent protection from a four-year proposal to ten years. They want to know for whom the Government is introducing such a proposal and who will benefit from this legislation. It will certainly not be Canadians at large,
Patent Act
including senior citizens on fixed pensions who require regular drugs. It will certainly not be single mothers with a number of children who require medicine.
Obviously, the large multinational corporations from the United States who are essentially dictating this policy will be the winners from this legislation. They propose that there will be some $1.4 billion in research and development, but there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees that the money will be spent in this country or that the spin-offs will take place here rather than in the United States. There are no guarantees that jobs will be created in this country for Canadians. Even the argument of increased research and development is not certain.
What evidence will Canadians have that this process will result in a progressive step in our over-all medicare program? Many of us have spoken to our American friends who told us they envy our system that we have been able to build in this country. They envy the fact that our medicare plan means that a person who needs an operation or treatment for a serious ailment will not have to mortgage his or her house to receive that attention. As great and powerful as American society is, there are horror stories about individuals who must mortgage their homes in order to obtain operations or stay in hospital.
This legislation would run counter to the traditions we have built upon in this country. The greatness of Canada can be measured in part by the way the Government and society treats the needy, the elderly, the homeless, the hungry, and the sick. If this legislation goes through, historians will not be able to regard it as testimony to the greatness of our compassion toward those in our society who need our assistance. It will not make drugs more accessible and affordable to those who really need them on a daily basis. Canadians are telling the Government that if it is going to tinker with the system and modify it, then it should do so in a progressive way by enhancing it on the basis that those in our society who are sick will have a greater chance to get better through increased accessibility and affordability to pharmaceutical drugs.
I notice that you are indicating that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Government will at least support Motion No. 12 in principle but will generally begin to understand what it is doing with this legislation, who it is affecting and who is being served by it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Motion No. 12 standing in the name of my hon. friend, the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Motion No. 12 deals with retroactive application of amendments to restrict generics. This amendment to the Bill attempts to bring in some competition to the market-place.
I find it incredibly peculiar, to say the least, that the Government is not prepared to welcome competition in the market-place when it comes to generic drugs. Bill C-22 is very unfair because it denies Canadian consumers new generic

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
drugs for 10 years. The Bill allows a drug firm, probably from the United States, to come to Canada with its new drug and have an exclusive monopoly right for a decade. In other words, no Canadian company can attempt to offer a reasonably competitive drug on the market.
I am dumbfounded by the fact the Government is prepared to give a foreign drug company a monopoly in Canada for 10 years. I believe it goes against every principle of fairness and honesty. However, I suppose many Canadians will ask whether one expects honesty and fairness and above-board treatment in light of the Government's record.
I appeal to my hon. colleagues in the Government to indicate why they support a proposal that would allow a foreign drug company to come to Canada with a new drug and have exclusive rights which would bar Canadian competition for a decade. Are they not in favour of competition? Are they afraid of generic drug companies in Canada?
I have sat patiently for hours waiting for a member of the Government to stand in his or her place and explain why he or she is opposed to competition in the drug industry which, as everyone knows, would keep prices low.
There are two alternatives to maintaining low prices. Prices can be regulated, as they are in the utilities by the appropriate board which decides on a fair price for such things as natural gas and electricity. Second, there is competition in the marketplace so that competing firms theoretically hold prices down. It is only in cases of cartels or combines that prices increase.
This legislation gives exclusive rights to a single company to charge whatever it wants. According to this legislation there will be no competition for ten years. Any sensible business person who is motivated by maximizing profits for shareholders will increase prices as much as could be borne in all consciousness.
While Motion No. 12 does not deal with that problem specifically, the fact is that generic companies now have 153 applications before the Government to compete with brand name drugs. Canadian companies, through their own research process, have developed duplicate drugs and wish to initiate competition in the market-place against foreign drug companies. The Government is indicating that it will prevent these 153 applications by Canadian companies from continuing and will not allow them to compete in the market-place for at least seven years. What kind of government is that? What kind of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will not allow Canadian companies, that have developed their own generic drugs through their own scientific research and development, to bring their drugs on the market for seven years? The Government wants to give exclusive monopoly rights to a foreign drug company. I must have this incorrectly, Mr. Speaker. I must not understand this point in the Bill.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Hon. Members opposite say that is right. I beg them to stand in their place and explain to me where I am wrong. I challenge every single Conservative in the House of Commons right now to stand up and point out where I am wrong. I challenge them to tell me why the Government is giving exclusive rights in a monopoly situation to foreign drug companies and not allowing competition in the market-place here in Canada.
Members from Alberta ranted and raved-and in many cases, I would say, for good reason-because of retroactive legislation in the petroleum industry. The federal Government moved in retroactively and said it was taking ownership rights on those wells. Those Hon. Members ranted and raved, essentially for good reason. Retroactivity in terms of legislation is not good. Why then are those same Hon. Members sitting on their hands? Why are they sitting passively by? Why are they mute? Why do they not say a single thing in defence of this? I say directly to the Hon. Member from Saskatoon that there are 153 different drugs which have been researched and are now waiting to be put on the market to compete with foreign drugs. But the Government says it will not allow that. It will not permit competition. I ask, why is the Government afraid of competition? What has it got against competition? What is it afraid of in terms of an open, free market-place? Why does it perpetuate monopoly? Why does it perpetuate exclusivity?
What we are appealing for is some free enterprise in the drug system. What we are appealing for is free enterprise in the market-place when it comes to prescription drugs. Here we have the spectacle of Conservatives sitting silently all around us in the House of Commons imposing their will on the small generic drug companies by not allowing them to compete in the future. They will not allow these companies to put 153 drugs on the market. I am perplexed. I do not understand why the Government is doing this. I am going to take my seat, although my time is not quite up yet, in the hopes that my friends opposite will use this opportunity to stand in their place and answer the questions I have raised. Why retroactivity? Why are they giving exclusive rights to foreign drug companies? Why are they not allowing the 153 applications by generic companies on brand-name drugs to be introduced now as opposed to waiting for seven years, thus allowing the foreign drug companies to take hold of the market, making it impossible for competition to occur?


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today and support this motion which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). This Parliament has already gone through an exercise once, and I am talking about the fall of 1985, in understanding the impact of government policy on Canada's poorest and least advantaged citizens. I speak primarily of the poor, the elderly, seniors, and in particular, women seniors. It is inconceivable to me that Parliament finds it necessary yet again to deal with yet another measure proposed by the Government because it is bound and chained
April 7, 1987

by some ideological dictate which says this kind of Patent Act is necessary.
A couple of years ago the Government brought forward a policy of deindexing senior citizens' pensions because Conservative philosophy dictates-


An Hon. Member:: Socialists.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You see, Mr. Speaker, when one talks about helping seniors, those Hon. Members call it socialism. Those Hon. Members see "socialism" as a foul, dirty word, a shocking thing. It is a warped, twisted and bent thing for Hon. Members on this side of the House to be concerned about the senior citizens of Canada.
Two years ago the Government put forward a proposal to which all Conservative Members who came to their places like trained animals in a zoo, bowed and said: "Aye, aye, Sir" to deindexing senior citizens' pensions. Notwithstanding the power of the majority, the power of the 210 Members in a 282-seat House, notwithstanding the power of the Prime Minister in effect, an elected dictator if he wanted to be that in a parliamentary system-and notwithstanding the power of the 40-member Cabinet, public opinion was heard. Public opinion said that this kind of regressive measure to take money out of the pockets of Canada's least protected citizens was not acceptable in the 1980s, and Government swallowed itself whole. The Prime Minister came to his feet after debate, demonstrations on Parliament Hill and literally tens of thousands of petitions, and swallowed himself whole. He said his Government was sensitive, caring and was listening. He said it made a mistake.
Having swallowed itself whole once, the Government now seeks with Bill C-22 to repeat the act, except this time it sent us as chief spokesman not the Prime Minister, who we know changes his mind whenever the wind shifts direction, but its pet bull-terrier. The Government sent a bull terrier as the chief government spokesman, the Hon. Member from Alberta, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). He has his teeth locked into Bill C-22. He has his jaws wrapped around the fragile ankles of Canada's most exposed citizens, and he is determined to come away with a piece of meat. He has reached in, grabbed hold, and intends to take a very painful bite out of those people in Canada who are least able to protect themselves. The citizens will need more than generic drugs to recover from the festering wounds which are about to be inflicted on the exposed ankles of Canada's poorest citizens when the Minister sinks his teeth in, past the bone, into the marrow and sucks the life's blood out of Canada's poorer citizens with Bill C-22.
What does the Bill do? What net return does the Bill give to the people of Canada? What net return does it give to the average Canadian no matter where he lives, no matter what his occupation? I will tell you what it does, Mr. Speaker. It makes relations between Canada and the United States just a little bit more harmonious. It enraptures the environment so that the next time the so-called Shamrock Summit is held, they might
Patent Act
sing When Irish Eyes are Smiling once more. That is all it does. It is a Bill which gives everything to foreign drug companies which record enormous profits, as well they might. They are tremendously healthy, as well they should be. It gives these drug companies a 10-year guarantee that they can join the Minister in sinking his teeth into people who buy drugs, not as a luxury item, not as something which is put on the shelf as a placebo to make one feel better, and not as something one puts on the shelf to convince oneself that one has a whole assortment of items and therefore at one's disposal lies the means to make oneself better. It is not there for any of those reasons, Mr. Speaker; rather, it allows these companies to have a 10-year free "go" at those who need access to prescription drugs, and it is a "free go" sanctioned by the Government of Canada.
I see Members opposite laughing; I see Members opposite chuckling. With their Conservative doctrinaire philosophy that says, "Let the free market determine what the price should be, and the senior citizens of Canada be damned", they find this kind of speech amusing. They have not spent enough time out of the cocktail circuit; they have not spent enough time away from the Tory 500 Club, a club which, at $500 a shot, permits one access to a Tory front-bencher; and at $1,000 a shot, access to a Tory front-bencher, a Minister. They have not spent enough time in the households of the people of this country. These people do not balk at the notion of paying an extra $10 or $20 a month for drugs-they nearly pass away, Mr. Speaker. They do not know where the extra $10 or $20 a month for drugs is going to come from.
That is the problem in this place, Mr. Speaker. Too many Members in this place have been caught up in the glitter of the chandeliers, in the beautiful colours that float from the stained glass windows. They are caught up in the richness of the ornate wood that appoints every desk, and they are caught up in the luxury-


An Hon. Member:: That is crap, Tobin, and you know it!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -and they are caught up in the deep rich carpeting that covers the floor of the Chamber. Somehow, they have made the mistake of believing that the finely appointed Chamber which surrounds Hon. Members, that their finely appointed offices and their large salaries reflect the realities of this country.
Mr. Speaker, what is sad and what is tragic is that nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Speaker, my riding, Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, has a population of some 90,000 people and extends over 500 miles of the Newfoundland coastline. In my riding, 60 per cent of the people live in communities of under 500, and 35 per cent, according to Statistics Canada, are unemployed-though the number is much higher. These people, too, want their voices heard in this debate, and to those people, Bill C-22 is a

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
regressive Bill. It is a Bill that ignores the reality of Canada, and ignores the reality of the lot of the average Canadian.
I petition Members opposite-


An Hon. Member:: You say that about every Bill.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I petition Members opposite, as they did in respect of the attempt to deindex senior citizens' pensions, to go back to their ridings, to go across this land, to go into the main streets of the towns and communities and into the houses at the end of the street and on the wrong side of the tracks, and to then come back to this Parliament and tell us that Bill C-22 is necessary or that it can still be supported in good conscience.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the speech we have just heard gives new meaning to the word "demagoguery" in terms of content. I see that the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has just entered the Chamber. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) should talk to his colleague, the Hon. Member for Sudbury, who is himself a pharmacist and who said, in The Canadian Pharmaceutical Review, that he is in favour of restoring-


An Hon. Member:: Give us Eastman.


Harvie Andre: -that he is in favour of restoring patent protection to the inventors or discoverers of drugs. He accepts the centuries-old principle that the inventor, the creator, has in fact created something of value, something of importance, and as such deserves patent protection.
He might invite his Leader into his plush office-and I presume he was describing his office when he went on about the plushness of offices. He might invite his Leader into his plush office and talk to his Leader about the time when he was in the private sector, as Chairman of Sandoz, a multinational drug company, and the fact that his Leader, while in that position, was frequently heard to say to his colleagues in the business that the Government had gone too far in 1969 and that patent protection should be restored, with some limitations on the compulsory licences.
He might talk to the former Member for Nickel Belt, the Hon. Judy Erola. Perhaps he should talk to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who, as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, brought down a White Paper admitting that in fact it was necessary to make changes to the Patent Act to restore patent protection. This was a White Paper of a Government of which the Hon. Member was a supporter.
Before he launches into these great tirades about understanding and sensitivity, he might perhaps examine the record of his own Party. But then, of course, Sir, I would be asking him to be an exception in his own Party. If they have two positions on trade, two positions on the Cruise, why should they not have two positions on Bill C-22?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Why not?


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


An Hon. Member:: Here we go again! No one interrupted his speech.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help it if the Hon. Minister is extremely envious of the fact-


An Hon. Member:: What is the point of order?


Some Hon. Members:: This is not a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: -is extremely envious, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that we have with us in the Liberal Party perhaps the greatest orator in the House. If he is jealous of that fact, Mr. Speaker, fine; but-


An Hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


An Hon. Member:: What is the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member will tell us.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: I do not think it appropriate for a Minister of the Crown, particularly in respect of a piece of legislation before the House, to mislead the House purposely on the positions of other Members.


An Hon. Member:: Well said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, before I run out of time, I wish to inform the House as follows: There has been consultation among representatives of the Parties. It has not been possible to reach agreement respecting the provisions of Standing Order 115 or Standing Order 116, dealing with the report stage of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto. Therefore, at the next sitting of the House, I shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 117, to allocate one sitting day to the report stage and two sitting days to the third reading of Bill C-22.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, just before members of the Opposition get on with their demagoguery, I wish to make a
April 7, 1987

point respecting the nature of support and understanding. This is a point that has already been made but which seems to have escaped the notice of some of the opposition Members.
It has been suggested that we are on thin ice in so far as this Bill is concerned. Given that the Quebec National Assembly, under two different Governments, has unanimously passed resolutions asking the Government to do this, that would seem not to be the case. It seems to me that the opposition Members from the Province of Quebec, and those who aspire to have significant numbers from Quebec, ought to bear that in mind.
An Elon. Member: Bring us Dr. Eastman.


Harvie Andre: When one has virtually the entire scientific community across the country saying that this is important-


Some Hon. Members:: Not so; not true.


Harvie Andre: -when one has Canada's most recent-


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Saint-Dennis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is an appel au reglement or a question of privilege.
The Hon. Minister has spoken of a unanimous resolution having been passed by two separate Governments of the Province of Quebec calling for these amendments. Many years ago, we had a provincial Government asking that the federal Government not implement the old age pension program-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Not only is it not a point of order, one cannot tell what he is talking about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I was merely reflecting on the fact-


Mr. Henderson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret that I have to interrupt the Hon. Minister again. The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) on a point of order.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made the point that two provincial legislatures unanimously passed a resolution supporting this Bill. I want to point out to the Minister that the Prince Edward Island Legislature also passed a resolution, and also unanimously, calling on the Government not to-


An Hon. Member:: This is debate.
Patent Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. On debate, the Hon. Minister.


Harvie Andre: I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I did not interrupt opposition Members when they were speaking-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I just heard the Hon. Minister use words to the effect that he was going to let opposition Members get on with their demagoguery.
I respectfully direct Your Honour to Citation 320 at pages 105 and 106 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Subclause (2) reads:
Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:
And at page 106 Your Honour will see the word "demagogue", which apparently was ruled unparliamentary on June 16, 1963, as reported at page 10194 of Debates.
Therefore I ask Your Honour to ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw his clearly unparliamentary remark.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Obviously the Chair will know that the Hon. Minister used the term "demagoguery" and never in any way called any one member of the Opposition a demagogue.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) pointed out, I did not call anybody a demagogue. I suggested that there was a lot of demagoguery. If that is offensive to the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party and if you find it unacceptable, I would substitute therefor "wild exaggeration". I just want to point out-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I was the recipient, in my own humble way of reflecting the views of Newfoundlanders, of the Minister's statement in which he said that the Hon. Member was giving a new definition to the term "demagoguery", and the "blues" will show that.
On behalf of my constituents, whose humble voices I was merely reflecting and echoing off these ungodly walls-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -I ask the Minister to withdraw that insult to my constituents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister has already spoken, and I consider the incident closed. Will the Minister continue, please.


Harvie Andre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder why the Opposition is so reluctant to let me speak, given that we have sat here, all of us collectively on this side, and allowed each

April 7, 1987
Patent Act
Member on that side who wished to speak to take his or her 10 minutes uninterrupted, which is the usual courtesy extended in the House.
I just wanted to point out, as I have done, the recent poll which in fact asked fair questions. It pointed out that when the facts were put to the people and they are asked: "Are you willing to pay higher prices for more research and development", the answer was "yes", 64 per cent of the time. If we say: "Would you be prepared to see the establishment of patent rights with a control mechanism to keep the price of drugs less than the cost of living", which is in the Bill, as Members who have looked at the Bill know, the support was 82 per cent. It is simply false to make the statement that in fact there is overwhelming opposition.
Given that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party sent out some 300,000 letters, according to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who I believe made that comment; and given that the CLC, Bob White of the Autoworkers, the Government of Manitoba, and so on have really blanketed the country with all manner of brochures, letters, and so on, trying to scare the dickens out of people, without success, I think a support of 82 per cent is pretty remarkable.
It shows that people are smarter than some members of the Opposition give them credit for. I think that deep in their hearts members of the Opposition know full well that this is a good Bill and that this is a necessary Bill. They know that research and development is absolutely essential to our future, and that we will not have research and development unless we have patent protection for the researchers and the developers. That they know; other people know that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who paid for the poll?


Harvie Andre: That is why, if we are acting responsibly as a Parliament, we will get the Bill through.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No answer.


Harvie Andre: The delay has already cost the country several hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development. Every month of delay delays that activity in the country.
The Hon. Member's collar is pinching or something-


Mr. de Corneille:: You poor fellow, you want to muzzle us.


Harvie Andre: The fact is that any objective examination of the facts indicates that this is a good Bill.
As to the question of senior citizens, 95 per cent of them in the country are covered by drug plans. They are not personally affected, and 100 per cent of senior citizens who receive the GIS are covered by drug plans. This constant tirade by the Opposition is bad for senior citizens, is simply false, on the facts, and is a scare tactic. Indeed, one might even call it "demagoguery"; I do not know, but it certainly is not the truth. In their hearts they know it, as do senior citizens.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister, who never told us who paid for the poll, once again used the term in reference to Members opposite and their views in respect of Bill C-22-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Using the same citation as the one raised by the House Leader of the Opposition in respect of the words "demagoguery" and "demagogue", again the Minister used the term in reference to Members opposite who have made their views known, on behalf of their constituents, in respect of Bill C-22.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, using the appropriate citation, to have the Minister withdraw again that lame excuse for a debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not believe the Hon. Minister was aiming his remarks at a particular Member, therefore-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Well, Mr. Speaker, who was he aiming them at; at people in the Gallery or the Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. I think he was aiming them at members of the Opposition in general, which is not contrary to Beauchesne's.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time remaining in the debate this afternoon, I should like to return to the point at issue today and discuss the amendment offered by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
It was interesting to have the disruption of the day's proceedings by the Minister who spent no time addressing the particular amendment. It is unfortunate that he did not do so, because I believe he could have made a very useful contribution to the particular amendment dealing with Bill C-22. In effect it is a part of Bill C-22 which is a catch-22 for both consumers of drugs and producers of generic drugs in the country. They have been caught by the Bill in a situation where, even though most of the paperwork has been completed to begin the production of generic drugs at considerably lower prices than the ones which will be in effect after the drug Bill is passed, they will be locked into a position, as a result of some of the requirements of the Bill, dating backward to June 27, 1986.
We think it is very unfair that any group of citizens or producers who have virtually completed applications to produce generic drugs should be treated so badly and in a negligent manner by legislation which in effect will be retroactive to June, 1986. This will stop some 153 applications, so producers will not be able to produce them and consumers will not get the advantage of lower prices as a result.
I notice your time signal, Mr. Speaker. I will continue my remarks next day.
April 7, 1987


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PARITY PRICES FOR FARM PRODUCTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom that Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Parity Prices for Farm Products Act because right now the farm community is in crisis. It is important that the Members of Parliament in this House and that Governments right across Canada do something about this crisis as quickly as possible. There are a number of areas on which every Member and every Government in Canada would agree. If we could take those agreements and put them before the Parliaments of Canada we should be able to come up with some kind of a solution which would assist the survival of farmers. Those areas of agreement are very simple and straightforward. We should at least give lip service-I hope more than that-to the survival of the family farm. The family farm is the basic production unit. It is a necessary part of the agricultural industry. We should have a great deal of compassion for the farmers' crisis and we should try to do something about it. If we in this House are unable and unwilling, then we will be responsible because it is we who can make changes. For several years the family farm has been in crisis. This crisis was caused by a number of things, one being the rising cost of necessary inputs, such as fuel, fertilizer and so on. Returns from commodities sold by farmers, be they apples, pork, beef or grain, have dropped to the point where the farmer can no longer recover the cost of production. Everyone recognizes that and I am sure everybody realizes that we must do something about it.
As I pointed out, there are two ways we can deal with this situation. There are several others however. First, we must bring down input costs, which is something we have looked at in the agricultural committee. We have not had any action and we have not taken any action. We have spoken to many producers and to the Farm Credit Corporation. Everybody comes up with a good story as to why there are problems and why farm income is not covering production costs. Many groups have come up with ideas about reducing inputs, but all of them come back to the one basic requirement. If you do not increase the farmer's income and if you do not increase the
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
product returns, how can you expect to balance the books? This Government and other Governments in the past have put some procedures in place, namely direct deficiency payments, but they end up as subsidies. Most farmers will accept them if they are going under, but they do not particularly like to do so. There are stabilization programs which we have developed to a fine level across Canada for various products. However, we never really solve the problem.
Bill C-221 is a suggestion which recognizes two deficiencies in the agricultural industry. For example, if you buy a loaf of bread for one dollar, the farmer who provides the grain for that loaf of bread gets only about 6 cents. That situation happens with other commodities, not only with grain.
If this Bill is accepted by the Government of Canada and is recognized as a solution by the other Governments across the country, then it would alleviate to some extent the problems of the family farm. A very simple approach is suggested in the Bill. For those products that we sell in Canada, we should charge enough to cover the cost of production. This will not solve the problem entirely, but to a certain extent it will. In western Canada about 8 per cent of our grain is used in the domestic market. Should this Bill be put into place, the cost of production would be paid to the farmer. It might be a little higher than is the cost now or it might be a little lower, but this will stabilize at least that portion of the agricultural industry which supplies the domestic market.
What if this idea were expanded across the board? Depending upon the world price for a large proportion of our market, we cannot say that you have to pay $5 a bushel for grain, but it might be an approach which would bring to the minds of the urban people of Canada that they have some kind of responsibility and that giving lip service to the idea of the family farm will cost them something somewhere. We can pay a little more for food.
A number of organizations across the country have accepted this as a basic tenet. In fact, supply management production units use the theory in the Bill that the cost of production should have some bearing on the price of the product. We do this in the dairy industry and in the egg industry. We should be able to do it partially in some other areas. This Bill should be looked at very closely and its theory should be used to try to solve the problems in agriculture which will allow for the survival of the family farm.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you for this opportunity on speaking to Bill C-221, presented by the NDP Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Mr. Speaker, as you know, the purpose of this Bill is to introduce parity pricing for agricultural products on the domestic market. Unfortunately, when the Hon. Member introduced his Bill in the House, there was something missing. Although at first glance, the Bill seems to bring something

April 7, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
positive and to be a good thing for agriculture, if we look at the Bill a little more closely, we realize that there are a number of problems and shortcomings.
One of those shortcomings is when he says we could set a parity price for grain.
I think the Hon. Member conveniently forgot that as far as grain is concerned, Canada is a net exporting country. This means it produces more than it consumes. Anyone with any notion of agriculture will realize that Western Canada is famous the world over for the quality of its products and for the productivity of its grain acreage. Introducing the concept of parity pricing would involve, as was said by the previous speaker for the New Democratic Party, or at least that is what he tried to prove, some kind of supply management, marketing boards or joint programs. At this point, there is a very fundamental question we must ask, and I saw no mention of this when I read the Hon. Member's Bill. What are we supposed to do with our overall domestic grain production as proposed in the Hon, Member's Bill? What will we do with the surplus? If we have a joint program, if we have supply management, we will obviously make production subject to the needs of the Canadian consumer.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian market is about 26 million. That is a far cry from 225 million Americans or 320 million in the Common Market. And that is why I would have liked to see the Hon. Member's Bill reflect how he intends to oblige certain farm producers and family farms-a subject dear to the previous speaker- how is he going to oblige these producers to get out of production or cut back on production. What are we going to do with our vast Canadian prairies? How are we going to make these farms profitable?
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to suggest join plans and supply management, but it requires organization and planning. If we look at what happened in the past, we realize that supply management and quotas were not introduced in a day and especially not as a result of imposing a Bill as proposed by the Hon. Member for the NDP. 1 say "imposing" because this Government, the Progressive Conservative Government, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) have always said they would give farm producers the marketing boards they wanted, provided they covered the majority of production and the majority of producers. We have imposed nothing and we are not going to. We are working in co-operation with the provinces and agricultural producers in the area concerned.
Mr. Speaker, when we are very close to agricultural policy and problems, we realize one thing, and it is that parity pricing for grain will create a tremendous problem. It will be tantamount to taking the present problem, an international problem with an international context, namely the war between the Common Market and the U.S., and trying to solve it according to the philosophy of the Opposition which says that Canadian agriculture must have additional funding because the family farm is in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I think that New Democratic Party Members should realize that the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville advocates a medium-or long-term decline of the western agricultural community, lower production if you will, because the measure implies that it will eventually be possible to set up joint projects. That being so, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how and under what principle the New Democrats will be able to defend Canadian farmers, particularly in Western Canada.
As you would know, Mr. Speaker, setting up a joint project or establishing marketing boards is a lot more complicated than drafting a simple piece of legislation. The matter has to be debated first. We have to sit down with the agricultural producers. First, they must discuss the matter among themselves because-and the NDP Members may not know this- there exists considerable regional disparity from the Atlantic to the Pacific, including Quebec, Ontario, and the Prairie Provinces. Needs are wide-ranging and differ from one region to the next. Each province has its own priorities, even with respect to the same products. Given such a legislative measure as the one proposed by my colleague from Yorkton-Melville, we must wonder how we can achieve a symbiosis of all provinces and all producers and end up with a combined, joint and effective production effort, a production geared to the needs of the Canadian market first, and second to the needs of the export market. It may be a cinch to envisage this project within the parameters of a legislative measure, but seeing it through in the agricultural field, as it were, is something else again. The wide variety of joint projects and marketing boards set up in recent years will attest to that.
NDP Members who are interested in agriculture are fully aware of this. Let us take milk as an example, Mr. Speaker. How long did dairy producers have to sit down to discuss and negotiate with the federal Government and the provinces to agree on fair sharing-historic sharing, some would say-of the domestic production, to base the once disorderly total production on the needs of the Canadian market? It took quite a few years and was not accomplished through a legislative measure. Far from it. This was done on the basis of negotiations and consultations, and above all on the basis of the needs of the Canadian dairy industry as a whole, arising from the uneven production levels that were the norm in the dairy sector.
Mr. Speaker, the same applies to all production units that have marketing boards today. And this Government, the Progressive Conservative Government, never said it would not set up marketing boards. On the contrary. It has just set up a marketing board for incubated eggs because the producers asked us to and because overall production was in danger . .. We met with the producers, who said: Yes, this is the right time. Yes, we are going to sit down and negotiate. That was done. We may see one for potatoes. But above all, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the basic integrity of Canadian agriculture is to let the farmer set his own goals and determine what kind of marketing boards he wants, if any, so that the ten provinces
April 7, 1987

involved in this production area can reach an agreement on either a marketing board or joint programs.
Elowever, Mr. Speaker, I don't think imposing a solution would be wise, considering the complex situation in our agricultural industry and the fact that if we were to implement legislation of the kind proposed by the Hon. Member . .. nowhere does this Bill consider what is referred to as bottom, side, and top loading. The Bill does not allow for provincial subsidies or for federal subsidies, and in the final instance, Mr. Speaker, the effect would probably be to distort the situation, to the detriment of Canadian agriculture, the consumer and agriculture in general.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I would advise the Hon. Member to revise his Bill, to take a second look at it, to work on it and to discuss the matter with producers and with Members of this House, and maybe after a few years come back with a full-fledged Bill, a Bill that allows for all aspects of the situation in Canadian agriculture, that considers the needs of this industry and respects the integrity of agriculture in general.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-221 put forward by my friend from the NDP, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). That Member, in the Saskatchewan tradition, has the concern of farmers at heart. Those of us who are great Diefenbaker Tories look at the tradition of the Tommy Douglas-CCF people, of whom the Hon. Member is one, and we see a shared interest in Saskatchewan agriculture. For that reason it is a real pleasure to address a few words to this Bill.
The Bill attempts to get at the root of many of the problems encountered by Saskatchewan producers, that being obtaining an acceptable price for their product. While I have some problems with the notion of parity pricing and what the Hon. Member is trying to do in that respect, the underlying intent of his Bill is one that all Members of this House support, particularly those from Saskatchewan. That intent is to ensure that grain producers secure a good price for their product. In constituencies like mine the overwhelming majority of producers are caught in a cost-price squeeze. That, as the name implies, is a situation where the cost of doing business, the cost of putting in a crop, is rising at a rate which outstrips the price you get for the product. This problem, which has existed for some years, has been exacerbated over the last two crop years by the subsidy dispute between the European Economic Community and the United States.
If one compares farm income and the decline in world prices we see that the greatest burden has been borne by the grain and oil-seeds sector of our agricultural economy. Grains and oil-seeds are the lifeblood of Saskatchewan farmers. While the income of farmers in that sector will be at about the same level this year as last, one should not be deceived by those statistics. They indicate a very high level of government support, both
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
federal and provincial. For 1986, the percentage of farm income by way of government support was approximately five times that of five years ago. For example, $1.9 billion of farm income came from government assistance compared to $367 million in 1981. While it is clear that Governments are attempting to respond to the cost-price squeeze, our farmers are not faring particularly well. Wheat prices have dropped about 30 per cent. This is due to the downward pressure caused by the subsidy war I referred to. Producers are looking for a government response that will help relieve the squeeze farmers are in.
For this Government at this point in its mandate there are few issues as fundamentally important as agriculture. For many of the 65 municipalities in my constituency agriculture is the lifeblood. If agriculture is not doing well at a particular time, neither are those communities or the many businesses in those communities which are dependent 100 per cent on agriculture. We understand that when farming is prospering, those communities will prosper as well.
In addressing a few words specifically to what my friend is proposing, namely parity pricing, I want to say that I do not think that this solution will work. It in fact may be detrimental to the Saskatchewan farm economy. Parity pricing ignores the importance of market forces and the inevitability of change in productivity. It ignores the often dynamic and unpredictable nature of agriculture. That fact is reflected across the country in every region. Agriculture is simply not one monolithic stack-type industry to be dealt with through a parity pricing type formula. Our Government believes that the farm industry is better served by programs which increase efficiency and competitiveness in the market-place. It is important to see the agricultural market-place for what it is. There are national supply management agencies in place for dairy and poultry products, but they were established at the direct request of the producers. Even so, those systems do take into account the fluctuating nature of markets. They have built-in flexibility to protect both producers and consumers. This Bill does not have that kind of flexibility.
Farmers in every part of my province will tell you that the market forces of supply and demand are what they ultimately farm for. They acknowledge the crucial need for price support and financial assistance in order to reduce input costs when supply and demand in world markets has been skewed by forces beyond our control. Farmers will be the first to tell you that the market-place is of crucial importance to them. However, it is not a magic wand which will solve all the problems in one broad stroke. We cannot accomplish everything with one piece of legislation, and we in this Government do not pretend otherwise. Our Government has been working with provincial Governments and the farm sector to build a network of programs to help strengthen the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of the industry.
I want to share with the House a few of the initiatives our Government has taken in support of agriculture. The Special Canadian Grains Program was a timely and much-needed

April 7, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
response to the price problems facing farmers across Canada. A commitment of $1 billion to agriculture is no small feat. It is the largest single transfer of funds to the agricultural economy on an emergency basis in the history of agriculture. Farmers across Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada understand the value of that program. However, this Government will be the first to agree that if one is to continue to build agriculture, we may be called upon again to respond to the needs of farmers. Farm organizations and producers' groups have been meeting with my colleagues, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). Those Ministers have been working overtime to ensure that the concerns of prairie farmers are met.
In recent months our Government offered special drought assistance to those producers who suffered the effect of consecutive years of drought. As well, there was assistance for those who live in flooded areas of Saskatchewan. Amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act have allowed interim payments to farmers, culminating in a total payment of $859 million for the last crop. The red meat stabilization program was put in place and is helping to stabilize returns for red meat producers without falsely shielding them from market forces. On the input side are the farm fuel rebates, the $80 million five-year interest rate reduction of the Farm Credit Corporation, and many other programs of the Government which is committed to helping farmers deal with this particularly difficult cost-price squeeze.
In conclusion, I commend my friend from Yorkton- Melville, with whom I spend a considerable amount of time debating agriculture and many other issues, on his desire to ease Saskatchewan and Canadian farmers through a particularly difficult situation. However, I reiterate that the philosophic and practical limits of parity pricing are not the solution for our agricultural problems. I join with all Members of Parliament concerned about Saskatchewan and Canadian agriculture to work with the Government to see that the proper solutions are found.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-221, presented by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to find some easy answers or some way of dealing with the problems besetting Canadian agriculture, but I do not think that, at this time. Bill C-221 is what we need to solve all those problems. As was said earlier by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), this Bill is only an idea or an approach. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that a progressive agricultural sector and a reasonable return on the work and know-how invested by Canadian farmers are essential to the strength of our economy.
However, we must consider the adverse consequences a parity pricing system could have for our farmers and the Canadian economy as a whole. The parity pricing concept
might do more harm than good, for a number of reasons. When prices are set on the basis of production costs, we must consider that progress in farm technology has made it possible to combine inputs more effectively and thus lower costs, which has regularly helped to keep the price of products down.
Setting a price on production is a very complex procedure. In fact, we have to make a distinction between costs that are the result of a direct expenditure, and other costs such as the fair return on the farmer's work and his investment, which is difficult to evaluate to any degree of accuracy. An estimate can be made, and that is already being done in certain sectors, but it is a very problematic issue and one on which views may differ considerably.
If production costs were set at a level higher than the market price, we would need a system of quotas or a form of supply management for all production sectors. It is inconceivable to introduce a price setting system without knowing how to control supply or dispose of production that is surplus to the needs of our usual markets.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canada is an exporting country and we depend on our export markets. These generate nearly half of Canada's net farm income, and our products must be competitive on foreign markets. In fact, if the price of a certain commodity is set too high, we would have to control imports, which would be likely to increase, and also we could no longer export because our products would probably be too expensive on international markets. Our competitive position would be threatened.
To maintain our presence on these markets, we would have to provide export subsidies, which would undoubtedly elicit strong reaction from our trading partners. Canada would be accused of selling below production prices or of dumping. That is what is happening today to the United States which has been practising dumping in certain European countries. It would of course be instrumental in isolating us from the world trading community and would have disastrous consequences not only for agriculture but for the entire Canadian economy.
Unfortunately, the subsidy war referred to earlier, in which the United States and the Common Market are involved, is threatening the livelihood of Canadian producers. Because of pressures being exercised outside our borders, the price of grain and oilseeds has dropped by at least 20 to 25 per cent compared to last year. And they probably will not recover before market conditions are sound again.
Those are the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, Canada is trying to stop that unnecessary war that will have no winner. With that in mind the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) went to Brussels and Washington to express Canadas' views to both opposing parties.
Also, the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) met with representatives of the five major grain exporting nations. The first meeting was held at Whistler, B.C., in June 1986, at the Minister's request. A second conference has just ended in San Diego, California. At
April 7, 1987

the conclusion of the latter, the Minister of State expressed his confidence that discussions between the five major grain exporting nations will reflect favourably on other multilateral negotiations dealing with agricultural trade.
One thing is sure however-Treasuries in the United States and the European Economic Community are not inexhaustible. It is my hope that those nations soon will realize the uselessness of a high price subsidization policy and massive export subsidies.
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, Canada holds on to its position on the global markets, even though grain prices have declined. The essential is to hold firm, because the efficiency of Canadian grain farmers compares favourably with that of any other producer anywhere in the world.
We also have a natural competitive edge thanks to our soil and our climate, to which must be added the quality of our grain and the skill of the grain producer himself.
The best way to attract and keep clients is to offer a superior quality product in the first place to build a reputation for reliability and to have competitive pricing. Let us try to increase our export potential by way of an aggressive marketing. We can increase our competitive position through research, technological progress and transfers, soil conservation and other initiatives that, given time, will allow us to reduce our production costs.
Eventually, Mr. Speaker, we will soon realize that this is more effective than the mere piling up of subsidies. It also requires more imagination, however. It is important that we be present on the markets when the subsidy war ends. We can then continue to offer what has earned us our reputation- superior quality products at competitive prices.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be able to speak this afternoon on Bill C-221 introduced by the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Before speaking on this Bill I would like to indicate that the riding of Timiskaming has sometimes been noted more as an area for mining and lumbering. I should say that the little clay belt plays a very important role in the riding of Timiskaming in a number of areas of agriculture. People from other parts of Canada sometimes do not recognize that northern Ontario has a good agricultural base and does not simply consist of ice, snow, rock, trees and black flies. However, in the little clay belt in the riding of Timiskaming there are some 750 farmers who vary from dairy operations, to hog, beef, poultry and numerous cash crops.
There is no doubt that the agricultural community in Timiskaming has experienced difficult times just as have other parts of the agriculture community in Canada. The fact is that there have been problems with commodity pricing.
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
Since I came here in 1982 we have been trying to address those concerns facing our agricultural community. We should recognize that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) have been very helpful in addressing our concerns in northern Ontario.
The concept of parity pricing was used in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. Parity prices, as defined in U.S. legislation, were those prices which gave farm products the same purchasing power with respect to articles farmers bought in an historic base. To calculate the parity price for a commodity, the base price was multiplied by an index of prices paid by farmers.
There was a fundamental problem with the parity pricing concept. The indexing procedure took no account of changes in technology and productivity that had occurred since the base. In other words, improvements and changes in inputs and efficiency gains, which reduce costs, were not reflected in the parity prices. As a result, parity prices tended to yield price levels which were well above the costs of efficient producers. It was for this reason that the parity price system was abandoned in the United States.
Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, attempts to get around this problem by proposing to set prices on the basis of an annual cost of production formula. More specifically, it proposes to: first, fix, on the basis of an annual cost of production formula, the prices of wheat, oats and barley used for domestic human consumption at between 90 per cent and 110 per cent of the cost of production; second, establish voluntary commissions for beef and pork with all the powers, including import controls and the determination of prices, necessary to market regulated products for participating producers; and third, after a five-year period broaden the authority of the commissions on the basis of a producer plebiscite.
While very simple in principle, the concept of cost of production pricing is very complicated in practice. It is, first, necessary to clearly define what is meant by cost of production. This is not done in Bill C-221. A clear distinction must be made between cash costs and returns to labour and investment. Returns to operator, labour and investment are not out of pocket costs but should be provided for in any price setting exercise.
In attempting to calculate a price based on production costs, two basic questions must be answered: one, how does one measure cash costs; and two, what is a fair return to operator, labour and investment?
Cost of production surveys for farms have shown a very wide farm-to-farm variation in the cash costs of individual farmers and an equally wide variation in the productivity of labour. If high cost and low productivity farmers are included in cost and return calculations, the resulting support prices are likely to be well above the levels needed to achieve satisfactory profits for efficient farmers. This situation usually results in high returns

April 7, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
to investment for efficient producers and rapidly rising asset values, especially land or quotas. This, in turn, makes it difficult for new farmers to enter the industry. If only low cost and high productivity farmers are included in the calculations, the support prices may be considered to be too low by many producers and pressure will build to adjust the calculations to give higher price supports.
Another problem with cost of production pricing is the production response which will arise if prices are set higher than market clearing levels. This problem is usually addressed with some form of quota or supply-management system. One cannot introduce a cost of production pricing system without having a clear plan for either limiting supply to available markets or disposing of excess product outside of such markets.
Let us consider the impact on trade. Artificial price supports can have serious trade implications if internal price supports are higher than corresponding import prices.
If a country produces less of a commodity than it consumes, high internal prices can be maintained above import prices by imposing tariffs or by restricting imports. Such import restrictions are permitted under General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules as long as effective production controls exist. For example, import restrictions on dairy and poultry products are permitted in Canada because effective supply-management systems exist.
If a country produces more of a commodity than it consumes, high internal price supports are difficult and costly to maintain. The European Economic Community provides an illustration of the problem. High internal price supports have resulted in surplus production which has to be disposed of through export subsidies which are very costly to EEC taxpayers. The use of export subsidies by the EEC was permitted under the original GATT.
If Canadian farm products are to be exported they must be priced competitively in international markets. If, for example, beef and pork commissions, as proposed in Bill C-221, were established and internal prices were established at levels higher than import prices, import controls would be needed to prevent beef and pork from moving into Canada. At the same time, exports would likely cease because of uncompetitive prices. If Canada attempted to continue exporting by using subsidies or operating two-price systems, accusations of dumping would arise from our trading partners and countervail actions under GATT rules would ensue.
In summary, while the concept of parity pricing has surface appeal, it is not consistent with the development of a strong export market. For export oriented sectors it is likely that programs such as the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Tripartite Stabilization Programs for beef, pork and lamb provide a better alternative to parity pricing. These programs provide protection against periodic weaknesses in markets but ensure that longer run returns reflect market experience.
In closing, let me say that the concerns of the agriculture community are shared by all of us in the House. However, I believe that at this time Bill C-221 does not really address the concerns of all the agricultural community. I believe the manner in which the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has been addressing these concerns has been appreciated.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-221 is an Act to introduce a concept described as parity pricing as well as to set up marketing commissions for beef and hogs. Conservative Members, at least, have been quite clear in saying we need something different from the present system and that we must use some imagination in arriving at a pricing system to solve what they vaguely describe as the farm problem. They have decided that because the words "parity pricing" became attached to this particular set of proposals they cannot work and quote some of the experiences of the United States as being proof of that. However, when one looks at the experience of the United States, there is very little question that parity pricing worked in that it achieved the ends it was designed to achieve, that is, full employment in agriculture and a return on the product which will pay most of the cost of producing the product on the land. It also had the effect of achieving very efficient and viable farm communities and built a very strong rural base in the United States during the period of time it experimented with the parity pricing system.
Had Hon. Members opposite looked a little at the European agricultural situation, they would have seen that something similar to the U.S. experience pertains there as well. The Europeans, who, for various reasons, some of which include having had a large band of the electorate facing starvation during the Second World War, decided, post-World War II, to establish a system of agricultural pricing which would make certain that consumers in Europe would not again be forced to rely on imports from far away across an ocean or from across the Russian frontier. They wanted to become self-sufficient. They set out that goal and achieved it. They achieved it at a relatively low cost compared to the system of subsidies which is now in place in the United States. The Americans have committed themselves to a further four years of subsidization at the rate of some S35 billion to $36 billion per annum. That is a tremendous amount of government funds going into American agriculture, and I submit it is costing American taxpayers far more than the European plan is costing European taxpayers, and that the American plan will probably place the American taxpayers in bankruptcy much faster than the European plan will do to the European taxpayers. I say this because basically the difference between the two is that in Europe the consumers are being asked to pay a little more money for their food and that extra money goes directly back to the farmers. That is essentially what my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), was attempting to do with his Bill. He was attempting to pay Canadian farmers approximately their full production costs for that portion of their production which is sold within the country.
April 7, 1987

In spite of all the rhetoric I heard this afternoon from some of the Conservatives who spoke on this motion, this country is doing some of that right now. We have a two-price system for wheat at the moment, based at $7 a bushel for wheat consumed in this country, which comes close to the cost of production. We are doing that, and it is not wrecking the economy particularly, neither is it doing a whole lot of good. However, it applies only to domestically consumed wheat used for human consumption and does not go quite as far as the Bill which was presented by my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, which would include wheat, oats and barley consumed by livestock and used for other purposes of animal and poultry production.
As anyone who understands agriculture will know, with those products already being produced under supply-management systems, namely, broiler chickens, turkeys, eggs and dairy products, there is no problem coping with this increased feed cost. It simply goes into the price of the product, which would be reflected, granted, in higher prices to consumers. However, it would also mean a much stronger rural community and agricultural base.
I think what makes farmers upset is when they hear speeches such as we heard from some Hon. Members today, who delivered all the old shibboleths about how impossible it is to control surpluses and how one must have a market system which reflects the true market rather than the cost of production. Most farmers begin to ask themselves, why it is that only I have to contend with this kind of market? They remark how few other producers contend with that type of market system. They look around at the things they buy and compare costs in terms of direct trades. I hear my friends and neighbours saying that the last time they bought a new car in 1977, they spent
2.000	bushels of No. 1 wheat to buy that car, which cost about $6,000. It was a full-size Chevrolet with everything on it. Now when they go to price a full-size Chevrolet with everything on it, they find it will cost at least $18,000, and it will take about
8.000	bushels of No. 1 wheat to buy that car.
Some of my friends opposite talked about technological change and how new technology would bring new advantages and permit the lowering of costs. From my simple vantage point of sitting on the farm and in this House, I know that a great deal of technological change has occurred in the automobile industry since 1977 when a new Chevrolet cost about 2,000 bushels of wheat. I know that has not resulted in a lower-priced car. It is now going to cost 8,000 bushels of wheat to buy the same thing, and they have not even changed the models very much. As you know, Mr. Speaker, they almost look the same. Yet the price is more than four times as high in terms of producing a bushel of wheat.
I know we on the farm are a very efficient lot. However, our production techniques have not changed greatly since 1977, either. We have perhaps tooled up to a little larger equipment than was generally in use in 1977, but for most farms in my area, the equipment has not gone through any great technological changes. We were using four-wheel drive tractors and 30
Adjournment Debate
to 50 foot cultivating and seeding machinery then, and we are doing so now. The cost of a number of things we are using in the new technology of grain production have increased quite markedly in that time. Fertilizer prices are more than double since that period of time. In fact, going back to 1977, I would warrant they have almost tripled. Chemicals have increased two, three and four times, depending on the kind of chemical. Fuel costs have doubled and tripled in that period of time as well. Yet farmers are being asked to take relatively shrinking prices for their production while looking around and seeing that everything they buy on the market, which is supposed to reflect all of the technological advantages of industry in North America, costs in our terms four and five times as much as they receive for our product. We realize that those manufacturers are working in a market-place which reflects their cost of production and that is why they have put the price up four and five times what it was back in 1977. They are recovering their full costs of production, plus a profit, and the intention of my Hon. friend the, Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, is to set in place a few market mechanisms so that farmers will have the same opportunity for their products.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the 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.

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have ever asked you what it is that makes you wake up in the morning. I would like to know what it is. Perhaps it is the sunlight that streams through the window in the morning. Perhaps it is an alarm clock; or perhaps it is a clock-radio.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am awakened by a clock-radio, and more often than not, it is not soft music that I awaken to but a loud authoritative news voice giving me some news and some comment, and usually the news, or at least part of it, includes a description of some very grisly crime that has occurred, and that authoritative news voice is telling me that we should be bringing back capital punishment. It berates those who oppose capital punishment or who are wavering a little on capital punishment in any way, shape or form.

April 7, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Last summer, Mr. Speaker, I, along with people right across Canada, woke up to news reports about a little girl in Toronto by the name of Allison Parrot. We first heard reports about her disappearance, and then we heard reports about her grisly murder.
This authoritative news voice kept telling us that we should be bringing back the death penalty. As a result of that urging, and all of those reports, there was in my constituency office, my office in Ottawa and my home, a deluge of requests to bring back the death penalty. I had an inundation of letters and telephone calls urging me to support the return of the death penalty, all the time pointing out that for many years the polls reflected support for the return of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, why is it that that happens so regularly? I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I personally believe that that feeling was reflected in the comments of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Elnatyshyn) and the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, and more recently in the comments of the Chairman of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, all of whom have said that Canadians have lost confidence in our criminal justice system.
The recent vigilante killings by store owners in Calgary and Montreal are yet further illustrations of that very point, that feeling of frustration on the part of the Canadian people. The Minister of Justice, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, also said that vigilante system is unacceptable; that a "Charles Bronson" system of justice is unacceptable.
I agree with those statements, Mr. Speaker, and I know you do, too. But, Mr. Speaker, it is the job of the Minister of Justice, the job of the provincial Attorneys General, to ensure that we have a system of justice in which Canadians can have confidence. Canadians must have confidence in their criminal justice system.
What is being done about it, Mr. Speaker? Of course, we are going to have a free vote on the issue of capital punishment. But, is that the answer? I doubt that you think so, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think so either. I believe that if the former Government, a Government that was in power for 15 years or more, had taken some action to tighten up the bail laws, as well as the sentencing and parole laws, we would not have this problem now, and Canadians would in fact have confidence in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that the present Government-bless it-cannot escape blame, either. Canadians voted for a change in September of 1984, and here we are today, insofar as the criminal justice system is concerned, and very little has been changed. In fact, we seem to be following the same old agenda. Perhaps it is the Liberal agenda, perhaps it is a bureaucratic agenda, but it is not the agenda of Canadians. Canadians know that between the years 1976 and 1985 violent crime increased 25.7 per cent in the country. They want the criminal justice system to be tightened up. I believe that public opinion polls would be very different now on the
question of capital punishment if steps had been taken to tighten up the criminal justice system.
Irrespective of whether capital punishment is brought back, Canadians want the system tightened up. The Minister of Justice would not have to worry about a vigilante or a Charles Bronson system of justice or about the confidence of Canadians in the criminal justice system if he would only tighten up the bail laws, sentencing, and parole.
The Minister and the Government have had some 2.5 years to do it. However, there are 2.5 years left in the mandate of the Government. That is enough time for the Minister of Justice to take some decisive action in this area so that he can leave a legacy of which he can be proud, of which I can be proud, and of which Canadians can be proud.
I am looking forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight that the Minister of Justice is about to take some decisive action and to leave a legacy of which all of us could be proud.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: First of all. Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the Hon. Member for raising this issue and for his remarks. I know that he is deeply concerned about this issue, having advocated these principles ever since his election. I must say that fortunately some Hon. Members devote their time and energy promoting major issues. It is true that the system we have inherited must be changed and changed thoroughly, but these changes cannot happen overnight. They can only be carried out following a rather extensive consultation. And we started this extensive consultation the moment we came to power in September 1984, something of which the Hon. Member is well aware for having contributed to it.
And this consultation has started to pay off. For instance, two weeks ago, the Canadian Sentencing Commission tabled its report which indicated what a great many people knew already, namely, that there are differences in sentencing for the same crimes which people just cannot understand. That is why they answer in various polls that they no longer understand the system. Referring for instance to the various examples given by my hon. friend concerning the perception which people have of the criminal justice system and especially the vigilante type of justice, we realize that people do not quite understand the principle of necessary force involved in cases of legitimate defence. As much as 68 per cent of poll respondents were quoted at saying that a vigilante type of justice could be legitimate under certain circumstances. But if they have been asked a different question, such as: Would you agree that the victim should use more force than necessary? Well, I am sure most Canadians would have said no.
So it would seem that Criminal Code provisions as worded may lead to confusion. People should be better informed
April 7, 1987

through publicity, and for the benefit of the general public- with more forthcoming co-operation from our provincial colleagues-we might try to make the Criminal Code more readily understandable.
Of course we must point out that the Law Reform Commission is doing very important research with respect to sentencing delimitation. Later this fall it will present a report on release in an attempt to simplify the system and make it easier for people to understand the whole process, so perhaps in this case the conclusion will be that when somebody is given a three-year sentence, indeed he should not be released after serving six months.
But this can only be done after consultation, including the work done by the Hon. Member as well his questions and comments, and then likely by next fall or sometime next year the Government, under its mandate, will be in a position to make certain recommendations which should considerably improve the system, and more particularly the public perception of the Canadian judiciary system.


THE CONSTITUTION-REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, in September 1985 and on March 11, 1987 I raised the question of the inclusion of property rights in the Charter concerning the very grave oversight on the part of the Liberal Government when it drew up the Charter revisions.
I do not think there is any Canadian living in Canada who would hold one particular right more dearly to his or her heart than the right to own property. There are many individuals who have chosen Canada as their new home because of the freedoms that we enjoy to work hard and to acquire wealth and property.
Now that we have been in office for two and a half years, I feel it is time to bring this important matter to the front burner. I urge the Minister to address this matter as quickly as possible with his provincial counterparts. We all know that to make this change requires the approval of the majority of the provinces.
In response to my question, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said he will be dealing with the matter, but the purpose of my speaking again this evening is to reinforce how important property rights are, not only to me as a Member of Parliament, but to my constituents and constituents right across the land. I urge the Minister to give this matter his urgent attention and include property rights in the Charter in order to make that Charter complete.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Hon. Member of our sympathy for the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. He is
Adjournment Debate
aware of the long record of support of the Conservative Party for property rights. In 1960, the Progressive Conservative Government under the leadership of the late former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights provides protections for property rights at the federal level. In particular, it protects the right of every individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, except by due process of law. Since the introduction of the Canadian Bill of Rights, we have continued to advocate property rights. In the process leading up to the patriation of the Constitution and after, we pressed the Liberal Government to add property rights to the Constitution.
It was in this context that the previous Attorney General of Canada asked the Attorneys General of the provinces last year to establish a working group of officials to examine the entrenchment of property rights. The Attorneys General agreed, and a working group was established. Women's groups, aboriginal people, environment groups and provincial Governments have expressed concerns about the impact of entrenching property rights and about legal uncertainties relating to property rights. The working group is analysing these questions. I understand that the working group is making good progress and it will be reporting to the Attorneys General in due course.
Last August in their Edmonton declaration the provincial Premiers specifically asked that the question of Quebec and the Constitution be dealt with first before we deal with any other matters of constitutional reform and they specifically included in these the matter of property rights. At the conclusion of their annual conference in Vancouver last November, the First Ministers of the provinces reiterated their view that there should be another stage following the present round of discussions to deal with other matters, including property rights.
An amendment to the Constitution would require the assent of at least seven provinces and the assent of at least 50 per cent of the population of the provinces. The Hon. Member will appreciate that we wish to co-operate with the provinces as their agreement on the matter of property rights is essential. The current round of constitutional discussions is not over yet so we do not have a definite schedule for the next round of discussions. However, the matter of property rights is progressing with the efforts of the working group on property rights.


HUMAN RIGHTS-EAST TIMOR-INVASION BY INDONESIAN TROOPS. (B) REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED NATIONS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, on February 17, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) a question on behalf of a pathetic, suffering, tortured population in a little section of a little island called East Timor and a little section of another little island called Irian Jaya, some 500 kilometres North of

April 7, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Australia. These people have been crushed under the boots of an oppressive dictatorship in Indonesia. I asked the Minister politely without innuendo or sarcasm of any kind the following question:
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that Canada has allotted $300 million in aid through CIDA to Indonesia over a five-year period. In fact, that represents the fourth largest Canadian aid program in all of Asia. How can the Government continue to ignore the fact that Indonesia has invaded East Timor with 40,000 troops and is conducting "Operation Extinction", which is tantamount to genocide? What kind of representations will the Secretary of State for External Affairs make to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, Dr. Mochtar, who is in Ottawa at the present time?
The Minister's reply included the following remarks:
It would be a change in the basis of his representations in the House, if they were based on fact.
He went on to say:
I would invite the Hon. Member, rather than relying upon the editorial opinion of The Globe and Mail, to learn the facts for himself and to avoid making accusations which he cannot support with facts.
Instead of treating this question with sympathy, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had to resort to personal attacks on the questioner. This is a sad regression and a breach of the promise the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made for a new era of civility. In any case, insults will not change the suffering of those people nor will it stop my determination to bring their tragedy to the attention of the House and the Canadian people.
In the House of Commons, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make representations to the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr. Mochtar. The Minister replied that these arguments are exaggerated. I asked him to make representations on behalf of the indigenous people at the Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva and he told me that unless I went to see for myself, I should not make accusations I could not support with facts. This is an incredible reply in view of the record of Indonesia and the reports which are a shocking indictment of human rights violations in East Timor as well as the fact that over 10,000 pathetic refugees from Irian Jaya have poured across the border into United Nations camps in Papua New Guinea.
Although the Red Cross is the only organization allowed into East Timor and is not even allowed into Irian Jaya, it is effectively muzzled because, as a humanitarian organization, it is not allowed to discuss anything except how many prisoners it could visit and the state of their care and rehabilitation. There are no other groups that the Indonesians will allow to enter East Timor or Irian Jaya.
When I was recently at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, I was told about the refugees by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. I was told about the atrocities by Amnesty International, Pax Christi, Pax Romana, the Canada-Asia working group of churches, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, the International Christian Consultation on East Timor and of reports that were smuggled out to the members of the Pacific Conference of
Churches that met at Samoa. I spoke to delegates from France and Portugal who appealed to Indonesia to end its atrocities and who appealed as well to the International Red Cross and others in Geneva whose names I cannot mention because of their links to people within East Timor. However, they are extremely credible.
I also spoke to Indonesian delegates. They confirmed that they will not allow human rights organizations or churches into Irian Jaya or into East Timor because they only "come to make trouble and lie about us". They also refused to explain why over the years they have never replied to accusations made by the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Whom should we believe? Should we believe the reports of these human rights organizations based on information from refugees and smuggled messages, reports that are reliable, or should we accept the reassurances of the Minister who bases his information on the reports of the Canadian Ambassador to Indonesia who, given the opportunity to see East Timor, said: "Things aren't as bad as they were and have been exaggerated"?
I would hope that this time I will receive a decent, concerned and respectful answer to this question which deals with human suffering. It deserves no less from the Government of Canada, a nation with a great record of concern for human rights when they are brought to our attention.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to reply to my colleague concerning the question of East Tumor, a question which of course is at the origin of impassioned reactions. I wonder how Opposition Members invariably manage to question the sources of information on certain anomalies or problems which exist in the world.
Mr. Speaker, rumours about many losses of life in Timor are founded. They are indeed true. When people are in that state, Mr. Speaker, when there is a civil war, it is not the only reason, it is not simply indiscriminate killing of the population, but it is, and this was confirmed by the International Red Cross Committee in 1979-which by the way saved 70,000 people-famine, lack of shelter, disease, malnutrition which are causing the largest number of deaths.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, during a civil war you can count all the casualties and say that they result strictly from that war. You can count that way, but that is not what I call violation of human rights. According to our reports, there are no such violations of human rights at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, the news we get and the information my colleague received, are, according to our own information, exaggerated. Following the visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Indonesia there were reports in the Sunday Star and in The Ottawa Citizen which were far more balanced than the accusations first made.
April 7, 1987

Clearly, Canada is greatly concerned by the recurrent rumors about violations of human rights. However, we are not going to put an end to our programs simply because of unconfirmed rumors. We now have the assistance of the International Red Cross and some other international groups which keep us up to date, inform us of the most recent developments, and even the questions put by my colleague are not ignored. We try to get information, we are concerned, and Canada, Mr. Speaker, precisely because it has great respect
Adjournment Debate
for human rights, will do its utmost to see that these rights are respected the world over.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
President of the United States of America
to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Monday, April 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
April 7, 1987

[Stage Direction]
of
RONALD WILSON REAGAN President of the United States of America to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Monday, April 6, 1987
The President was welcomed by the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Guy Charbonneau, Speaker of the Senate and Honourable John A. Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. John A. Fraser (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Order, please.
Mr. President, we welcome you to this Chamber where the Canadian people are represented by Members of Parliament and Senators who comprise the Parliament of Canada.

We are honoured to have you in our midst.

I now invite the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to introduce our distinguished guest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. President, in the House of Commons, for me, that is known as 82 per cent of a standing ovation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But we are not going to forget it.
Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. President and Mrs. Reagan, Mesdames et Messieurs:
Mr. President, I welcome you to this House. I should at once thank you for arranging your schedule so that your visit here would result in the cancellation of Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you would like to stay around all week-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Almost 30 years ago, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, in introducing President Eisenhower here in this Chamber, described him as the "leader of a mighty state" and as "someone who comes to us as a good neighbour and friend". There are Hon. Members of this Parliament here today who were present in this Chamber three decades ago. They would agree, I am sure, that much has changed since then, but they would agree as well that unchanged is the sincerity of our
friendship and the profound respect our peoples have for democratic values and for each other.

We are aware this is the bi-centennial year of the American Constitution-a declaration of freedom and independence which has been a light of inspiration and hope to so much of mankind for two centuries.
Our two countries-different in so many ways-share more than a common border in a continent. We share in the advance of liberty and human dignity in a world still darkened by oppression, still bearing the stain of racism and intolerance. We share, as well, respect for our sovereign right to act in the best interests of the people we serve. We would hope for other peoples and other nations something of our own ongoing experience of trust and confidence and mutual respect.
Mr. President, you will know that much is different from your last visit to the House of Commons. The change is reflected in our joint agenda.

Canadians view with increasing concern the effects of acid rain upon our environment. But this is more than a Canadian problem. It is a transboundary problem which requires a transboundary response.
I urgently invite the United States administration and the American Congress to join with this Parliament, and the Government of Canada in concluding a firm bilateral accord which will provide a North American solution to acid rain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In this matter, time is not our ally but our enemy. The longer we delay, the greater the cost. For what would be said of a generation that sought the stars but permitted its lakes and streams to languish and die?

Mr. President, you have described our present bi-lateral negotiations as presenting the opportunity for concluding-in your words-an "historic trade agreement".

With regard to trade and the trade agreement, Mr. President, if such a trade agreement is fair to both countries, it will be good for both peoples.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are determined that this opportunity shall not pass in this generation, because the prosperity and competitive advantage of the next generation may well depend on it.
April 7, 1987



As we are linked in commerce and trade, so are we linked in the defence of our continent through NORAD, and in the defence of the Atlantic Alliance through NATO. As we are partners in progress, so are we partners in defending our democratic way of life.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Canada is not a neutral nation. We are not, and never have been, mere spectators in the struggle between freedom and tyranny.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Canada's credentials have been richly earned both in the defence of freedom and in the pursuit of peace.
Geographically situated between the two superpowers, Canada lives in the shadow of nuclear armaments.
[ Translation]
Our people, deeply concerned about the arms race, are now encouraged by recent prospects for arms reduction. If the United States and the Soviet Union can conclude an agreement on short and medium range missiles, other arms reductions accords can follow.
A new day can begin. As President Eisenhower said in this House: "Beyond the shadow of the nuclear cloud, the horizon is bright with promise." Regrettably, after three decades that promise remains unfulfilled.

But with strength, solidarity and resolve, that promise may yet be secured.
It is the promise of a world in which a liberalized trading system works for the benefit of the developing, no less than the developed nations.
It is the promise of a world free of international terrorism, which our two Governments remain firmly resolved to combat.
It is the promise of a world free from the evil of apartheid, because the majority in South Africa cannot and must not remain in political and economic bondage.
It is the promise of a world where children learn tolerance and lead lives that exemplify it.

Those are but a few of our mutual obligations to a larger world, a world which looks to our two countries as beacons of liberty, of prosperity and generosity of spirit.

Mr. President, Sir Winston Churchill described the relationships between our nations as "an example for every country and a pattern for the future of the world". In testimony to that, this unique and enduring relationship has been celebrated
recently by a joint resolution of the American Congress and the Parliament of Canada which proclaims July 2 and 3, the two days between our respective national days, as the "Canada-United States days of peace and friendship".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our respective legislators have served their constituents well.
Six years ago, on your first visit to this Chamber, Prime Minister Trudeau said: "I wish you well in your task and comfort in your burden. May part of that comfort come from the assurance of Canada's abiding friendship for your country and your people".
Mr. President, I make mine the words of Prime Minister Trudeau. As we once again welcome you and Mrs. Reagan in our midst, you will know that that sentiment remains indeed unchallenged and unchanged in this House, in this Parliament, and in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I say to you, Mr. President, and to you, Mrs. Reagan, that in Canada you are among friends.
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ronald W. Reagan (President of the United States):: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, honourable Senators, Members of the House of Commons, distinguished members of the diplomatic corps, ladies and gentlemen:
It is a great honour to speak to you today. As you know, this is my third official visit to Canada. My last two were the first foreign trips I had taken after each election. But our constitutional prohibitions being what they are, I thought it was not wise to wait for another election before visiting you again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I also wanted to time this trip after March so people would not think that these state visits are just an excuse for Prime Minister Mulroney and me to celebrate St. Patrick's Day together.
On each of these occasions I have been struck by how much our two nations have in common. Despite our many important differences, you see the similarities of our national characters in, among other things, the sports we share; hockey, baseball, football-with some modifications-and that fourth sport which seems to be as popular on both sides of the 49th parallel, giving a hard time to political leaders of Irish descent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is truly an honour to have a second opportunity to address this august body, this great democratic legislature that has been witness to and shaper of so much of

April 7, 1987
the history of freedom. I remember those days, not so very long after the attack on Pearl Harbour had once again united our two nations in a world conflict, when Winston Churchill stood-where I am standing today. Wake Island had fallen just a week before; on Christmas Day, after an heroic defence by Canadian troops, Hong Kong was captured by the Axis; Manila was soon to be swallowed up as well.
But those who might have been expecting a picture of democracy in retreat got something very different from that indomitable spirit. "We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries," he said, "across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy". Churchill was speaking of the members of the British Commonwealth, most specifically of the people of Canada, but I confess we Americans have always flattered ourselves that, though the thought was unspoken, he had us in mind, too.
As two proud and independent peoples there is much that distinguishes us, one from the other, but there is also much that we share: a vast continent, with its common hardships and uncommon beauties, generations of mutual respect and support, and an abiding friendship that grows ever stronger. We are two nations, each built by immigrants, refugees from tyranny and want, pioneers of a new land of liberty. The first settlers of this new world, alone before the majesty of nature, alone before God, must have been thrown back on first principles, must have realized that it was only in their most basic values that they would find the wisdom to endure and the strength to triumph. And so a dedication was formed, as hard as the granite of the Rockies-a dedication to freedom, a commitment to those unalienable human rights and their only possible guarantee, the institutions of democratic government.
A shared history, yes, but more than that: a shared purpose. It must have seemed to Churchill, besieged and isolated as he was in the one corner of Europe still clinging to freedom, that this American continent, and his two great friends and onetime colonies, had been placed here by a wise and prescient God, protected between two vast oceans, to keep freedom safe. In the crisis of the moment Churchill said it was not then time to "-speak of the hopes of the future, or the broader world which lies beyond our struggles and our victory". We must first, he said, "-win that world for our children".
In a very real sense, that is still our imperative today: to win the world for our children, to win it for freedom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Today our task is not merely the survival of liberty, but to keep the peace while we extend liberty to a world desperately in need. Today we still contend against war, against a foreign expansionism, and I will speak to that in a moment. But I wish first to talk about a second struggle, one that must occupy an equal place in our attentions, the struggle against the plagues of poverty and under-development that still ravage so much of mankind.
Our two nations have committed many resources to that struggle, but we have it within our power at this moment to take an historic step toward a growing world economy and an expanding cycle of prosperity that reaches beyond the industrialized powers even to the developing nations. We can lead, first, by our powerful example, specifically by the example of Prime Minister Mulroney's far-sighted proposal to establish a free trade agreement that would eliminate most remaining trade barriers between Canada and the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: After the Allied victory over the Axis powers, America and Canada combined their efforts to help restore Europe to economic health. Those were golden years of international economic co-operation that saw the creation of GATT which knocked down the tariff barriers that had so damaged the world economy; the International Monetary Fund; and 30 years ago last month, the creation of the Common Market. The theme that ran through it all was free and fair trade. Free and fair trade was the lifeblood of a reinvigorated Europe, a revitalized free world that saw a generation of growth unparalleled in history.
We must keep these principles fixed in our minds as we move forward on Prime Minister Mulroney's free trade proposal, a proposal that, I am convinced, will prove no less historic. Already our two nations generate the world's largest volume of trade. The United States trades more with the Province of Ontario alone than with Japan. United States citizens are by far the principal foreign investors in Canada, and Canadians, on a per capita basis, are even greater investors in our country. This two-way traffic in trade and investment has helped to create new jobs by the millions, expand opportunity for both our peoples, and augment the prosperity of both our nations.
Prime Minister Mulroney's proposal would establish the largest free trade area in the world, benefiting not only our two countries but setting an example of co-operation to all nations that now wrestle against the siren temptation of protectionism. To those who would hunker down behind barriers to fight a destructive and self-defeating round of trade battles, Canada and the United States will show the positive way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: We will overcome the impulse of economic isolationism with a brotherly embrace, an embrace, it is not too much to hope, that may some day extend throughout the Americas and ultimately encompass all free nations.
We can look forward to the day when the free flow of trade from the southern reaches of Tierra del Fuego to the northern outposts of the Arctic Circle, unites the people of the western hemisphere in a bond of mutually beneficial exchange, when all borders become what the U.S.-Canadian border so long has been-a meeting place rather than a dividing line.
April 7, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: We recognize that the issues facing us are many and difficult. And just as this proud Parliament is watching our negotiations, so too is the United States Congress. A comprehensive, balanced agreement that provides open trade and investment on a comprehensive basis, an agreement in which both sides are winners-that is our goal.
Augmenting the spirit of the Uruguay trade negotiations, prelude to our economic summit in Venice this June, our free trade discussions here will be a model of co-operation to the world. Mr. Prime Minister, this will be a pioneering agreement worthy of a pioneering people; a visionary strategy, worthy of the elected head of one of the world's greatest democracies. Mr. Prime Minister, we salute you; and I pledge to you now that, for our part, we shall commit ourselves and the resources of our administration to good faith negotiations that will make this visionary proposal a reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: And on this, the Canadian people and the Members of Parliament have my word.
Freedom works. The democratic freedoms that secure the God-given rights of man, and the economic freedoms that open the door to prosperity-they are the hope and, we trust, the destiny of mankind.
If free trade is the lifeblood, free enterprise is the heart of prosperity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Jobs, rising incomes, opportunity-they must be created, day to day, through the enterprise of free men and women. We have had to learn and re-learn this lesson in this century. In my own country, we have witnessed an expansion and strengthening of many of our civil liberties, but too often we have seen our economic liberties neglected, even abused. We have protected the freedom of expression of the author, as we should-but what of the freedom of expression of the entrepreneur, whose pen and paper are capital and whose profits and literature are the heroic epic of free enterprise, a tale of creativity and invention that not only delights the mind, but has improved the condition of man, feeding the poor with new grains, bringing hope to the ailing with new cures, vanquishing ignorance with wondrous new information technologies.
In the United States we have found a new consensus, among members of both Parties, in a reformed tax structure that lowers tax rates and frees the spirit of enterprise of our people. Today, that consensus is broadening as your great free market nation seeks the same path back to the first principles of economic growth through rate-reducing tax reform. We see movements in Germany and Japan, as well, to cut tax rates. But this must be only the beginning; for what is simply
beneficial to us is a matter of the most dire necessity to the nations and peoples of the developing world. And this is the second great example that, together, we offer to the nations of the world in desperate economic need. For the poorer, the more desperate their condition, the more urgently they need the growth that only economic freedom can bring.
We have seen time and again the healing, invigorating effects of economic freedom: tax rate cuts lifted both Germany and Japan out of post-war stagnation and into the forefront of the world economy; low tax rates catapulted the nations of the Pacific Basin out of the Third World, making them major economic partners today.
A recent study prepared for our Government found a direct relationship between the high tax rates and other statist policies of many underdeveloped countries and a cycle of deepening poverty and despair. On the other hand, the study found that countries with low tax rates and free market policies are among the fastest growing in the world, providing improved living standards and increased opportunity for all their people.
We apply the principles of economic freedom at home; we should not export central planning and statist economics abroad. When the Holy Father came to this country, he spoke of the moral obligation of the wealthier nations to share with those less fortunate-it is time to take up that challenge. Both our countries have been generous donors of foreign aid, and that is important.
But our own experience, the experience of this century, has shown that the only effective way to share prosperity is to share the conditions that generate prosperity. History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that statism spreads poverty; it is only freedom that begets wealth. Free markets, low tax rates, free trade-this is the most valuable foreign aid we can give to the developing nations of the Third World.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: These are the weapons of peace we must deploy in the struggle to win a future of liberty for mankind. So many have come to Canada and the United States in hope-let us now give that hope to the world.
Throughout our history our two nations have keenly felt our international responsibilities. Instrumental in founding and maintaining the NATO alliance, through co-operative efforts in NORAD, Canada has taken a leading role in the defence of the free world. Meanwhile, we have co-operated in extending every effort to lessen the dangers of a nuclear-armed world.
Over the past six years, the United States-working closely with Canada and our other allies-has sought to achieve deep reductions in Soviet and American nuclear arms. Thanks to the firmness shown by the Alliance, we are moving toward a breakthrough agreement that would dramatically reduce an entire class of weapons-American and Soviet longer-range, intermediate range, INF missiles in Europe and Asia.

April 7, 1987
We have travelled far to get here-from past treaties that only codified the nuclear build-up, to the point where we may soon see the dismantling of thousands of these agents of annihilation. We are hopeful-we are expectant-but we face many difficulties still. As our negotiators continue to work toward a sound agreement, we are not going to abandon our basic principles-or our allies' interests-for the sake of a quick fix, an inadequate accord.
We will work for truly verifiable reductions that strengthen the security of our friends and allies in both Europe and Asia and that cannot be circumvented by any imbalance in shorter-range INF systems. In short, America will stand where she always stood: with her allies, in defence of freedom and the cause of peace.
We must continue to keep in mind, as well, that a major impetus in our reduction talks has been the growing reality of our Strategic Defence Initiative. SDI supports and advances the objectives of arms control-


Svend Johannes Robinson: No way.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -offering a more stable and secure environment as we pursue our goal of deep reductions in nuclear weapons. We must move away from a situation of Mutual Assured Destruction-so aptly called MAD, the MAD policy.-We need defensive systems that threaten no one, that would save human lives instead of targeting them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: We must remember that the Soviet Union has spent 15 times as much on strategic defences as we have over the last 10 years, while their record of compliance with existing arms treaties continues to be a cause for concern. Most people do not understand that Mutual Assured Destruction has left our populations absolutely defenceless. This is an intolerable situation; the truly moral course is to move forward quickly with a new strategy of peace-based not on the ability to threaten lives, but on our confidence that we can save them. Let us choose a defence that truly defends.
As we have pursued better relations with the Soviet Union, we have laboured to deal realistically with the basic issues that divide that nation from the free world. Our insistence that the Soviet Union adhere to its Helsinki human rights agreement is not just a moral imperative; we know that no nation can truly be at peace with its neighbours if it is not at peace with its own people.
In recent months, we have heard hopeful talk of change in Moscow, of a new openness. Some political prisoners have been released; the BBC is no longer jammed-we welcome these positive signs and hope that they are only the first steps toward a true liberalization of Soviet society.
To the extent the Soviet Union truly opens its society-to that extent its economy and the life of its people will improve; to that extent we may hope its aggression will diminish.
Disappointingly, however, there so far has been little movement on the Soviet side toward the peaceful settlement of regional conflicts that today are flaring across the globe.
Despite announcements of ceasefires and talk of national reconciliation, the Soviet's terrible war against Afghanistan remains unabated-and Soviet attacks on neighbouring Pakistan have escalated dangerously. In Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Angola, the Soviet Union continues to support brutal wars of Communist Governments against their own people. In Nicaragua, we see such a campaign on our own shores-


Mr. Parry:: Shameful!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is there an echo in here?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you. In Nicaragua, we see such a campaign on our own shores, threatening destabilization throughout Central America. This is not just a question of selfprotection; the higher principle is that the people of Nicaragua have the right to decide their own future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The surest sign that the Soviet Union truly wants better relations, that it truly wants peace, would be to end its global strategy to impose one-party dictatorships- allow the people of this world to determine their own futures, in liberty and peace. We know that when people are given the opportunity to choose, they choose freedom.
Truly, the future belongs to the free. In our own hemisphere, we have seen a freedom tide sweep over South and Central America: Six years ago, only 30 per cent of the people of Latin America lived in democracies-today, over 90 per cent do. Around the world, resistance movements are rising up to throw off the totalitarian yoke. Even in China, they debate the pace of reform but acknowledge its necessity.
On the border between Canada and the United States stands a plaque commemorating over a century and a half of friendship. It calls the border: "a lesson of peace to all nations", and that is what it is: a concrete, living lesson that the path to peace is freedom, that the relations of free peoples, no matter how different, no matter how distinct their national characters, will be marked by admiration, not hostility.
Go stand along the border at the beginning of July. You will see the Maple Leaf and the Stars and Stripes mixed in a swirling cloud of visitors and celebrants. As a Canadian writer once put it: "What's the difference between Dominion Day and July 4? About 48 hours".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes, we have differences, disputes, as any two sovereign nations will. But we are always able to work them out, entre amis.
April 7, 1987

One area of particular concern to all Canadians, I know, is the problem of acid rain. When the Prime Minister and I met in Quebec two years ago, we appointed two distinguished Envoys, Bill Davis and Drew Lewis, to examine the problem. They issued a joint report, which we have endorsed, and we are actively implementing many of their recommendations.
The first phase of our clean coal technology program is under way. It is the beginning of a $6 billion commitment through 1992, and I have asked Congress for the full share of government spending recommended by the Envoys-$2.5 billion-for the demonstration of innovative pollution control technologies over the next five years.
Literally thousands of firms and millions of jobs will be affected by whatever steps we take on this problem, so there are no quick and easy answers. However, working together, we have made an important start. I am convinced that, as in the past, our disputes will bring us closer as we find a mutual accord, and our differences will become only another occasion for co-operation. Let me assure you that your concerns are my concerns.
I was struck recently by the words of a Canadian-a Hungarian Canadian you might call him-who came to this country, as so many before him, to escape oppression. He said: "I wanted to stretch. I needed a place where I could move mountains or carry larger stones than Sisyphus, and here was the place for it-nobody telling me what I'm supposed to believe as a Canadian-gave me a kind of freedom for my mind and my spirit and my creative energies that I had never experienced before in life. (And) I found that, for me, anyhow, anything could be possible here".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: This is your Canada, and our continent. This is the chosen place in history our two nations occupy: a land where the mind and heart of man are free; a land of peace; a land where, indeed, anything is possible.
May I add a word about our discussions today on two issues of critical interest to our two countries. The Prime Minister and I agreed to consider the Prime Minister's proposal for a bilateral accord on acid rain, building on the tradition of agreements to control pollution of our shared international waters.
The Prime Minister and I also had a full discussion of the Arctic waters issue, and he and I agreed to inject new impetus to the discussions already under way. We are determined to find a solution based on mutual respect for sovereignty and our common security and other interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you all very much, and God bless you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Guy Charbonneau (The Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. President, Mr. Speaker of the House, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen:

Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank you for your visit to this country and to the Parliament of Canada, and also for the words of wisdom and encouragement you have just spoken. They confirm that Canada and the United States of America have in common, as has ever been the case, a desire to build a better, safer and more prosperous world, with a profound respect for liberty and justice. They also confirm that the special ties between our two countries are as important to you, our neighbours and American friends, as they are to us Canadians.

We are particularly pleased that your visit takes place during the Bicentennial of the birth of the American Constitution, that godchild of Montesquieu's enlightenment. It is a happy reminder of the ties between Europe and America, and gives us reason to believe that the most important event in Europe in the 18th century was the Congress of Philadelphia.
The Bicentennial of your Constitution has a profound significance for us. Without it, our own Canadian Constitution might well have been quite different. Your founding fathers were innovators in their day in that they established a federation, a bold departure in a world dominated by unitary or at best confederative systems of government. We shall always be grateful to them for setting an example of a federative system of government.
Your republican Constitution and a consciousness of the relationship between Canada and the United States played a part, too, in the naming of our country in 1867, the year of Confederation. In calling the new country "The Dominion of Canada" rather than "The Kingdom of Canada", the British Government tactfully deferred to the republican feelings of our southern neighbours. It was a gesture which showed considerable statesmanship, in that it could present Canada as a republican monarchy.
In fact, in 1787, your fellow Americans saw clearly that the office of President closely resembled that of a monarch. They proposed that the President be addressed as "His Majesty". This idea was rejected, but for a time, people still spoke of the President's "throne". As you will know, Mr. President, by another paradoxical situation, the impecunious Hamilton promoted the royal symbols, while the wealthy Jefferson pleaded for the republican emblems.
In 1867 we chose to name our Upper House the Senate, and, like yours at the beginning, it is a non-elected body. After all, it was not until 1913 that by an amendment to the Constitution your country decided to elect rather than designate Senators. In that process, the prestige and influence of the House of Representatives was somewhat diminished. I doubt that my Senate colleagues expect soon to be in a similar position vis-a-vis the House of Commons but, as you know,

April 7, 1987
history has a habit of coming up with some surprising developments!

Mr. President, you are aware of the importance to Canadians of the ties between our two countries. Sharing a continent and common values, we are in the habit of considering you as our American cousins. Although our symbols would seem to contradict each other-the star-spangled banner of the Republic and our country's sovereignty within the British Commonwealth-our relations have always reflected a profound mutual respect.

Our common political origins and our long history of amity and co-operation allow us to affirm that our friendly relations are destined for perpetuity. Your presence and your words to us today are additional proof of this, and we offer you our respectful gratitude.
We are honoured that you accepted our invitation to address us. Thank you, Mr. President.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. President, many distinguished visitors address both Houses of Parliament in this Chamber, but no occasion is more welcome than when the long friendship that exists between our two peoples is manifested by the presence here of the President of the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: On each past occasion, Presidents have spoken of the close friendship between Canada and the United States, and your words today maintain that tradition.
Canadians have reciprocated with the heartfelt welcome our people give to very special friends.
We share a continent and have done so peaceably for many generations. We have fought as allies against tyranny and for the democratic principles which we both share.

We have remained close allies, despite some difficult times. We both know that only mutual cooperation will enable our respective nations to meet their obligations to each other and to the rest of the world.

We who cherish freedom and parliamentary institutions are aware not only of the advantages and privileges we enjoy as free people, but also of the responsibility we have to set an example of mutual co-operation for others.
The close relationship which exists between Canadian parliamentarians and members of the Senate and House of Representatives is consequently of great significance. That close relationship will be again strengthened later this year when the Canada-United States Parliamentary Association holds its annual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia.
These meetings exemplify a growing desire of parliamentarians in both our countries to come together to address both the problems and the opportunities which we share as a consequence of our close association as neighbours and friends.
Your visit, Sir, encourages this close relationship, and we are grateful for your personal commitment in this regard.

Mr. President, as Speaker of the House of Commons, it is with great pleasure that I welcome you to this Chamber today, on the occasion of your visit and that of Mrs. Reagan.
It is an honour and a privilege to do so, and we thank you for this opportunity.

You take with you our renewed expression of respect and warm affection for you and for all our American friends. Thank you, Mr. President.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I now adjourn this meeting.

Wednesday, April 8, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers