1987-05-05

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. 332-1529, 332-1543 to 332-1545 inclusive, 3321565, 332-1566, 332-1619, 332-1620, 332-1647, 332-1648 332-1660, 332-1663, 332-1674, 332-1686 to 332-1690 inclusive, 332-1762, 332-1789 to 332-1791 inclusive, and 3321975.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the sixteenth and seventeenth reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association in both official languages.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present the revised first report of the Standing Committee on Transport concerning Bill C-18, an Act respecting National Transportation, which effects certain necessary changes to the first report presented April 27. This touches Clauses 168 and 226.
[Editor s Note: See today 's Votes and Proceedings].


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my pleasure to present three petitions, all on the same topic, from various centres in western Canada.
The petitioners are concerned that the proposals 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. They believe that these proposed measures will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They are asking the Government, at this late hour, to change its mind, reject these proposals, and stop the increase of prescription drug prices for Canadians who need those drugs.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present three petitions today on the changes to the Patent Act. The petitioners are from New Brunswick and Manitoba, including a number from communities in my own riding.
In their petition the petitioners explain their concern with the Government's intention to change the Patent Act. They believe it will unfairly hurt those people who require a large number of prescription drugs for health reasons. They also believe that this is yet another example of the Canadian Government making concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians as a result of the Government's intention to negotiate a free trade agreement.
[ Translation\


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 26 people who reside in Amos, Landrienne, Saint-Mathieu, Val-d'Or and Saint-Marc-de-Figuery, all in the riding of Abitibi, who contribute to the Public Service Superannuation Fund.

May 5, 1987
Petitions
Your petitioners point out that employee pensions should continue to be fully indexed; that contributors to the superannuation fund should have the right to make decisions; and that realistic levels of interest should be credited to the account.
Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, your petitioners humbly pray:
That Parliament amend Bill C-33 to include the following provisions:
1.	All retirement benefits must be fully protected against inflation;
2.	Existing superannuation accounts should be combined into one fund, and the new formula proposed in Bill C-33, namely to credit interest payments to those accounts, should be applied to all contributions;
3.	The joint Pension Management Board proposed in Bill C-33 must be given decision-making powers and a mandate to provide for full protection of all pension benefits against inflation.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have seven petitions which I would like to table today from residents of Canada who would like to present their grievance.
They say that, whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or government medicare programs; and whereas the Government's proposals will raise the already high cost of provincial health care programs; and whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies, will result in an increase in drug 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 concessions in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have 18 petitions which I wish to table today. They are all on a topic of grave concern to Canadians in general, that is, the proposed amendments to the Patent Act.
Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or government medicare programs; and whereas the federal Government's proposal will raise the already high cost of provincial health care programs; and whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies, 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 concessions in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals with regard to Bill C-22 so that we can protect the elderly, the sick and the poor from high prescription drug costs.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present a number of petitions. The first is from citizens of Elliot Lake, Ontario, in which they say that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act are measures that will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health requires purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and that the proposed changes will result in higher cost to provincial government drug plans.
The undersigned, your petitioners, pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions containing several hundred names. One would hope the Government would finally get the message. The petitioners are from Edmonton, Orleans; Westmount, Quebec; Brandon, Manitoba; Fruitvale, Castlegar, Creston and Nelson, British Columbia; and from people in Ottawa, Hamilton and Selkirk, Ontario.
All these petitioners say that in their opinion transportation is a natural monopoly without economic regulation and that economic regulatory reform in Bill C-18 will create unnecessary chaos in the transportation industry, leading to unacceptable reductions in safety standards as well as deterioration in the quality, type and frequency of service.
They petition the House to persuade the Government to withdraw Bill C-18 and retain public convenience and necessity as a fundamental factor in the development of public transportation policy, and to retain licensing in order to restrict market-place activity to a positive level, functioning in the best interest of the public as a whole.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of citizens from western Canada concerning the proposed changes to the Patent Act which will quite obviously affect all Canadians who are protected by private or government medicare programs. The changes are as a direct result of free trade negotiations and will grant continuing monopolies. This petition is in total conformity with the resolution recently passed by the Manitoba Legislature which also condemns the Patent Act on behalf of the people of Manitoba. I think this petition only further strengthens that argument.


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions on behalf of constituents from the community of Tabusintac who humbly pray that their Post Office will remain open and the five-year contracts will continue to be awarded to contractors.
May 5, 1987


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition, together with the required certificate signed by the Clerk of Petitions. It is sponsored by the Calgary Coalition for Life and is submitted by the Mill Woods Evangelical Free Church. The petition is signed by 39 persons, most of whom live in Calgary, Edmonton, Morinville and Villeneuve in the Province of Alberta.
They now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance in the certain assurance that this honourable House will provide a remedy.
The petitioners humbly sheweth that because thousands of unborn babies in Canada are killed for reasons of convenience, for the crime of being unwanted, wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament support Motion M-37 to allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights. In duty-bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions. Your petitioners state that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic and thus less expensive drugs.
They state that the proposed changes in the Patent Act will have a direct impact on all Canadians not covered by government or private health insurance plans insurance plans, and that the Government's proposals will increase the already high cost of provincial health insurance plans.
Your petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
These petitions are signed by residents of Manitoba, New Brunswick, Quebec, the Burlington area in Ontario, Etobicoke in the Toronto area, Midland, Ontario, and also Fredericton in New Brunswick, and Chateauguay and Lachine in the Montreal area.
I think you will agree that all parts of the country are affected, since people from so many different areas are objecting to this disastrous legislation.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-55, an Act
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann
to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Speaker:: Several days ago the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) introduced a question of privilege and, under the circumstances, because the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) who was also involved was unable to be here at that time, the matter was adjourned.
It is now appropriate to bring it back to the House. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to conclude statements which I made on April 28 regarding what I consider to be a question of privilege. As recorded at page 5329 of Hansard, I brought before the House a good deal of what I believe represented my case of privilege. I am not going to go over the entire statement. However, I would like to refer to Erskine May's nineteenth edition at page 146, Chapter 10, "Breaches of Privileges and Contempts", as follows:
The publication or disclosure of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of draft reports of committees before they have been reported to the House will, however, constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt.
Immediately after the presentation to this House of the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development by the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz), on April 28, 1 brought the actions of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), to the attention of the House. The Hon. Member came to the House on March 25 and made a statement which is found at page 4540 of Hansard. I would like to go into his statement because I think it is very important and relative to this subject.
The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River who, after concluding a previous day's meeting, which I attended, said to the House:
-when Canadians elect representatives to speak for their concerns in Ottawa, they do so in the hope that, when appropriate, all parties will work toward constructive ends.

May 5, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann I think that is a wonderful objective.
As the spokesman on aboriginal issues for the New Democratic Party, I have and continue to hold the view that partisan concerns and parochial attitudes do nothing to further the cause of Canada's first people.
He went on to say:
Yesterday the Indian, Inuit and Metis people of Canada were reminded again of that truism. In an anonymous office tower, behind closed doors and safely tucked away from probing microphones, four Members of Parliament abrogated their responsibilities to aboriginal people. In a recorded vote,-
Which was also an in camera session.
-the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann), the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr MacDougall), the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) voted to block the report-
I consider that to be a blatant violation of the rules and regulations by which this House governs itself. It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I point out that I think the Hon. Member has had ample opportunity to find out how the rules are applied.
The Chair must consider the damage which such actions can cause, not only now but in the future, if this is allowed to continue. I base my premise on the fact that it can be very damaging to Members because obviously in camera sessions are held from time to time for very obvious reasons.
I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for hearing me on my question of privilege. I look forward to debate on this matter.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in responding today to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake, (Mr. Holtmann) I would first like to state that my defence to the Question of Privilege he raises is based on the belief that the vote I reported to the House was, de jure, not taken in an in camera session and that the actions of that Member and other Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, who were present at that meeting, had in essence obviated, annulled and rendered void the original notice of meeting for an in camera session.
I would like to refer to the spirit, and some of the text, of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. This particular topic is not covered in detail in that report. However, it is clear from this report that it is intended that Members of Parliament shall be granted sufficient power and freedom of action to represent fairly their constituents. I cite from page 2:
Private members must once again become instruments through which citizens can contribute to shaping the laws under which they live ... If the private member is to count for anything, there must be a relationship between what the private member and the institution of Parliament can do and what the electorate thinks or expects can be done.
I would like to quote from the record of the hearings which led up to the meeting which is mentioned in the Question of Privilege of my hon. colleague. I would like to quote in order to demonstrate how the aboriginal leadership of Canada expected and anticipated in appearances before this standing committee, in that series of hearings, that there would be a report made on the question of aboriginal self-government. I quote from the proceedings of March 3:
The Assembly of First Nations would like this committee to prepare a brief but hard-hitting report to Parliament aimed at urging the federal and provincial governments, going into the First Ministers' Conference on March 26 and 27, to recognize our inherent or pre-existing aboriginal treaty rights to self-government.
That is testimony by Gordon Peters, the Ontario Regional Vice Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and the record shows that the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake was present at that hearing.
A week later, Mr. Louis Bruyere, President of the Native Council of Canada, said:
So what can you do? First of all you can send a message, you can take into account what I said and what the ICNI, and AFN, the International Council and other groups you are meeting with say. You can issue a strong report on the matter before the gavel falls on the First Ministers' Conference 1987. You can indicate that Parliament has a independent non-partisan and national and international role in this great endeavour.
A similar request was later made by Mr. John Amagoalik of the Inuit Committee on National Issues. Therefore, I believe that it is quite clear to anyone who attended those sessions, and to anyone reading the record, that the democratically elected leadership of the aboriginal people of Canada expected the committee to act and to act before the First Ministers' Conference in order that the lengthy deliberations of that committee had some value.
You, Mr. Speaker, and I believe all Hon. Members of this House, must realize that if public expectations are not met directly, they must at least be accounted for. As my Party's aboriginal affairs critic, I have to answer telephone calls and letters from aboriginal leaders, from private citizens and from the media, all asking why the committee did not report before the First Ministers' Conference.
The courts of law in this land live by an adage which Parliament should respect, namely, that justice must not only be done but should be seen to be done. How in a democracy can we withhold public information which is essential to the good government principle? I know full well that for reasons of national security, or the protection of witnesses or innocent Canadians, we have a responsibility to protect them, but we also have a responsibility, I believe, to respond in a case where a committee abrogates its responsibility.
The record clearly shows that I did not violate the intent of the in camera session. I and members of my office staff were asked for copies of the draft committee report. Despite the circumstances, we categorically refused these, as we should. However, when a vote is recorded and the public is demanding an explanation, I feel that an explanation has to be forthcoming.
What, after all, did committee members expect when they agreed to a committee recorded vote? Did they believe that a recorded vote, becoming part of the record, is then something which can be consigned into anonymity indefinitely until a committee chooses to make the report? If they truly wanted their opinions to be kept secret they should simply have rejected the notion of a recorded vote or, better still, ask for the original notice for that meeting to have been withdrawn.
May 5, 1987

This Parliament makes, I believe, a clear distinction between votes and proceedings, and 1 believe that if the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake examines the exact text of my statement in the House, he will find-although I recognize that he will consider some of the invective to be disagreeable, and I intended it to be disagreeable to him-that what I was reporting was the vote and not the proceedings.
The nineteenth edition of Erskine May, at page 146, refers to proceedings. It does not refer to votes. There is a clear distinction in this Parliament. After all, we do have as part of our parliamentary documentation a publication which we receive every day entitled Votes and Proceedings. If votes, in fact, were proceedings, then there would obviously be no need for them to be differentiated as they have been, obviously, for some length of time.
I believe that I was reporting an abuse of procedure and an abuse of the spirit of the committee system in this Parliament. I would like to point out that five members of the Progressive Conservative Party came to the meeting in question. One of them, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) left before the recorded vote was taken. He left because of a different matter, although he did say before leaving that he had not attended any of the series of hearings in question.
I would say that politically 1 grew up in a committee system which was not parliamentary but which was in the context of work done in voluntary organizations and in the context of work done at the municipal level. 1 believe that there are some principles of committee operation and committee function which have not perhaps been codified, not perhaps been adopted by the regulations of this House, but nevertheless some principles which apply to committees, whatever their nature. One of those principles is that members who are unable for whatever reason to attend meetings place some trust and some faith when it comes to key decision-making in those members who are able to attend the meetings.
This committee held six hearings on the subject matter of the proposed report. It saddens me to acknowledge that of a total of 24 attendance opportunities for the members of the committee who voted against the presentation of a report in a recorded vote that only five were taken up. This means an average attendance by the Progressive Conservative Members who stopped the report from coming to the House of less than 25 per cent.
However, I am pleased to report that the opposition Parties in those six hearings had 100 per cent attendance, and 1 think that is something that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have been listening carefully to the Hon. Member. Since this is an important matter I did not want to intervene in case there was some immediate
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann
relevance between the issue upon which 1 have to decide and what the Hon. Member was pursuing.
I believe that the Hon. Member is moving somewhat away from the issue upon which I have to decide and getting on to the question of which Members were at which particular meetings. The Hon. Member will know that there is a convention in this place that there is not to be comment with respect to the attendance of any Member or any Minister at either committee hearings or, in fact, in the House. The reason for that is quite obvious. Hon. Members are called upon to conduct a variety of obligations and responsibilities each day and each week and there are many times when Members are not able to attend to all matters to which they might wish to attend. Of course, the Hon. Member knows that this matter was adjourned over because he was properly involved in another matter and could not be in the Chamber. I point that out because that is of course why we have the rule.
I know the Hon. Member would want to remain within the rules so I would ask him to continue his comments to which the Chair is listening very carefully and which are cogent; but I would ask him to please stay with the basic issue, that issue is whether or not in view of what the Hon. Member did say in the House that that has in one way or another breached the privileges of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) or other members of the committee who were meeting in an in camera meeting. That is the issue which the Chair has before it. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I accept your correction on that point and I thank Your Honour. I would like to extend my thanks to the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) for having this matter held over until today.
The essence then of my case, if 1 might sum it up, is that by the exercise of the operation of the taking of a recorded vote, the in camera meeting was in essence suspended, the taking and reporting of that recorded vote to the House is not on a level or footing with the reporting of proceedings to the House, which I did not do.
I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Hon. Members, both opposite and on this side of the House, for their indulgence in hearing my case.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to ask the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) a question. As I take it, the issue, as the Hon. Member said, in defence, is the distinction that the Hon. Member draws between the recording of a vote and the proceedings of the commiKee itself. That seems to be the narrow point which the Hon. Member is asking the Chair to consider. Is the Chair correct in that assumption?


John Edmund Parry: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I acknowledge that that is, as Your Honour puts it, a narrow point.

May 5, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair could give some indication to Hon. Members who will want to rise on this matter that it might be helpful to the Chair if, in addition to any other points that Hon. Members think are of help to the Chair, they might also consider that point which the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River has raised and has put most succinctly.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in order to make sure that I do not misunderstand Your Honour's question, I would like to say that it is evident that my defence also rests on the inconsistency between a recorded vote and an in camera meeting which, obviously, I believe should be resolved in favour of the recorded vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River that the Chair has that point. The Chair now recognizes the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on this question of privilege because of my own participation and activity in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
Your Honour, I would begin by going to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Section 17, which makes it clear to all Hon. Members that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. That is so, Sir, because a question of privilege is a most serious matter and it should be taken seriously by the House. In addition, Your Honour, it must involve in some way an Hon. Member's capacity to serve the people who have chosen him or her as their representative.
1 submit to Your Honour, therefore, that there is no question of privilege here at all. It is spurious and fatuous for the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) to suggest to the House that in some way his capacity to serve his constituency has been impaired or impeded. He himself failed, as I listened carefully, to make that case.
I would like very briefly to survey the facts as I understand them with respect to what took place in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. First, as the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) has made clear, the groups who appeared before the committee asked for and expected that there would be a report to the House on the subject of the aboriginal right of self-government before the First Ministers' Conference.
The second point is that there was an ali-Party understanding that we would report-not an agreement, not a motion that had been voted upon, but a general understanding. In support of that I refer to what the chairman said at one point:
It would be possible to have a few notes about our preliminary report before
the next week. It will be possible to depose our document probably the next
week, about Wednesday or Thursday, probably.
[DOT] (M40)
That is a translation from the French, "depose" meaning a presentation to the House.
Third, a considerable amount of work was done by the committee staff in preparing a draft report. Because there was a draft report, a notice went around to all Hon. Members to meet in camera to discuss the substance of that report.
Ordinarily I find in camera meetings to be objectionable. I will come back later to the reason for in camera sessions based on Beauchesne's understanding of them. However, they are justified if you are discussing controversial material and looking at the substance.
Fourth, it became apparent shortly after the meeting began that Members from the government benches, for reasons unknown, and I will not impute motives or make any suggestions about those reasons, decided there should not be a report to Parliament presented by that committee. Following that there was very vigorous debate and the question was put that the committee not report. It was a negative motion. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River and myself vigorously opposed the motion but it was carried. At that point I called for a recorded vote which was duly taken by the clerk of the committee.
It does seem a curious situation to have an in camera meeting for a motion, a vote, and then have a recorded vote. As I reflect on it, Sir, it seems another step should have been taken to take us out of the in camera procedure. However, I think as soon as you have a recorded vote that, de facto, the in camera procedure has ceased to exist.
Subsequent to that meeting the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River and myself, before the news media and representatives of aboriginal groups, publicly expressed our disappointment and displeasure with the decision. A decision had been expected, it was not taken, and I and the Hon. Member expressed our displeasure. Did we in some way publish the proceedings by doing so? I say not at all. We were simply reporting on an expectation which existed in the community.
As a part of that process as well, as you know, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, under Standing Order 21, revealed the names of those who voted for the motion that the committee not report. I want to repeat that it was a recorded vote even though we were in camera.
However, I entirely agree with the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River that the purpose of that meeting had altered. We had not met for the purpose of deciding whether or not there should be a report to Parliament. We met for the purpose of discussing the substance of the report.
I ask you to consider whether it is a serious matter to reveal the results of a recorded vote. That is what the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake is charging, that it is a serious matter and his privileges have been breached because the results of a recorded vote were made known. I ask you, Sir, how has the Hon. Member's ability to serve effectively as an elected representative been damaged, limited, restricted or injured in any way whatsoever?
May 5, 1987

The Eton. Member referred to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Section 628 on page 199, where it says that the publication of in camera proceedings would be an offence. I interpret that to mean that if the words on a particular matter in a preliminary report were actually published and disseminated in the community we would have destroyed the purpose of an in camera meeting. 1 would like to come back to that in a moment, but I would ask you to rule that the revelation of a recorded vote under any circumstances at all is not the same thing as the publication of a committee's proceedings. It just simply cannot be. It would be stretching to absurdity the idea of what is a proceeding and what is a publication of that proceeding.
Beauchesne's makes it clear that the purpose of an in camera meeting is for Members to feel free to negotiate, discuss, deliberate, and compromise without the glare of publicity. In this particular meeting under discussion the negotiations had broken down. Discussion was over. Deliberations had ended. The possibility of a compromise was nonexistent. Under those circumstances a vote was taken and I, as a member of that committee, asked that the vote be recorded.
We are publicly elected, we function under public scrutiny in almost all circumstances except those rare occasions when an in camera meeting is necessary. Such a meeting is necessary because once in a while we must negotiate, discuss and deliberate in private. Once we vote on an important issue, say whether or not a report will be presented to Parliament, then I believe the reason for an in camera meeting no longer applies. Our votes and the results of those votes are for the public record and the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River has made a strong and eloquent case in support of that.
Therefore, I conclude that there is not and cannot be in this instance in any way a genuine question of privilege in the charges brought to the House by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake against the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River. I call upon you to dismiss it quickly and summarily.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to join briefly in this debate to assist my colleague from Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann). I do not do so with any pleasure. I do it with a certain amount of distaste because I find this matter to be very offensive.
I submit, as has my colleague, that the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) breached a trust, a confidentiality which all Members enter into when, as Members of Parliament, we gather together in camera to discuss matters which are better discussed, because it provides better results, in camera. They give a Member the freedom to negotiate, discuss, deliberate, and sometimes compromise without the glare of publicity which might add to the difficulties of agreeing to reports when it is desirable that those proceedings be treated in confidence.
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann
The committee made the decision to negotiate and meet in private. Then, lo and behold, the next day the deliberations of the committee, and I will get to whether or not a vote is a deliberation in a minute, were brought forward in a partisan manner by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River in an effort to embarrass his colleagues.
I think even if you argue that a vote is not part of the proceedings of the House of Commons, one is entitled, since my colleague stands in my opinion convicted by his own words, to look at the words which were used. The question is, in discussing what he alleges was not a part of the proceedings, that is to say a vote, whether or not the words that were used imputed motives and put his colleagues on that committee in an embarrassing position. He entered into private discussions and negotiations with them in the give and take which we all know takes place and which we hope will continue to take place among Members of this House in committee.
First there is the platitude; I have and continue to hold the view that partisan concerns and parochial attitudes do nothing to further the cause of Canada's first people. Then, to swing from the platitude to the innuendo; his colleagues sat, not in an office tower without a microphone, but in one of the many in camera meetings which take place here. By inference or by innuendo his colleagues are thus convicted. By the way, I include my colleagues in the Liberal Party. They are included in that partisan and parochial attitude.
Then he goes on to say that it was an anonymous office. Everyone knows that it was not an anonymous office. If one wants to find out where the in camera meetings of today are being held, one goes to the parliamentary calendar to check and it says "in camera". The word "anonymous" is another innuendo or another inference that this was nefarious.
Then we move on to the allegation that his colleagues on the committee, including my Liberal colleague, abrogated their responsibilities to aboriginal people. What a damning comment to make about a colleague.
He also stated that they voted to block the report. He used the word "block", not make a decision because they did not like what was in it.
Even if you, Mr. Speaker, do not find a case of privilege here, I suggest that it is pretty damning, because what we have in this place is a breach of trust. A breach of privilege causes it go to committee and causes a final decision, if you so find, Mr. Speaker. However, there is one thing that, once we lose it in this place, if not forever, is very, very difficult to regain, and that is the trust of one's colleagues. No matter whether they are in one's Party or not, when one loses that trust, one has lost something-


B. Keith Penner: Speak to the question of privilege; don't preach a sermon.

May 5, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague always has the same answer when he is caught. It is "Speak to the question of privilege". I listened to my colleagues' comments. Perhaps when I bring up the subject of trust he feels a little uneasy too; I can understand that. However, I suggest to my colleague and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you make the decision on whether or not a question of privilege goes forward to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, but we make the decision on whether or not to trust.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether I could ask for the cooperation of Hon. Members. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) or the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) could answer a question which I should like clarified. Was a report actually written?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I think the record would show that at the in camera session there was a draft for consideration. I think the record would also show, if Hon. Members chose to look at the statements of the committee, that in fact the proposal was that the committee not report at that time. It never suggested that the committee should not report, as was suggested by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).
Furthermore, it was the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior who asked for a vote. Does that then mean, according to his argument, that he can turn an in camera session completely around-or can any Member of the House-by calling for a recorded vote? To me that is a hypocritical point of view.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an important matter, and the Chair treats it as important. Again, in the proper spirit of arguments on points like this one, I do not think there is any particular need to use pejorative words about the motivations or actions of another Member.
The Chair understands very well the importance of this matter, and I think I have the fact pattern quite clear. Obviously it is important when Hon. Members agree to enter into an in camera discussion. The Chair does not consider the matter before us to be a particularly easy one. It will take some very careful consideration. However, if there are other Hon. Members who feel they may have something to assist the Chair, I would be pleased to hear them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, following on your last comments I wish to intervene for a few seconds. We have a difficulty in House of Commons committees. It is certainly true what Hon. Members on all sides have said, that we have a tradition of in camera meetings. Those in camera meetings are often used to deal with the details of a report and to provide an opportunity for members of the committee to try to reach some compromise. That has been a very useful exercise on a number of occasions. It has enabled us to have various task forces and committees of the House of Commons
come out with unanimous reports and other reports which have been very solid.
However, there is a problem which I have noticed on an ongoing basis. Quite often many controversial issues are being settled in in camera meetings. Obviously this was a case where government Members felt one way and the members of the two opposition Parties felt the complete opposite. A recorded vote was taken. It is very important when there is a division in committee. The public has a right to know what is going on. It is all right to try to work toward some resolution in a committee. If it can be achieved, it is wonderful. However, we must not allow the ability of a committee to go in camera to be used to prevent the public from knowing what is going on. If there is a division in committee, I think all committees should move immediately from an in camera session to a public session. That should be the responsibility of the chairperson of the committee. It is something we should address, rather than being concerned about what happened in this particular case.
We should ensure that in future our committees are working in such a way that we have the right to move to in camera when necessary and useful and to move automatically into the public domain when there is obviously a split, in that the public has a right to know what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: As the Chair has indicated, this is an important matter.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) and the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) for their joint co-operation in enabling us to hear the entire argument today. I also thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner), and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) for their interventions. Frankly, the Chair finds them very helpful.
The Chair will reserve on this matter. However, if I can put it this way, the defence of the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River is that there is a distinction between the report of a vote and the deliberations that were taking place in camera. I may or may not find that distinction. What is important is that the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River has not taken the position that anything that goes on at an in camera meeting, just because one may not agree with it, ought then to be reported. It is important that Hon. Members and the public watching and listening realize that the defence does not reach that far. Certainly the Chair has not taken it to have been meant in that respect.
I thank Hon. Members for their interventions. It is an important matter. It is a vexatious matter because the line between openness and the occasional time when it is appropriate to go into an in camera meeting is sometimes a difficult one to find. I shall do the best on behalf of all the Members to come back with an appropriate response.
May5, 1987


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 108.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	On Wednesday, February 18 (budget day) and on Thursday, February 19, 1987, did Radio Canada International broadcast the wrong tape or network feed instead of "The World at Six" newscast at 0000 hours Greenwich mean time (1900 hours eastern standard time) and, if so, who was responsible?
2.	Has the person responsible been disciplined and (a) if so, in what way (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Radio Canada International does not tape "The World at Six". The program is fed live by line from Toronto to RCI's Sackville transmitters via an RCI studio in Montreal.
Normally, the feed is carried on the same line every day. On February 18, however, CBC Toronto switched the feed to another line. It advised the Program Distribution and Coordination section at the Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal of the change of line. The Maison, however, failed to notify RCI, whose facilities are housed separately in La Tourelle. It took two minutes and 15 seconds after the start of the program to establish the feed on the new line.
On February 19, the feed from Toronto was delayed, again by two minutes and 15 seconds, due to work disruptions by NABET technicians in Toronto.
2.	No disciplinary action was warranted.
* *
*


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 109 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question mentioned by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 109 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: Patent Act
For the fiscal year 1986, based on the accounting practices currently used by the government on a (a) public accounts (b) national accounts basis, what was the government's (i) spending (ii) revenue (iii) interest cost (/v) gross debt (v) net debt?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make two points concerning this very important legislation for the future of this country. First, I want to restate the five critical reasons this policy is an important priority for the Government. Then I want to separate the facts from the fiction being perpetrated on the Canadian public by Hon. Members opposite.
The principle of intellectual property, significant industrial benefits, improved multilateral relations, consumer protection and the potential for significant and long-term health care benefits are the reasons I am pursuing these legislative changes as aggressively as I can. Each of these may stand alone. But together they represent a powerful and effective policy for Canada. They also represent a policy change long overdue in this country. In fact, it is a policy that will undo much of the damage caused by the former Government's short-sightedness in 1969 when it decided to deal Canada out of the biotechnological revolution.
Intellectual property rights, the right of inventors or creators to enjoy the benefits of their creativity, is not just a right, it is at the heart of the economies of every modern western industrial society.
If I invent a new widget that revolutionizes industry, my invention is protected by law. If I write a new book, nobody is allowed to plagiarize it. If I break new technological ground, I am allowed to protect that technology. If our Government attempted to remove those rights, the opposition Parties would scream foul, and rightly so.

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
Why is this basic principle of intellectual property rights suddenly so different when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry? Well, it is not. It is just that the opposition Parties want to gain some political mileage by striking fear into the hearts of Canadians through unfounded allegations.
Without adequate patent protection, Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive to invest or create. If we applied the current pharmaceutical patent legislation to all creative thinking in Canada, we would force all our inventors and creators out of the country. We might even lose a few members of the Opposition who think they have a new idea once and a while.
In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, we have seen the results of the 1969 policy; no significant investment in Canada, no research we can call our own and sell to the rest of the world, and no jobs for our bright young researchers in the biomedical industries. So they leave the country. Maybe that is acceptable to some Members, but it is not acceptable to me.
The second point is the industrial benefits of our policy. We have not even passed the legislation in this House and already there has been more than $800 million in new research and plant expansion commitments. That is money taken out of the country before our proposed changes. That is money which the generic money manufacturers did not invest even when they were getting a free ride under the 1969 policy. This $800 million is not an investment in one facility, in one location, in one region. We are talking about more than $200 million in Quebec, upwards of $80 million in British Columbia, at least $70 million in the Maritimes, about $100 million in Alberta and more than $250 million in Ontario. These investments do not include, of course, the aggregate increase in investment over the next few years, which will see every region of Canada benefit.
For instance, of the $400 million earmarked for educational and research institutes, almost $50 million will go to Manitoba. That to me, Mr. Speaker, seems to be a pretty important and substantial contribution to regional development in Canada.
The $800 million in planned investments to which I referred earlier is part of a package worth $1.4 billion over the next 10 years, 10 per cent of sales, up from 4.9 per cent. These funds will not begin to flow until after our legislation becomes law. That means every day of stalling by opponents exacts a price in terms of industrial benefits and health care research. More than that, every day of delay in passing this Bill means it takes that much longer to reach the research and development targets of 8 per cent of sales after four years and 10 per cent after 10 years.
The opposition Parties attack this Government constantly because they feel we are not doing enough for the regions. Here we have a policy which does not rely on government grants, which are favoured by the Liberals, it does not rely on government subsidies and takeovers, which are favoured by the New Democratic Party, but it is the private sector at work,
doing what it does best. Why are the Liberals and New Democrats condemning it? That was a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. They are condemning our policies only because if they did not, they would not have anything to say at all.
The infusion of funds in our universities, teaching hospitals and private research facilities will help build a greater pool of expertise in this important area. The Opposition tells us this Bill is a bad thing. But then we are told that research and development funds are extremely important to the future of Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish the opposition Parties would get their act together. Here we have a policy that puts private sector money to work in our universities and research institutes, a policy that brightens the future for our talented young research scientists here in Canada, and the Opposition is telling us that we are doing the wrong thing.
1 have the feeling that these misguided opposition Members would not be happy until the Government announces travel subsidies for our scientists and biotechnologists so they can seek research jobs overseas. That is the approach they are advocating with their opposition to this legislation, and it is wrong.
Members opposite have raised a great hue and cry about how drug prices are going to shoot so high that the elderly and infirm will not be able to look after their own health. Well, I can think of a lot of words to describe this attitude, Mr. Speaker, but most of them would be ruled unparliamentary.
This Bill provides a number of safeguards. The fact that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board will function under the stewardship of Dr. Eastman is a safeguard. The federal contributions to the provinces is another safeguard. Finally, there is the type of health care system we have in this country. 1 think we are putting more safety valves in the drug system than it ever had before. Consumers are not going to suffer because of this legislation. They will benefit. This will be especially true in the area of improved health care. New drugs and new therapies will be introduced earlier. The need for hospitalization will be reduced, perhaps even the need for surgery, because we will have new drugs to cure old problems.
It is incomprehensible, Mr. Speaker, how Members opposite can risk trading away these advantages for a couple of percentage points in the current popularity polls. Do they not realize that they are playing with the future health of all Canadians? 1 am thinking especially of our increasingly aging population who will need these new drugs more than any other group.
Another point that must be emphasized is that through this legislation we have overcome the blight on our international reputation that has existed since 1969. We are signatories to many international agreements protecting intellectual property. We are entering a new round of GATT negotiations where these rights are being put on the table as part of international trade relationships.
May 5, 1987



Opposition Members know how important international trade is to Canada's economy. They always perform the same routine, never mind the fact that the Liberals did not do anything to improve our export competitiveness when they were at the helm. As a matter of fact they even tried to reduce it when they formed a coalition with the NDP in the course of the last decade.
If we want to attract the capital funds required to be competitive on the international scene, our country must convince foreigners that it is a good place to invest. The Canadian patent system must be geared to that of western countries just so our patents will be protected under international law. This issue does not relate exclusively to the drug industry, for it has an impact on all other sectors and it does enhance or tarnish Canada's reputation on the international scene.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the basic reasons which justify some of the amendments advocated in Bill C-22. Now, if I may, I should like to refer to some of the questions raised by opposition Members in their attempt to defeat a sound policy with a view to polishing their image in public political polls. Again I must emphasize that the Progressive Conservative Government is not trying to implement this policy for the sake of gaining popular support. We are doing this because it is the right way to protect the future of Canada.
Let me deal with what seems on the surface to be the facts to many thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions opposing our policy. I freely admit that thousands have done so. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) indicated at the beginning of this year that over 20,000 Canadians had signed such petitions. I do not argue with that number, but I should point out that I have many, many thousands of petitions here indicating that we should proceed with the legislation. I have not bothered to waste the time of the House by introducing them. These petitions were sent to me by disgruntled Canadians faced with the so-called information provided by Hon. Members opposite and the facts provided by me.
The Opposition petition was sent far and wide by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). This petition is a marvellous piece of double-speak because it totally ignores what the policy is really about and plays only on raising fears in Canadian consumers. The petition indicates that the policy will directly affect all Canadians not protected by private or government medicare programs, will raise the costs of already high provincial health care programs and will prevent competition, increase drug prices and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary drugs. It says that the policies are another example of the Government's
Patent Act
concessions to the United States at the expense of every-day Canadians.
I am not sure what an every-day Canadian is or how he or she differs from an average Canadian, but every premise contained in that petition is absolutely false. It raises fear and concern about the ability of Canadians to protect their own health and that of their families, without any proof. It raises fear over the inability of Canadians to afford the drugs they need, without any proof. It suggests that provincial health care plans will be adversely affected in the face of the protection the federal Government is providing for these plans and in the face of evidence presented before the committee by the head of the drug plan in Saskatchewan indicating that he did not think it would cost them anything. It brings in the ogre of the big, bad United States so the Liberals can wrap their concerns around the Canadian flag, again with nothing to back them up.
If I were not a Member of the House and I did not know what this issue was all about, I would sign a petition like that myself. However, let me quote from letters I have received relating to these very petitions distributed by the Hon. Member opposite and, I am sure, by many of his colleagues. I have answered all the people who have signed these petitions, not in the interests of politics but in the interests of telling the truth. One such letter reads:
Dear Sir.
Your recent letter regarding amendments to the Patent Act refers to a petition signed by me. I am unaware of reading or signing any such petition and would ask you to forward a copy of the petition, along with my signature, to my attention.
Yes, that is the kind of letter I got in return to the letters I sent out to people who had signed petitions sent around the country by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Another letter reads as follows:
I agree wholeheartedly that amendments are necessary to encourage pharmaceutical research in Canada; I trust that you will press on with the passage of this legislation.
To set the record straight, however, I did not sign a petition in opposition to changes in patent protection.
Yes, I received other letters like that. Perhaps the following is the most telling of all, and, to be fair, this one was in response to an NDP petition, not a Liberal petition, though I am sure they come out of the same Gestetner machine somewhere in the Centre Block. This letter reads as follows:
I received your information letter recently.
Yes, I did sign a petition against the Bill.
However, having read all the information, I am now in favour of it.
Go ahead.
I want to read from a final letter in order to drive just one more nail in the coffin in which the Hon. Member's dead policy lies. This letter is from the Dean of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia and is addressed to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, not to me. It reads in part:

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
1 am greatly disturbed by your letter addressed to 'Dear Concerned Canadian' which crossed my desk today. I realize that it is a function of the opposition Parties to keep the Government honest and to improve suggested legislation.
Your letter goes beyond that, however, and makes assertions that are totally incorrect and appeal to the emotions of concerned Canadians.
I did not make up the facts, I leave that to members of the Opposition. Indeed, I would be most pleased to provide copies of these letters to Hon. Members opposite as long as they promise to provide me with copies of their correspondence with these individuals.
To add insult to injury, the petitions directed to "Concerned Canadians" contained a letter that accurately described the Hon. Member's Party Leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), as being the proponent of the legislation this Government is attempting to change. He proposed it when he was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1968. The letter did not say, however, that this same right hon. gentleman, when he was chairman of the board of directors of an international pharmaceutical company, Sandoz Canada, on many occasions voiced his opposition to the very legislation he had introduced. I would be delighted to provide a copy of my correspondence if the right hon. gentleman could satisfactorily explain his conversion from advocate to opponent back to advocate.
I am not quite finished with the Liberals. In fact, I could go on at length if my time in this debate were not limited. I have to quote from an article from last May featuring the smiling face and words of the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). I do not know if the Hon. member really believed what he was saying or if he was only catering to the media.
This interview appeared in the May edition of Revue pharmaceutique canadienne. The nub of the quotation in the article was that the Hon. Member believed it was time to redress the current policy and provide multinationals channels for more research and development dollars into Canada. In the article, he was quoted as saying the following:
I may be branded as a heretic amongst Liberals in this country but 1 happen to believe in intellectual property rights, and 1 think the patent laws of 1969 went too far in one direction.
I would be pleased to provide a copy of this article to all Members opposite, because the picture really is a good likeness of the Hon. Member and it is such a pleasure to discover such a bright and alert member of the Opposition who so strongly supports our Government's policy in this area.
Let me turn now to the tactics of the NDP. I can understand why they always support the Liberals when the Liberals are in power. They think so much alike and their tactics are so similar.
1 have here a copy of a coupon that was circulated to all those attending the recent NDP convention in Montreal. It has a good heading and is obviously the product of a national or multinational advertising agency probably based in Toronto. That is not quite the style of NDPers, but maybe their members will forgive them for this lapse in judgment. The
heading reads: "Let's Bust the Tories' Drug Deal". It kind of makes you think we are running illicit drugs-the exact effect the NDP wants in order to raise the fears of average Canadians. It then suggests that our policy will cost Canadians S600 million a year in higher priced prescriptions.
Where is the proof for this contention or the contention that employers will be asking for cuts in union-negotiated drug plans? I have not heard of any astronomical rises in drug costs, nor have I heard of contract negotiations being stalled at the bargaining table because employers want to cut the health protection policies enjoyed by many unions. Like Liberal strategy, this approach simply plays upon the fears of Canadians, fears that are not supported by the facts.
We get a clue to the motivation of the NDP when we read the fine print of the bottom of this NDP advertisement, "Produced by the Canadian Labour Congress". Now, I have nothing against Canadian labour, but I do not think Canadian workers of any stripe will be taken in by such professional advertising tactics. That is what the Liberals and the NDP are trying to do to this legislation. They want to mask the benefits of our policy in scare tactics and rhetoric calculated to appeal to people who do not understand the issue and are willing to accept the narrow-minded thinking of Members opposite.
I am sure many of these adherents would be astonished to learn of the range of thinking on this issue by various members of the Liberal Party. I would not like to pry too deeply into the views of the various members of the NDP because I am sure the same kind of schizophrenic reactions would result.
1 am saving the piece de resistance for last. I have a copy of the resolutions approved by the last national Liberal convention. I know the Liberal Leader is not bound by these resolutions, but they certainly contribute to one side of the debate.
Resolution 13-K-4 supports increased research in the field of biotechnology. That is precisely what this Bill does. I never thought I would support a policy or proposal adopted on the floor of the Liberal convention, but I do. I can only hope that all the Liberals in my riding, if there are any, will vote for me in the next election because of my support.
I have put in place a policy to ensure that Canada moves into the forefront of biotechnological sciences. The results to date have demonstrated that we are going in the right direction. I would like to issue a challenge to the Liberals. Give me a list of all the Liberal delegates who approved Resolution 13-K-4 and I will give you the same list back of people who support the policy which is being debated in the House today.
There is more. Resolution 55-2E-I will never understand how Liberals number their resolutions, maybe it is just to confuse their Leader-encourages private sector participation in research and development. That is precisely what this Bill does.
May 5, 1987



What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the policies inherent in Bill C-22 are aimed at achieving all these objectives which were endorsed by the nation-wide Liberal convention. 1 simply hope that the Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will respond to these questions when he takes the floor.
A few additional comments, Mr. Speaker, the most telling of them all. I get letters, lots of them, but they do not come from the average Canadian as depicted by the NDP, nor from the ordinary Canadian as described by the Liberals. They come from Canadians, and reflect sincere beliefs rather than the product of sensational distortsions or national petitions. They are unsolicited and express support for our efforts.

One letter is from a family doctor, diagnosed as having acute leukemia, who says that current Canadian drug patent laws provide no incentives for drug companies to research and develop drugs in Canada. The doctor writes:
In conclusion, please do not oppose the new drug Patent Act for soon-forgotten political points and newspaper coverage .... Please remember that to oppose this legislation will deny the hope of new treatment and new cures for patients like myself, for your constituents and perhaps even yourself and your family members.
I would also like to note a January, 1987, article in the Winnipeg Sun describing a national lobby for Patent Act changes coming out of Toronto. This is not a product of multinational corporations. It is a campaign initiated by Doris Campbell, a quadriplegic who has vowed to fight for the new legislation as long as she can wiggle one toe. I should add that at the moment she can only wiggle one toe and communicates by tapping out Morse code messages with that toe. It is for the Doris Campbells of this world that we are going forward with this legislation because Doris believes that the issue is developing cures through research to save Canadian lives.
I apologize for all these quotes from Canadians, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make the point that the Government is pursuing these legislative changes for people, not for votes, which I suggest is the only reason Members opposite have forsaken principle, honesty and humanity to oppose what we are trying to do.
One final note is from the Lutherwood Institute which treats the emotional and psychiatric problems of children. This institute spends a significant amount of money every year on drugs. My correspondent is particularly blunt in his remarks about our proposed legislation. He says:
While costs to the consumer are always an issue to us, I also recognize the importance of research in developing new and more effective medication for a variety of physical and mental illnesses. As a result, we would encourage you to proceed with the implementation of Bill C-22 in order to encourage the necessary innovation in Canada for the development of prescription drugs.
What can I say, Mr. Speaker? We have principle on our side. The Canadians who are supporting us are not coming forward because we are misrepresenting the issue, they are coming forward because they have a stake in the results of our
Patent Act
policy. They desperately need the solutions which we are putting forward. In fact, according to the results of a recent poll by Decima Research, two out of three Canadians support the amendments to the Patent Act which affect prescription drugs. I defy a single Member opposite to come forward with such telling support for his or her position on this issue.
I have one more thing to say, Mr. Speaker, then I will sit down and let rhetoric and political expediency take over the debate. I am very concerned about the processes of the House of Commons which allow 47 new amendments to come forward from opposition Members at report stage of this legislation when these same Members proposed only 11 amendments within committee. I submit to you that these amendments should have been considered and discussed rationally and openly in committee with public submissions to expand the debate on them.


Mr. Orlikow:: Then they could not have been discussed here.


Harvie Andre: I get the feeling, and I will not put it any more strongly than that, that these final-hour amendments were nothing more than an attempt to delay this essential legislation.


Mr. McCurdy:: What a parade of nonsense.


Harvie Andre: They were a forum for political points that those opposing this legislation did not feel competent to make in committee.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: If ever there was a kangaroo court, it was that committee.


Harvie Andre: However, despite these rather underhanded and unparliamentary tactics of the Opposition-


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member may rise on a point of order, but I hope this debate will carry on in calmness.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister did not want to mislead Members of the House or the public, but the facts are that had amendments been moved in the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order, it is debate. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to bring that up when he has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I hope those who may be observing this debate here or on television will note that when one says something with which socialists disagree they attempt to shout you down. That is the socialist tactic. Whether it is a member of the Government or a visitor, such as the President of the United States, they shout you down if they do not agree with you. That is what socialists believe democracy is all about.
However, despite these rather underhanded and unparliamentary tactics of the Opposition, I know the House will approve of the policy embodied in the legislation and will pass it without undue delay. I will be listening to the subsequent

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
debate with some interest. The technique that will be advanced by the Opposition will be, I am sure, reminiscent of an American politician of some distinction in the early part of this century. I know the Opposition does not like to be identified with American politics, so I do not understand why they adopt American political principles so often. However, the principle we have seen demonstrated in this House over the course of this debate has been to tell it long, tell it often, and sooner or later people will begin to believe it. That is the politics of the early twentieth century.
I have a lot of faith that modern-day Canadians will see through the political agenda of the Opposition and support our Bill because it is good for Canada, good for the health of Canadians, good for research, and good for our young scientists. It will save the consumer money.
The Opposition continually says that this will hurt senior citizens. They know they are not telling the truth because senior citizens are covered by drug plans. It is simply a falsehood to keep repeating that. However, the Opposition believes in the dictum, say it loudly, say if often, and eventually it will be believed. It is the "big lie" technique which they keep repeating.
As the Decima poll showed, Canadians are too sophisticated to fall for that propaganda technique.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond and comment with regard to Bill C-22. In particular, I want to address some of the matters the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) attempted to raise in his speech. The certain facts he has given and situations which he has raised today are totally incomplete.
There are three comments I want to make with regard to the process through which this Bill has gone. On April 15, 1987, the Minister put his time allocation motion to the House and said, as reported at page 5202 of Hansard:
There were 82 hours of study in the committee, hardly a quick passing glimpse. Sixty-five hours were spent hearing witnesses.
He went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, 46 different groups were witnesses before the committee . . .
He continued:
Since the 1984 election there has never been a piece of legislation which has had more discussion in Parliament, outside of Parliament, and in various domains across the country than this piece of legislation. If there is anyone in this House who can suggest that they have not had an opportunity to examine this legislation, that they have not heard about it from the people concerned and received their reactions, they must have been living in some sort of cocoon.
Those comments by the Minister are rather unfortunate but, indeed, very typical of the Minister and Conservative Members who sat on the committee examining Bill C-22.
There were many witnesses for the precise reasons given by the Minister himself. The substance of this Bill is important
for Canadians, and for the pharmaceutical sector. It is also important for provincial Governments that will have to pay the lion's share of costs, which taxpayers will ultimately pay. For those reasons, numerous witnesses from across the country wanted to appear before the committee.
Opposition Members in the committee attempted, without success, to deal intelligently and reasonably with members of the Conservative Party. If memory serves me correctly, we were told as a result of a resolution that was passed that only 45 minutes would be given to each witness. We responded by saying that that was not sufficient time since many of the groups, including national organizations, would spend 20 to 25 minutes presenting written briefs. That would only allow 20 minutes for questioning. That is not really sufficient time for a thorough examination of briefs that groups of Canadians had gone to the trouble of preparing, certainly not enough time in order that legislators have an opportunity to examine and thoroughly question the substance of their briefs.
I recall suggesting to government Members of the committee that perhaps we should wait to see how many briefs would be presented and then determine how much time would be required to examine them. Government Members simply indicated that the committee would sit on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. While I accept the role of the majority in the House of Commons, surely one would have thought that due to our minority there would have been some civility and understanding of the demands that are made on the Opposition in terms of committees and their responsibilities in the House and their constituencies.
We were then confronted with a motion that was put forward in the committee by the Conservative Members of Parliament when opposition Members were not present. With some 15 minutes left in the meeting, they adopted a motion whereby they unilaterally decided to cut debate off at the committee stage. It is another example of interference in the process in order to put in place restrictions on opposition Members and those who may be opposed to the substance of the Bill. The restrictions were such that it was very difficult for those groups to present their views before Canada's highest court, the House of Commons. That is the sort of spirit that government Members created in the committee.
Every opposition suggestion, no matter how reasonable, was either voted down or not adhered to by government Members. Yet they wonder why only 11 amendments were introduced at the committee stage. It would not have been possible to receive a thorough examination of a substantive amendment.
The amendments that were put in committee were basically technical or consequential amendments that would not have shook the Government, rocked the House of Commons or upset the President of the United States. Yet the Government rejected all of those amendments, with the exception of one.
May 5, 1987

We introduced amendments at report stage in order to give Canadians an opportunity to hear the debate and understand where the Parties stood. I would have thought that if one had such a great case to support Bill C-22, government Members would have been keen to take the opportunity to support the thrust of the provisions of Bill C-22. I would have thought that out of 211 Members at least half would rise to present their great case that the Minister talks about. That did not happen. Very few Members spoke to the amendments to Bill C-22 at report stage.
I suggest that we must reflect upon this process very carefully. It is true that we heard from a number of witnesses, but many more wanted to appear. There was a certain amount of time given to witnesses, but not enough. There were 45 minutes given to the Canadian Labour Congress, to the Consumers' Association of Canada, to the Minister of Health in the Province of Manitoba. There were 45 minutes given to the National Anti-Poverty Organization and to the Canadian Auto Workers Union. That is not sufficient time to investigate and probe into the presentations by the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. That would have been a golden opportunity for Members on all sides to question the authenticity of the remarks contained in their submissions.
The Minister and his predecessors have argued in and out of the House that since Canada must live in the international community our regulatory system with regard to the pharmaceutical industry must be in keeping with other countries of the world, particularly the United States. Therefore, our present system is going to be changed. It will not become exactly the same as the American system, but we are moving in that direction. That was the argument for changing our laws to become internationally competitive, to move to the American system. Let us look at the process of the committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So we can get free trade.


David Charles Dingwall: That is right. It was moved by Members opposite, that if that is the way in which the Government wishes to go, logically, and if one is being honest intellectually, one would want to have individuals and organizations in the United States come before our parliamentary committee to expound upon their views on the system presently in place in the United States.
I think, for instance, of the National Senior Citizens Organization in the United States, of the Chairman of the United States Generic Pharmaceutical Industry, and a Congressman who chairs the subcommittee on health and who is now leading an investigation into the high cost of prescription drugs in the United States, Congressman Waxman, with whom I met. I would have thought we would have tried to have a few Republicans come before the committee just to get an understanding and better appreciation. But no, the process was curtailed. We were prohibited and limited so we could not hear from our colleagues and friends from the United States.
Patent Act
Was that particular motion brought in before our deliberations began? No, it was not. They waited until we heard PMAC. At that time its president was an American citizen. I had no objection, and I am certain my colleagues in the New Democratic Party had no objections as well, to this particular individual coming before our committee and expounding on his views as to why he favours the legislation. However, it was only after the lead spokesperson and organizer for Bill C-22, PMAC, was allowed, that all other individuals who may have been opposed to the Government's Bill were prohibited from coming before the committee and examining Bill C-22.
The process from its early stages-the way in which the Government tried to introduce the Bill in June of 1986-in itself, I think, tells us of the intent and motive of Members opposite. So the process from then until now, with time allocation, closure on this particular Bill, has raised considerable anxiety among Canadians who have called upon opposition Members of Parliament to fight their case in the highest chamber in this land, the House of Commons.
The Minister had the audacity to refer to polls. He said, "I challenge anyone here to refute this poll". The poll to which he referred was conducted by Decima Research. Decima does its work for the Conservative Party of Canada, and it conducted this poll because PMAC, the multinational organization, the lead organization supporting Bill C-22, retained Decima to conduct the research.
One may come from Edmonton, from Nova Scotia, from Newfoundland, but is there any thinking person who did not know what the conclusion of that poll would be? We knew before it was taken. Even those of us who live on that great island of Cape Breton knew what the conclusion would be. It was not anything new that Members of Parliament were being given. The agenda was written; what the questions were going to be and, of course, what the answers were going to be. But that was the Minister's poll. I think it was taken around February 26 to March 4 of 1987.
The Minister said here in the Chamber today, "I challenge anyone to refute the contents of that particular poll". Ministers of the Crown have to be careful. Sometimes they have these periods of amnesia where they conveniently forget. Does the Minister forget the poll which was conducted in January of 1987? I want to read what that poll said, and I am prepared to table it for Members opposite. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), would love to have a copy of this particular poll. I will give the House the highlights of the poll:
A majority of Canadians oppose the proposed drug patent extension legislation
with significant levels of opposition among Canadians from all walks of life.
What are the numbers? In this particular poll 58 per cent of the Canadian people opposed amendments to the Patent Act, while 30 per cent were in favour. Sixty-six per cent of the people in British Columbia were opposed to the amendments to the Patent Act.

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
I will read the question so 1 do not confuse Members opposite, particularly the only Minister in the Chamber at this particular time. I am sure she would want to know what the questions was. It says:
As you may know, the Government recently presented legislation which will give drug companies exclusive patent rights to manufacture and sell the drugs they invented for a longer period of time than they have now. Other companies will not be allowed to produce or sell less expensive copies of most drugs for 10 years. Do you yourself support or oppose this proposed legislation?
I think that is a fair and objective question. In that great Province of Alberta from which some very distinguished Members of Parliament come, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, 62 per cent are opposed to Bill C-22. The people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, one would think, might be in favour of this legislation, but 69 per cent are opposed to this particular Bill. In Atlantic Canada, 56 per cent are opposed. In Quebec, 54 per cent are opposed and in Ontario, 54 per cent are opposed. That is very revealing information, as I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker.
The anticipated impact of the proposed legislation on the research activities in Canada of drug companies was researched. What do they say with regard to research? Will there be more research or increased profits? In Alberta, and I will concentrate on Alberta for a moment because I am aware of the Speaker's great interest in the concerns and aspirations of the people of that province, 59 per cent believe there would be increased profits for the multinational corporations. In British Columbia, 62 per cent of the people polled believe there will be increased profits. In Atlantic Canada, 55 per cent believe that and 60 per cent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The percentages of those who believe there will be more research are; 26 per cent in British Columbia, 32 per cent in Alberta, 30 per cent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 32 per cent in Ontario, 34 per cent in Quebec and 28 per cent in the Atlantic provinces. So you see, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very much against what the Government is doing.
What is the anticipated impact of the proposed legislation on drug prices, which was the third questions posed in this particular poll? It was a poll with respect to which the Minister challenged us here in the Chamber today to see if we could refute anything that he had in his possession, namely, the Decima poll. But this is a poll that was taken prior to that. The question asked in the poll was this:
Do you think we can expect the price of pharmaceutical drugs to increase, decrease or remain the same as a result of the proposed legislation?
Some 72 per cent of those polled believe that prices will increase. The breakdown of that figure across Canada is as follows: Some 78 per cent of those in British Columbia and in Atlantic Canada believe that prices will increase; some 63 per cent of those in Quebec, 73 per cent of those in Ontario, 76 per cent of those in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and 75 per cent of those in Alberta believe that drug prices will increase as a result of amendments to the Patent Act.
The fourth and final question posed in the poll which I am sharing with Members of the House today was:
In preparing this legislation, do you think the Mulroney government was
paying more attention to the interests of multinational drug companies or to
the interests of Canadian consumers?
Some 64 per cent of Canadians polled believe that the Government's main interest is that of multinational drug companies as opposed to that of Canadian consumers. The breakdown across Canada is as follows: Some 72 per cent of those in British Columbia, 66 per cent of those in Alberta, 71 per cent of those in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 60 per cent of those in Atlantic Canada, 59 per cent of those in Quebec and 63 per cent of those polled in Ontario believe that the Government's main interest is in respect of multinational drug companies as opposed to consumers.
The Minister referred to some interesting statistics in his remarks. I would not want to say that he intentionally forgot, because that would be unparliamentary and I would not want to be unparliamentary because Your Honour quite rightly would point out that I was being unparliamentary, but for whatever reason he has forgotten what is in this particular poll commissioned for one of Canada's most respected newspapers and which was carried out by a respectable polling agency.
I now wish to go into a few other areas since it was alleged by some that the 1969 Patent Act had a negative effect in terms of job creation in Canada. The 1969 legislation is the legislation which is in existence today. In his recommendations Eastman dealt with this matter very thoroughly in order to dispel any suggestion that somehow job creation was retarded or prohibited under the 1969 legislation.
In Canada employment in the pharmaceuticals and medicines industry increased by almost 29 per cent between 1967 and 1982. Employment not only increased noticeably in this industry, it increased more rapidly than employment in all manufacturing in Canada. So on the issue of jobs it cannot be said, based on fact, that the existing legislation has in any way taken away from job creation. In fact, the complete opposite is true, which is evident on a review of the statistics from 1967 to 1982.
Employment in manufacturing increased by only 3.4 per cent between 1967 and 1982. The ratio of employment in pharmaceuticals and medicines to employment in all manufacturing increased during this period, rising from 0.74 per cent in 1967 to 0.92 per cent in 1982. Thus we can see that the legislation did not restrict or prohibit the creation of jobs, but rather increased economic opportunities. It provided jobs to those Canadians who wanted to work in this particular field.
Some observers have nevertheless commented that although employment may have increased in the pharmaceuticals and medicines industry from 1967 to 1982, it would have increased even more without the 1969 Act. That is the claim of Members opposite. Their claim does not appear to be supported by the facts. However, employment in pharmaceuticals and medicines in fact increased more rapidly in Canada than it did in the United States over the same period of time.
May 5, 1987

The data provided thus far demonstrate that the 1969 Act had no adverse impact on employment in the pharmaceuticals industry in Canada. That is very, very clear. But the data tell us nothing about employment in the Province of Quebec. In this respect the Minister has hauled out from time to time a resolution tasked by the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec.
What happened in Quebec? As we know, the pharmaceuticals industry is almost exclusively concentrated in the Toronto and Montreal areas. The data that I have show that between 1953 and 1982 Quebec's share of employment appears to have declined in this industry and gone to Ontario. For example, in 1953 some 48.3 per cent of employment in the industry was in Quebec while the corresponding 1982 figure was 43.3 per cent. It should be emphasized, however, that these percentages fluctuated a great deal from year to year, as shown in the figures that I have here in front of me.
The question which now needs to be asked is whether or not this relative loss of jobs in Quebec is the result of the impact of the 1969 Act concerning pharmaceuticals. It does not appear to be. The employment data in fact indicate that the ratio of employment in Quebec decreased in many industries since the 1960s. In manufacturing alone Quebec's percentage of employment dropped steadily after 1962. In 1962 employment in the manufacturing sector in Quebec was 32.7 per cent while in Ontario it was 48.3 per cent. In 1982 the figure had decreased to 26.5 per cent in Quebec while it was 48.4 per cent in Ontario.
The conclusion must therefore be that the 1969 Act had no adverse effects on employment in the pharmaceuticals and medicines industry in Canada or in the Province of Quebec. I share that information with Members opposite who for whatever reasons would want us to believe that the 1969 Act had a disastrous effect on job creation in Canada when nothing could be further from the truth.
The Minister said that he had received a great many letters from Canadians in support of Bill C-22. Members on this side of the House would have hoped that Members opposite who are receiving such mail by the carload in support of the Bill would have participated more in the debate that preceded today's debate. But that did not take place. The Minister touted some of his-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) for interrupting him, but 1 waited until one minute before one o'clock since I know that he will resume his very good remarks at three o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, after listening carefully to the remarks of the Minister who spoke a short time ago, this is the first opportunity I have had to give notice of a question of privilege, if we find on checking the "blues" that there seems to be one. I believe that I heard the Minister say that the Opposition used


*S. O. 21
[Stage Direction]
under handed and unparliamentary tactics in reference to some 11 amendments in committee and some 40 at report stage. It is not unparliamentary for any Hon. Member in the House to abide by the rules of the House. His remarks are a reflection on the integrity of Members, specifically opposition Members of the committee. More specifically, they reflect on the Chair. The Chair would not allow unparliamentary procedures. I believe the Minister should withdraw his remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Now that the Hon. Member has risen on a point of order I hope that he will give written notice of his question of privilege so that this matter can be brought up tomorrow, since the "blues" cannot be used in this respect. If the Hon. Member is willing to do that then 1 am sure the Speaker will consider the matter.
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. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, every day on the open waters, far from land, our fishermen have learned to respect the awesome power of Mother Nature. They know that they are often only an accident away from certain tragedy. This year has brought much sorrow to our fishing communities.
In January the fishing vessel Myers III was caught in a sudden storm off Newfoundland's south coast, claiming the lives of five fishermen including four brothers from the Myers family. Then, on the Pacific Coast, the vessel Scotia Cape disappeared with its six crew members. Several days ago there were two accidents in the Gulf of St. Lawrence which claimed the lives of four fishermen. Those fishermen were all trying to make a living in a very tough occupation.
It is often said that our fishermen and other primary producers are the backbone of our economy. Too often they have made the ultimate sacrifice. I am sure I speak for all my colleagues in asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and his cabinet colleagues, along with their provincial counterparts, to do everything possible to make our fishing industry safer. I cannot think of a more worthy cause.

May 5, 1987



S. O. 21 ABORTION FORTHCOMING VOTE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTION

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, Monday, May 11, marks a significant day in the life of this Parliament. It will be the first time in this Parliament that there will be a recorded vote on a Private Members' Motion. Motion M-37 asks Parliament and the provinces to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include unborn children as a protected category.
Abortion is one of the great moral questions of the 20th century. In September, 1984, the people of Canada sent us here to take tough decisions. I believe every Member should state clearly how he or she stands on this issue. I suggest it is unacceptable for Members to avoid making a decision because of procedural difficulties with the motion. We owe more than that to ourselves and our constituents. Therefore, on Monday, May 11,1 say to all Members: Stand up and be counted; all of Canada will be watching.



FORESTRY


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has designated May 4 to May 10 as Forestry Week. In view of the Brundtland report released last week by the World Commission on Environment and Development, I remind the Government of the urgent need not only for increased awareness of the state of Canada's forests, but of the grave predictions regarding the environment of the entire world.
One billion people on this earth are forced to cut more trees than they plant, literally cutting away the lungs of the earth. As this continues deserts spread, the number of species diminishes, and the climate changes. The Brundtland report charges that all those in a position of power to alter this situation must be held accountable for the pollution and loss of resources caused by their decisions.
Each year an area of forest the size of Newfoundland is destroyed. Some 40 per cent of the world's tropical forests are already gone. Each year an area the size of Nova Scotia is turned to desert, increasing the more than one-third of the world which has already suffered desertification. I call on the Government to raise the priority for forestry and agro-forestry projects in the Third World, and on CIDA specifically to put more emphasis on non-exploitive forestry.
[Translation\



THE LATE RAYMOND BLAIS

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 6, 1987, in the Saint-David church, the family of Mr. Raymond Blais will pay their last respects to this outstanding Canadian. South shore residents will sympathize with Quebecers and Canadians as evidence of their sorrow and their loss.
Raymond Blais devoted his professional life to the cooperative movement, the Mouvement Desjardins. Under the guidance of Raymond Blais the Desjardins co-operative movement crossed world boundaries.
A dreadful illness took away the husband, the father, the friend, the public man loved by everybody.
May his soul rest in peace.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the riding of Rosemont, I met with residents of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Mercier, three constituencies represented by Conservative Members, and again I spoke with older workers who are wondering what the Conservative Government is waiting for before proceeding with second reading, committee stage and third reading of the legislative measures aimed at reimbursing unemployment insurance benefits.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this Government and Hon. Members have no idea whether the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is prepared to proceed immediately with all stages of the Bill with a view to reimbursing the 35,000 Canadian workers, including 13,000 in Quebec. The Liberals are ready.
But, unlike the Conservative Members, we will never agree to discriminate against older workers, men and women who lost their job and will have to find another to become eligible. Never will the Liberals under the Right Hon. John Turner accept such discrimination towards older workers.



FORESTRY WEEK


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to stress the importance of Forestry Week during Tree and Forest Week in Canada. On behalf of 43,000 people who work in the pulp and paper industry in Quebec, 24,000 who work in the lumber industry and 9,000 employed by forestry operations, on behalf of more than 127,000 people whose jobs depend indirectly on the forestry industry in Quebec, on behalf of
May 5, 1987

120,000 owners of private wood lots in Quebec and on behalf of the 127 communities in Quebec whose economy depends on our forests, on behalf of all Quebec forestry associations and on behalf of Quebec's honorary president of this special week, Mr. Jean Perron from Abitibi-Temiscamingue, on behalf of the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) and on behalf of all Quebec Members in this Elouse, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is an excellent opportunity to show all Quebecers the importance of our forests for the well-being and quality of life of the people of our province.

[DOT] (M05)



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Saskatchewan, as a result of the horrendous deficit it has incurred through its own actions, has decided to cut funding to the Port of Churchill Development Board. This is a very shortsighted action.
It is interesting to note that 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the grain handled by the Port of Churchill comes from the Province of Saskatchewan.
I think the Government of Saskatchewan is cutting its own throat and the throat of its farmers by taking this short-sighted action. I call upon the Premier of Saskatchewan to reconsider this stupid and uncalled for action.



GULF CANADA-BEAUFORT SEA OILFIELD DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the tentative announcement made at the recent Houston World Petroleum Congress that, subject to certain price considerations, Gulf Canada is to start work this year on its 800 million barrel Amauligak oil deposit in the Beaufort Sea area of the Northwest Territories is certainly welcome news.
Congratulations are due to Gulf and its partners, Husky Oil and Norcen Energy, on what could be a $4.5 billion investment which will revitalize the northern oil and gas industry and will increase Canada's oil supplies by some 170,000 barrels per day.
The Government of Canada should now expedite the regulatory process so that this major project might see an early fruition.
_____________________________5753



S. O. 21 FORESTRY VALUE OF EXPORTS-IMPORTANCE TO ECONOMY

B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, this is National Forest Week. The social and economic impact of the forest sector in Canada is enormous. We export 22 per cent of the world's total amount of forest products; $16.2 billion worth in 1985.
Three-quarters of a million Canadians are directly or indirectly employed in the forest sector. The forest industry provides the support system for more than 300 one-industry towns in Canada.
Because our forests are so important to the national economy, they cannot and must not be exploited in an anarchistic or mercenary way. To do so would be to endanger the health and equilibrium of the environment and the prosperity of generations to come who will depend upon the forests.
The Government of Canada must do more, not less, in giving active leadership in the cause of forest regeneration, research, and education.
The preservation of some forest lands must always remain a firm policy of this and future Governments. Our national parks heritage is precious to all of us. Some forest lands are the traditional lands of aboriginal peoples, and they must be left unharvested until the question of aboriginal title and unsettled claims is resolved.
Canada cannot be understood without reference to its forests. This imposes a heavy obligation upon all of us-users, conservers, and preservers alike.



CELTIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia I extend an invitation to all Scots and would-be Scots to attend the 1987 International Gathering of the Clans, being hosted for a third time in the New Scotland of the New World, Nova Scotia.
The Highlands will be ringing with the sound of the pipes and the fiddle. Commencing with the official opening in Halifax on June 27, a program of Scottish gatherings, festivals, and events will carry on throughout the province until August 8.

May 5, 1987
Toward the middle of July, the Antigonish Highland Games will get under way. This is the oldest Scottish festival in North America. Also in July, St. Anns will host the annual Gaelic Mod. I am proud to say that these events will both occur in my riding.
The Scottish have a proud heritage, one which was transplanted to New Scotland many generations ago. The family ties that kept the Celtic character intact through the many years are still strong.
Hosting the International Gathering of the Clans is an honour we are proud to accept and an occasion we are all happy to celebrate.
The pipes are calling you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we must recognize the fact that the Official Languages Act passed by this Parliament in 1969 is no longer sufficient to meet the objectives set when it was first implemented, namely to promote and defend bilingualism in this country.
The latest report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, and appearances before a Joint Committee of the House of Departments and Federal Agencies that blithely infringe the intent of this Act are a clear indication that we must proceed with a thorough reform.
Mr. Speaker, the present Government has a mandate and a duty to correct a situation that arose as a result of the inertia and neglect of the Liberals. In this country, every federal employee should be able to work in the language of his choice, just as every citizen has the right to be served in the language of his choice.
Mr. Speaker, this reform must refresh Canadians' perception of what it means to be a country that is founded on the respect for two cultures. We need reform and we need it fast!



EFFECT OF CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly obvious that corporate domination of
sport in Canada is not the be-all and end-all that some, including the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), would like it to be. This morning we learned that the corporate battle between two breweries has killed the Canadian Grand Prix. We also know that corporate rights to the televising of NHL hockey play off games is preventing many Canadians from being able to follow our national pastime.
In Thunder Bay, for example, we have for years been able to watch the Stanley Cup semi-finals but this year we have been shut out of the Edmonton/Detroit series. The CTV has decided not to televise the play-offs this year, leaving the CBC to cover only one series. Carling O'Keefe, which own the rights to the Edmonton/Detroit series have, over the past few days, set up a special network of TV stations to show the games but they have not made arrangements for the games to be shown in Thunder Bay.
I raise these matters to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when we hand over the funding of sports events, whether they be professional events as in this case, or amateur events as the Minister is trying to encourage, that it is the interests of the corporations to make money, which is the prime consideration, and the interests of the athletes and the fans come second.



EDUCATION


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, right now thousands of young people are finishing exams and are in the process of finding or beginning summer jobs, that is, those lucky enough to find jobs.
Since 1984 the Mulroney Government has consistently cut back in funding for jobs for young people, particularly for summer jobs. It has eliminated our First Chance apprenticeship program, which would have helped 100,000 young people every year to bridge the gap between education and experience. It addressed the Catch-22 situation faced by so many young people of "no experience-no job-no job-no experience".
There is a crisis in post-secondary education in this country. Accessibility is limited, quality is declining, and facilities are deteriorating. We believe that we need a national council on post-secondary education to bring together all the players in the field. We must address the financial ability of those who want to attend college and university in Canada. We need that program now, Mr. Speaker, so that our young people can have a decent place in this country of ours.
May 5, 1987



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's aim in free trade would ultimately lead to goods being produced in Canada only if those goods could not be produced and transported to Canada more cheaply from somewhere else.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have indicated that they will not guarantee protection from imports for products which are presently under supply management in agriculture. If such a policy is followed in agricultural products, dairy and egg boards would not be able survive.
New Democrats call upon the Government to state categorically that it will protect supply management products from cheaper imports even if it does sign a free trade agreement with the United States.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the first phase of the Canadian Frigate Program is moving on schedule. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. has put together a most effective team of management, design and trades people and the team is now ready to proceed with the second phase of this program.
Under the present phase, benefits are shared in the following manner: 23 per cent to New Brunswick, 52 per cent to Quebec, 20 per cent to Ontario and 5 per cent to western Canada.
Under the second phase with six ships being built in Saint John, only 52.6 per cent of the benefits would stay in Atlantic Canada and 47 per cent would be distributed to the other provinces of Canada.
If cost has anything to do with the awarding of this contract, the entire second phase will be awarded to Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. because it can deliver the best, most cost effective contract to the Canadian taxpayer.



ESTABLISH MENT OF GENERAL POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, in an interview he gave the newspaper La Presse last March, the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) made it clear that he had given up the idea of establishing a general youth policy. These were the words he used, and I quote:
The way to help youth is not by adding new programs or spending more
money. We have to consider the general context and the Government's over-all
strategy.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sorry state of affairs indeed, when the Minister of State for Youth decides to drop the idea of implementing a special youth policy for Canadians. The present infrastructures are definitely inadequate, and the problems facing our young people such as drugs, illiteracy, poverty and AIDS demand the development of real policies.
The Minister has no right to use a drop in the unemployment rate to justify his failure to act at a time when in many areas the unemployment rate has reached alarming proportions.
Mr. Speaker, what are we supposed to think when a Minister of State for Youth publicly refuses to help youth with concrete measures? What are young Canadians supposed to think?



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, today three members of the Subcommittee on the Disabled and the Handicapped were able to take part in the launching of a campaign here at the House of Commons on behalf of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The society itself was well represented here at the House of Commons.
I would like to bring to the attention of Members of the House that the Red Carnation Drive which begins this month is aimed at encouraging Members of Parliament, and through them the entire nation, to understand more fully the importance of the research which is required in this field and will be important in limiting the number of disabled and handicapped people. It is aimed as well at bringing to Canadians an understanding of the affliction this disease brings and of the fact that we are all susceptible to becoming in some way disabled or handicapped at any moment in our lifetimes.

May 5, 1987
Oral Questions
On behalf of the committee, I want to express to the House and Canadians our concern that this research and development take place. We should keep in mind this important drive which begins today and continues for the next month.



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is time for Parliament to set an example. On Monday evening, April 27, I moved, seconded by the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White), that smoking during all hearings of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare be forbidden. It was unanimously approved with a few "Ohs" and "Ahs". It just so happened that the committee's witness that night was the Minister for National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).
I have said before and I say again that it is not only conclusive that smoking is a serious health hazard to smokers and non-smokers alike but that Parliament and its precincts should set the best possible example at all times for all of Canada. Question Period may on occasion be the most notable exception to this, but all other practices cannot be.
With new legislation evolving to limit smoking in the federal workplace and in that of federally-regulated businesses, it seems contradictory to me that Parliament itself is not smoke-free. I am proud to say that at least the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare has taken this exemplary step.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT POLICY Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must recall with pride the fact that less than six months ago Canada was given the Nansen Award by the United Nations for our record in receiving refugees. The Prime Minister must reflect with shame on the statement made this morning on refugees by the Minister of State for Immigration.
Why are the Prime Minister and the Government defaming our reputation as a generous country? Does the Prime Minister wish to trigger restrictions on refugees in other countries? Does he want the global tragedy of refugees to be compounded even further?
Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, we are about to put in place a process that will guarantee an open determination to everyone in need of our protection. A real refugee will never be sent back to face death or torture.
We need a process that puts claims through fairly and quickly, and we assure the House that will be done. We must
curb the abuse and we must be able to manage our resources effectively.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister that the process and particularly the pre-selection process will be an overwhelming burden for refugees trying to get into our country.


EXAMINATION OF ORIGIN AND REGION FROM WHICH APPLICANT COMES-CONSEQUENCES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a second question for the Prime Minister. He is telling us that no "real" refugee will be refused, yet he knows that the pre-selection process is an obstacle intended to make the system, not more equitable, but more effective.
Will the Prime Minister admit that simple examination of the origin and the region from which the applicant comes is an irresponsible solution which does not take very delicate circumstances into account?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we put into place a first step whereby two individuals, one an adjudicator and the other a member of the independent Refugee Determination Board, will examine the individual at the inquiry using four very specific criteria: Does the person have an established refugee status elsewhere? Can he be returned to a safe third country? Did he have the opportunity to make a refugee claim in that country? Could he have received its protection?
It is very, very clear that we must have that process in place. We must be able to curb some of the abuses of the integrity and credibility of our system. The specifics are very clear. If the individual falls into one of the criteria he will be excluded from the system. However, as long as one of the two people think there is a shred of evidence, everyone else will be sent to the Convention Refugee Determination Board for a full oral, non-adversarial hearing, and be given every right to show they fear persecution.


John Napier Turner: The pre-selection process of which the Minister speaks has no due process of law involved in it whatsoever.


POLICY AFFECTING REFUGEES ARRIVING FROM INTERMEDIATE COUNTRIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my third question to the Minister. Why has he stated that Canada may not receive refugees if they come to this country via a third country? Why should Canada, as a humane country, shift its burden in this world-wide problem to other countries to which refugees may flee or be chased because of war, torture and persecution? Why is the Government, on behalf of our country, not living up to its humane responsibility?
May 5, 1987


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, this year Canada will choose 20,000 refugees under our Refugee and Humanitarian Program. We will contribute over $170 million to help them resettle through aid to international humanitarian agencies and food programs.
The third part of the program ensures that every individual who comes to our shores and our doors will be given a chance to demonstrate that they fear persecution. However, those with manifestly unfounded claims, those who have been asked to leave the country in the last 90 days, and those subject to removal, cannot be allowed to make a refugee claim, because they should be applying under the regular immigration laws of the country.


REFUGEE BOARD PROCEDURES-LISTING OF SAFE COUNTRIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Immigration and is also with regard to the Government's new refugee legislation. The Government has today adopted a Pontius Pilate attitude of washing its hands of genuine refugees and irresponsibly passing the problem to another country. This will only serve to aggravate the world phenomenon and trigger other countries to do likewise in a regressive fashion, in turn bringing more pressure to countries like Canada.
Given that the refugee board should have been independent and non-adversarial, why did the Minister give ultimate discretionary authority to Cabinet to design a list of so-called safe countries which will dictate who will access the system? Why were an immigration adjudicator and a lawyer present at the pre-screening process and the oral hearing which made it an adversarial process between the claimant and the department?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, there are 15 million refugees in the world and 100 million economic migrants. Our help to the real refugees must continue unabated. This is a real world rather than a theoretical world. It requires common sense solutions. We must be realistic, not naive. We need objective criteria, not subjective opinion.


Sergio Marchi: In his speech to immigrants, the Minister said: "If I do not deliver a good policy I will throw away my keys to the limousine". He had better throw away those keys and be ashamed of himself today.


APPEAL SYSTEM PROCESS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister give the system such a shamefully weak appeal procedure, with leave to the Federal Court, which only deals
Oral Questions
with arguments on legal process and not on the facts and circumstances of the individual? Why could people be deported during the appeal and until it is considered, thus endangering the lives of those individuals and going against the spirit of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights protecting individuals, thus making it unconstitutional?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are introducing a system that has streamlined processing. There are quality oral hearings in front of independent refugee board members. There are appeals by leave to the Federal Court.
This Government does not need to apologize for its contribution or anything we are doing. In the past year we contributed over $53 million to international humanitarian agencies. That is double what the previous Government committed in 1982.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: In addition, we are spending at least double what the previous Government spent to settle, integrate and accommodate these new people in our country.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-LETTER REPORTEDLY SENT TO POTENTIAL COMPETITORS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the proposed takeover of Dome Petroleum by the Amoco Corporation. In the past the Minister has assured the House that this deal was not finalized and that there were options other than the takeover by Amoco. The Minister knows that that corporation has had a bad reinvestment record in Canada and has now publicly refused, even if it is able to take over Dome, to sell shares to Canadians.
The Minister is no doubt aware that Amoco has sent threatening letters to companies that potentially would offer a counter bid. Is he aware of the content of those threatening letters from Amoco and, if so, will he tell us what he has done about it, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it was obvious from the very beginning that the various stages of negotiations between Dome, its creditors and potential owners would be a lengthy process that could take several weeks and possibly even several months.

May 5, 1987
Oral Questions
Last week 1 met with the President of Dome who assured me, after saying so in public, that as the man responsible for Dome he had to consider any bid which would be made to Dome and which, in his opinion, would be better than Amoco's.
I would also emphasize that the Canadian Government is not aware of any other bid, so that I think it would be quite premature to presume how the Canadian Government might respond through Investment Canada.
As to the letter mentioned by the Hon. Member, I am not personally familiar with it. Should anyone feel that it infringes on one's rights, there are courts in Canada to handle this kind of situation.


INTEREST OF IMPERIAL OIL CORPORATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he is not aware of any other bid. I thought it was more or less public knowledge that Imperial Oil Corporation was interested in such a possibility.
Presumably the decision to be reached by the Government of Canada will be in the interests of Canada, particularly western Canadians.
Considering that the letter threatened legal action against Imperial Oil if it made a counter bid, and that the Chief Executive Officer of Imperial Oil confirmed with me earlier today that Imperial Oil will not make a counter bid as a result of this letter, will the Minister live up to his Canadian responsibilities and intervene directly in this process to make sure there is open competition for the takeover so that Canadian interests will be served, and not guarantee that Amoco Corporation will simply get it?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I think all Members of this House will be surprised to see how earnestly the NDP is defending the corporate values of Imperial Oil. I think the company has enough lawyers and is sufficiently conversant with the Canadian legal system to decide whether it wants to bring the matter before the courts.
Secondly, I feel that if Imperial Oil wants to make an offer to Dome Petroleum, this kind of letter is certainly not going to prevent it from doing so.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the Minister's last sentence, but I got the impression he implied that Imperial Oil did not make the decision because of this letter. If he said so, that is not the case.
The Minister is indicating on the contrary. All right.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
John Edward Broadbent: Since it is evidently in the public interest of Canada that whoever gets control of Dome Petroleum should be the best company for Canadian interests, Canadian taxpayers and the people of western Canada, and since this letter has now threatened one corporation by telling it legal action will be taken against it-and, because I understand it is now circulated throughout the industry it has presumably scared off other potential takeover bids-will the Minister finally get involved concretely, call all the parties in and make sure the takeover bid which is in the best interest of Canada is the one which succeeds?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is up to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to discuss legal points or give a legal opinion on the subject of the legality of letters exchanged between corporations. I am willing to ask the Department of Justice whether the Canadian Government can intervene in such cases. Personally, I would be very surprised, but I will inquire.
I may remind the Hon. Member that the President of Dome Petroleum stated that he was prepared to consider and evaluate any offer that might be made to Dome Petroleum. If Imperial Oil wants to make an offer, it has to make that offer to Dome Petroleum and not to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not informed of the content of any offers whatsoever.


John Edward Broadbent: But they can't make an offer. They will be sued.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF JIANGSU, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Yang Yongyi, the Deputy Governor of Jiangsu of the People's Republic of China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY SPEAKER OF HOUSE OF LORDS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Baroness Carolyn Cox, Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 5, 1987


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-POSSIBILITY OF OTHER BIDS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On at least one occasion, on April 24, officials from the Minister's Department met with officials of Amoco Canada, Dome Petroleum and Investment Canada, putting an end to the Minister's contention that no proposal has ever been made to the Government. The Minister has obviously seen the agreement. He says the President of Dome would welcome other bids. Does the agreement between Amoco Canada and Dome Petroleum allow for other bids to be made?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can only refer the Hon. Member to the statements made by the President of Dome Petroleum where the answer is yes.


HUSKY OIL INTEREST-ROLE OF INVESTMENT CANADA
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Foster:: He did not say deliberately.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member does not mean that the Minister is intentionally misleading the House.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: No, 1 certainly would not mean that, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The recently expressed interest of Husky Oil in Dome Petroleum once again indicates that there are other companies interested in bidding for Dome Petroleum. Will the Minister give us his assurance today that he will not allow Investment Canada to make a decision on the Amoco Canada bid until all bidders have had a reasonable time to make a bid for Dome Petroleum?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, according to the explanations given by the President of Dome Petroleum, the company has made a commitment to Amoco that it would not seek other bids. But should Dome receive a bid deemed to be better than that, Amoco or the person responsible for Dome, the President, must be made aware of it.

With respect to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, after Dome has made a decision on the question of the one which made the best offer, Dome will introduce the
Oral Questions
proper request through Investment Canada. That is the place where the federal Government will make its judgment. But as long as Dome is in the private sector, it is not up to the federal Minister of Energy to take on behalf of Dome a decision which is not mine to take.


REFUGEES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is about the new refugee policy and it is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration or to his Minister of State. Does the Minister believe that Canada will be living up to its international obligations to refugees when the legislation announced today promises to set up a prehearing process which will operate like a kangaroo court at the border, and which will concentrate on finding reasons to dump our refugee problems on other countries rather than on the legitimacy of a refugee claim?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it not only meets our convention obligations but it respects our Charter obligations.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would tell the Minister that there is a great deal of dispute about that precise question.


TREATMENT OF APPLICANTS ENTERING CANADA FROM UNITED STATES
Michael Morris Cassidy: If I can be specific, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware that large numbers of genuine refugees to Canada have been coming from Chile, Guatemala and El Salvador. Many have come to Canada after spending some time in the United States. Will the Minister confirm that these applicants, under the new process, can be turned back at the border and are forced to apply for refugee status in the United States, even though the acceptance rate is only 2 per cent compared to 50 per cent in Canada, and that if they are not accepted into the United States they may be deported back to face torture or death in their home countries when Canada should be accepting them here?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the Hon. Member is that we will protect those in need. Every individual who comes here will get a chance to demonstrate that his personal life, limb, liberty or security is at risk. He will be able to do that in a very fair and open, non-adversarial manner. We will do everything we can to make sure that when he demonstrates that fear he will be landed.

May 5, 1987
Oral Questions
Of course, if he is not able to demonstrate that fear, he will have another appeal by leave to the Federal Court and then he will be asked to leave Canada, as you would expect, in order to meet the criteria that all economic immigrants have to meet in coming to this country.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Last night, Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada reported on another RCMP breach of the Official Languages Act in the personnel admission and selection tests they must give applicants.
Last week the Canadian Security Intelligence Service director admitted before the Standing Committee on Official Languages that the Official Languages Act had been breached for two years.
How can the Solicitor General, who is ultimately responsible for all such cases, tolerate this evidence of bad faith on the part of both the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that I am aware of the problem with respect to the types of questions used in RCMP tests. I have spoken to the RCMP about this matter this morning and have asked for a complete internal review.
With respect to CSIS, as I advised the House before, I am aware of language problems within CSIS. The Security Intelligence Review Committee was commissioned last year to perform a complete investigation of those problems. I expect the report to be on my desk within the next week. I can assure the Hon. Member, and all Members of the House, that I will deal with the report extremely expeditiously.
[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-REQUEST THAT SOLICITOR GENERAL PRESENT REPORT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if the Solicitor General is unable to command respect for the law, and this is not the first time he is made aware of flagrant violations of the Official Languages Act, he ought to resign and let others take responsibility for enforcing the Official Languages Act.
My question to the Solicitor General: Five months ago, last December 18, the President of the Treasury Board said in this House: I am asking the Solicitor General to submit a report to me, to make me a proposition concerning a plan to implement
the Official Languages Act, in the RCMP and elsewhere. Has he done that? And where is this report?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise the Hon. Member that the new Treasury Board application has been completed. I hope to proceed forward with it next week. I can assure the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members of the House, that they will be very pleased with this new presentation.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSITION TAKEN BY CRTC CHAIRMAN
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. There are real problems which have emerged in the Government's trade approach to the United States. The head of the CRTC has warned of the dangers of free trade and of clauses in the new U.S. Trade Bill that threaten Canada. Given Andre Bureau's prediction of a $90 million loss for Canadians will the Minister clearly state that our country will not surrender either Bill C-58 or the right to cable television advertising substitution in the free trade talks?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to note that the Hon. Member is finally discovering that there are threats to Canada-U.S. trade contained in the U.S. Trade Bill. I can only tell the Hon. Member that we have said over and over again in this House that instruments of our cultural policy are not on the negotiating table. I see no reason to pursue this point when it has been made repeatedly in the House.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that at no point in time has the Government been prepared to say specifically that the policies that I have enumerated will not be eliminated. When the Government is prepared to do that I will take its word for it.


CORN PRODUCERS-REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL HELP IN COUNTERVAIL CASE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also guarantee that Canadian corn producers will receive financial help for countervail legal struggles equal to the $500,000 that the U.S. Trade Bill aims to give U.S. farm producers who are fighting our producers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has failed to observe that the Ontario corn producers won that countervail. The money is being provided to the Americans who lost it. I do not see how the Hon. Member can compare the two points.
May 5, 1987


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General about the $56,000 payment authorized by Order in Council to be made to Warren Hart, an FBI and RCMP informer. Why was this payment made when the McDonald Commission, as set out in volume 3 at page 497, found that his termination, his severance and departure from the RCMP had been properly handled? Will the Solicitor General tell the House what new facts came to the attention of the Government which justified the making of this additional payment?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is another example of selective readings by the Hon. Member. I refer the Hon. Member to the conclusion of the report at page 500 which states that while in Canada for over four years Mr. Hart "performed laudable service for the people of Canada."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: As a result of that my predecessor ordered an internal independent inquiry to see whether or not he should be reimbursed for loss of services and expenses. This independent inquiry determined that he should be paid the amount of $56,000. As a result of that recommendation payment was made.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LAWYER'S REPORT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, laudable services are not the issue if a finding was made that his termination was proper. Was it not made because of a promise made by the Minister of National Revenue when he was a back-bencher that he would take care of Warren Hart? Is the Solicitor General prepared to table the lawyer's report referred to in the media as a basis for the making of this payment? Let us see the report.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the report was prepared by a Toronto solicitor, Mr. Letterman. It was the recommendation as a result of a full inquiry by him that this ex gratia payment be made. Pursuant to that recommendation, the payment was made.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence concerning his comments on the upcoming White Paper. Why has the American
Oral Questions
Defence Secretary been kept "fully involved and informed" about the White Paper when this Parliament has seen nothing concrete and only selected Canadians have been consulted at the invitation of the Minister himself?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Because, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the policy of the NDP, Canada is a full partner in NATO and NORAD and as a consequence has a responsibility to consult its allies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister also said that nothing that the Government is doing would surprise the Americans. Does Mr. Weinberger know that the Government is considering spending billions of dollars on nuclear submarines because, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the defence committee just last week: "-in terms of threats to our sovereignty in our North-the larger threats come from our friends, the United States"?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Government will be announcing its policy with regard to our Navy in the White Paper. It is quite clear that there will be somebody's navy in our North. It will be either the American, the Russian, or the Canadian Navy. I would be interested to know from the Hon. Member what the position of the New Democratic Party is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Thursday night Bill Strath, the President of Prairie Pools Incorporated, sent a letter on behalf of 130,000 prairie grain producers to the Prime Minister demanding that the Government make a commitment for assistance for the 1987 grain crop year. In the uncertainty that permeates every western community at this time will the Prime Minister provide a positive response to these 130,000 grain producers? Will he give a commitment that he will provide a deficiency payment to give at least as great a return to the farmers in this new crop year as they are receiving in the current one?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will be on my way to western Canada. I will be meeting again with farmers and provincial authorities to consult with them in regard to the ways in which, perhaps, we can be of assistance to farmers who are hurting pretty badly as a result of the drop in commodity prices.

May 5, 1987
Oral Questions
I would point out that an Alberta Wheat Pool spokesman, Doug Brunton, said: "We are pleased in regard to actions taken recently by the federal Government". Brunton praised the federal Government and said: "From an agriculturalist's point of view, the Government is performing rather well".
I think what that means is that farmers realize this is a complex situation but they do have a Government in office disposed to work with them to solve the problems.
 * *


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, farmers would like to know exactly what support they are going to receive in the upcoming crop year. Last Friday morning, after this letter was sent, the only response from the Government was to lift the moratorium on FCC foreclosures. The Minister of Agriculture says he is going to foreclose on only 600 this year. Do the Prime Minister and the Government not know that this will cause great uncertainty for the 6,000 farmers in arrears? Will he reinstate the moratorium until proper debt restructuring programs are put in place and end the uncertainty caused by the lifting of the moratorium?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member is quite inaccurate and quite misinformed. He continues to talk about thousands of people who will be affected. The fact of the matter is that 670 farmers were held by the moratorium. At this moment it is estimated that over half of those farmers have already left.
It is interesting to note that a spokesperson for the Alberta Wheat Pool praised the federal Government, "in contrast to opposition MPs who this week blasted the Progressive Conservative Government for being insensitive to western Canada." It is also interesting to see what the Winnipeg Free Press said about the Official Opposition task force. It was summed up as being pathetic, vague, meaningless and-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-LETTER REPORTEDLY SENT BY AMOCO TO IMPERIAL OIL
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. He now has in his possession a copy of the letter to Imperial Oil from Amoco stating that they have a binding contract with Dome, and that it prohibits providing information in connection with any acquisition proposal. It also prohibits entering into any agreement with respect to an acquisition proposal.
Given the very significant impact this takeover will have on western Canada, indeed Canada as a whole, does the Minister not consider it time to intervene in this takeover to ensure that Canada comes out with a deal that makes sense for this country as opposed to making sense for Amoco?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I said before that I would ask for an analysis by the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 have not had time to do so since Question Period began, and I think it will have to wait until after Question Period. I will get back to the Hon. Member tomorrow.


MINISTER S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, given that response, is one to believe that the Minister plans to take action to ensure that there will be more than one player in this takeover? If Amoco is in fact cutting out all other proposals, including Imperial Oil which we learned about today, is he prepared to take action to ensure there will be a number of participants bidding to take over Dome?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the best action plan for now is to request information to act.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is leaving for western Canada to talk to western Canadian farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: He will find that farmers in Manitoba and Alberta will be saying the same thing as farmers in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. That is, that prices are so low-
May 5, 1987


Mr. McDermid:: What have you got in the pail, George?


George Baker: -that they do not know what they are going to do.
The Government had to pay some farmers in some provinces this past summer to plough potatoes under. In light of that I would like to ask the Prime Minister, or perhaps the Minister of Transport who is more responsible for it, to explain to the Canadian people why on government jets used by cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister, on Air Canada, a Crown corporation, and on VIA Rail, another Crown corporation as of four months ago, the potatoes used do not come from western Canada or eastern Canada? They are imported from Belgium, and that is not small potatoes to Canadian farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is always reluctant to interrupt the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair could not help but observe there seemed to be some prop to the question on the Hon. Member's desk. I know the Hon. Member, when he asks his supplementary as I know he will, will want to stay within the rules.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Table the potatoes!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, naturally a baker would be concerned about the potato.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With reference to the Canada-France dispute, I remember the hon. gentleman was concerned about French fries. Now it is the Belgian potato and the question is just as half-baked.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Luckily I am knowledgeable on the subject. 1 learned that VIA Rail, under our predecessor Liberal Government, used rice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We at least have moved them on to the potato.
With respect to Air Canada, I am advised that it used 148,000 kilos of Canadian potatoes and 16,000 kilos from Belgium last year. The Belgian potatoes are processed. That is, they are mashed and processed into balls. The hon. gentleman I am sure will be interested in that important piece of information.
With respect to government aircraft, I am advised they purchase locally and take their spuds as they find them.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONDUCT INVESTIGATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, getting back to my supplementary question directed to our half-baked Minister of Transport who will soon be known as
Oral Questions
Mr. Potatohead, and perhaps Bud the Belgian Spud in P.E.I., the price of potatoes to western Canadian farmers is roughly four cents to five cents a pound. To eastern Canadian farmers in our four Atlantic provinces it is just about three cents a pound. These potatoes imported from Belgium are a dollar a pound-five dollars for that small tin I once had on my desk.
Some. Hon. Members: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Will the Minister of Transport investigate this waste of money by Crown corporations, admit now that the Canadian potato is the best in the world-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: -and no airline or railway in this country should be allowed to use potatoes from anywhere but Canada? If they do not like the size of the potatoes they can slice them, mash them, or scallop them. You can do more things than just peel a potato!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is a real "pomme de terrorist", if not a "mashochist".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 certainly intend to advise Mr. Jeanniot and Mr. Hanigan, and anyone else who might be concerned about this important issue, that we want them to purchase Canadian potatoes. I believe some of the problem is in packaging and getting the right quantities. However, if they can find them the size of the Hon. Member's head, I am sure they will be more than willing.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and concerns the crisis situation in the railway transportation industry in Quebec, and specifically in eastern Quebec, in the Abitibi region and at the Charny yard.
In view of the massive cut-backs at Charny, and the possibility that railway tracks in eastern Quebec and Abitibi will be abandoned, what is the Minister going to do to save the jobs at Charny and maintain the railway tracks in eastern Quebec and Abitibi? What is he going to do?

May 5, 1987
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is no new emergency in connection with railway operations in Quebec. As a matter of fact, the changes in personnel which were contemplated or suggested several months ago have been gone into thoroughly with me by the Members who represent the area.
1 am glad to see the Hon. Member taking an interest in something other than pornography.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, for local workers it certainly is a crisis when they lose their jobs.


INQUIRY WHEN NEW MINISTER OF STATE FOR (TRANSPORT) WILL BE APPOINTED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. When is the Prime Minister going to appoint a new Minister of State for Transport who will be able to deal more specifically with transportation problems in Quebec, considering that this key position has been vacant for almost three months? When is he going to fill this important position?


Martin Brian Mulroney: At the
appropriate time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to advise the House that I will recognize the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie on two questions, followed by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and the Hon. Member for York East on single questions.


PENSIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Minister is aware that the Government of Ontario has formed a task force to look into the possibility of indexing private pension plans that come under the province's jurisdiction.
Could the Minister inform the House whether he would be prepared to table, as soon as possible, a Bill that would be aimed at indexing private pension plans that come under federal jurisdiction, namely those in the areas of communications, interprovincial transport and financial institutions, to ensure that when employees who are now paying into a private
pension plan are retired, they will not become any poorer because of inflation? Is the Minister prepared to follow Ontario's example?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know about the difference of opinion on the indexing of pension plans within the Ontario Liberal Government. A number of cabinet Ministers have expressed different points of view publicly on it, as he is aware.
In respect of our Government, he should be reminded that we made a number of changes which improved the pension system, by not only changing the RRSPs, but also the RRIFs and the PBSAs.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO UNDERTAKE COMPLETE REFORM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is trying to recall the mini-pension reform he carried out. It was not a real pension reform to help people.
Does the Minister intend to proceed and introduce genuine pension reform, first of all, by correcting the unfair treatment of people who are single, separated or divorced and are not entitled to the spouse's allowance; second, by allowing for the indexation of private pension plans under federal jurisdiction; and third, by calling a meeting of the provincial governments to urge the province to index private pension plans as well?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not know what he is speaking about. There have been major changes. I mentioned the RRIFs, the RRSPs, and the PBSAs. We have made changes to the Canada Pension Plan which are as dramatic as the introduction of the CPP in 1966. We also made changes to the spousal allowance.
If originally it was so wrong, why did they not make changes when they were still in government? We made changes. Now, after the changes have been made on the spousal allowance, they say it is discriminatory. If it is discriminatory now, what about when his Party was in office?


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister is aware of the deterioration of Atlantic Canada's harbour facilities. The Auld Cove wharf is but one example of inadequate and dangerous facilities.
May 5, 1987

What assurance can the Minister give that this problem, as typified at the Auld Cove wharf, will be addressed in a long-range plan?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the condition of our small craft harbours and the service they render to fishermen are of extreme importance to myself and to the Government.
That is why, in the Throne Speech of last autumn, a reference was made to the importance of improving the management and long-range planning of our harbour program and of ensuring safety and the adequate provision of services to fishermen.
For that reason we are looking very carefully at all the decay and deterioration which we inherited from the previous Government as a result of its lack of effective management.
We will abide by our commitment to improve the condition of those harbours, including the harbour at Auld Cove, about which I know the Hon. Member is very concerned. An immediate start will be made on repairs to that important harbour in his riding.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. At a time when the House is debating the issue of capital punishment, the Minister is aware that the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled, in the case of a 17-year-old charged under the Young Offenders Act with two counts of first degree murder, that the young offender would be subject to a maximum penalty of only three years of imprisonment.
Does the Minister agree with the defence counsel for the accused young offender who said that a maximum penalty of that sort was just too short, and will he take immediate steps to amend the Young Offenders Act?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and congratulate him on his ongoing interest in matters relating to the Young Offenders Act.
As Hon. Members will know, the responsibility for the Young Offenders Act has only been recently transferred to me. However, I have studied this particular aspect and understand that the Minister of National Defence, when he had responsibility for the Young Offenders Act, in fact made a proposal to his provincial counterparts in the consultation process to mandate transfer hearings in respect of young offenders to
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
adult courts. That was not accepted by the provincial authorities at that time.
Naturally 1 am supportive of the initiative taken by my predecessor who had responsibility for the particular Act. 1 will continue to monitor the situation and to discuss the matter with my provincial counterparts. If an appropriate amendment comes forward on the basis of that consultation, we will proceed in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 should like to advise the House that I have received an application for argument on a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and to indicate to him that 1 will hear it in a few minutes.
If the Hon. Member wishes to proceed this afternoon, I acknowledge that I have notice of the matter.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 remind the House that a few days ago a question of privilege was raised in the House by the Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) respecting questions which were put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 14 by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek). In my opinion, the question raised affects the very nature of Members' rights and immunity.

I should say that we in this House are protected by absolute privilege in respect of everything we say on the floor of this Chamber. This is a difficult thing for the public to understand, and this is why I want to explain it carefully.
There are only two kinds of institutions in this land to which this awesome and far-reaching privilege extends-Parliament and the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other. These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited. Absolute privilege ensures that those performing their legitimate functions in these vital institutions of Government shall not be exposed to the possibility of legal action. This is necessary in the national interest and has been considered necessary under our democratic system for hundreds of years. It allows our judicial system and our parliamentary system to operate free of any hindrance.

May 5, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Elon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are longstanding practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.
The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment. The normal course of a Member who felt himself or herself to be defamed would be the same as that available to any other citizen, recourse to the courts under the laws of defamation with the possibility of damages to substitute for the harm that might be done. However, should the alleged defamation take place on the floor of the House, this recourse is not available.
Hon. Members will remember that 1 commented some time ago that originally when the absolute privilege was extended to Members of Parliament, as applied to the British House of Commons in a different age when things said within that House would probably not be heard throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom, circumstances were very different. Today, as a consequence of television and electronic broadcasting, anything said in this place is said on the street right across this country, and that has to be borne in mind. In these circumstances a Member can be expected to claim a violation of his or her privileges and to argue the case very strongly. I point out that if a statement is made here or an innuendo is passed in here no Member can go to court for correction or damages, even though that statement is said outside this place the moment it is uttered here.

The Chair has a serious responsibility in such cases. The Chair of course does not resolve the question, only the House can do that. However, on the basis of the evidence available, the Chair must determine whether the question has priority over all other business. When the Chair so rules, a motion is moved and usually the question is referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. The Chair has a crucial role to play in this respect.

In the case before us certain questions were asked which, in the view of the Hon. Minister, conveyed grave implications against his integrity and were, therefore, damaging to his reputation. That is the position which the Minister took. I have carefully examined the questions, together with the interventions which took place following the Hon. Minister's statement, and I confess to be very troubled as a result.
Perhaps, as has been argued, the questions did not directly violate the practice of this House concerning the making of charges and the levelling of accusations. 1 remind Hon.
Members that I listened carefully to the questions and 1 did allow them. Nevertheless, I am sure all Hon. Members can appreciate the Hon. Minister's concern.
The House heard the Minister's statement. It is a longstanding tradition of this House that an Hon. Member's word is accepted without question. Given all the circumstances in this case, I am sure that the Minister's capacity to function as a Minister and a Member of this House is in no way impaired. I point out to Hon. Members that this is the real issue of privilege, although there are obviously other matters that surround the particular facts in this case, but the Chair has to look very carefully at the exact point of privilege.
With regard to the questions of which the Minister complained, legitimate though they may have been, I have already confessed to being troubled by their content. I would urge all Hon. Members to take the greatest care when framing such questions. Questions concerning conflict of interest guidelines are, of course, legitimate. Members are entitled to use facts they have been able to obtain and verify as the basis for such questions.
I would remind the House, however, that a direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion of which the usual notice is required. This is another long-standing practice designed to avoid judgment by innuendo and to prevent the overextended use of our absolute privilege of freedom of speech. One of my distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker Michener, in a ruling of June 19, 1959, which has frequently been quoted in this House stated that this is a practice demanded by simple justice.
I find therefore, again under the circumstances and after the most serious consideration of the evidence before me, that this matter should not take precedence over all other business. I would urge Hon. Members to take great care in this Chamber with respect to the honour of each other.



Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It arises from an answer given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to a member of the Opposition with respect to Mr. Warren Hart and the awarding of an ex gratia payment of $56,000 to Mr. Hart.
The Solicitor General in his response said that the $56,000 was awarded to Mr. Hart because "for years he did a laudable job" for the Government of Canada. As part of that laudable job, we know from signed testimony by Mr. Warren Hart that he spied on two MPs, myself and the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who was the Solicitor General at that time. Mr. Warren Hart also in his sworn testimony stated that he was in the employ of the RCMP security forces. In fact he was spying on an M P and on his own boss in the RCMP.
May 5, 1987

I believe that the statement by the Solicitor General has a clear implication that somehow or other 1 am a security threat to this country and, in fact, in some way this places a cloud over my functioning as a Member of Parliament.
1 would suggest and remind Hon. Members that when 1 raised this matter of Mr. Hart spying on an MP, on myself, Mr. Justice Jerome ruled that there was prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege. Then when I put the appropriate question to the House, the Government of the day voted against the matter being examined by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. Here we have the Solicitor General bringing back into this House the ghost of 1976 and admitting and saying that Mr. Hart "for years he did a laudable job" for the Government of Canada.
If you find that there is prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has raised a question of privilege. Are there other Members wishing to rise on this matter?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, just to supplement the remarks of my hon. colleague, I think it is important to note that while the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) appeared to have quoted from, I believe, page 500 of the report of the McDonald Commission in referring to the laudable nature of the activities of Mr. Hart, certainly the Solicitor General himself appeared to adopt those remarks and that characterization as his own.
1 would remind Your Honour that the gentleman in question illegally opened mail, tapped telephones without warrants, possessed stolen merchandise and illegal weapons and bugged conversations of various politicians and Party caucuses.
The question of privilege is a very clear and very important one. If in fact the Solicitor General is suggesting even indirectly that the actions of Mr. Hart were in any way laudable, the implication is clearly that the targeting of a politician, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) as well as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), may have been appropriate. Clearly that is quite unacceptable.
Finally, this is the same Minister who recommended the payment of $56,000 of taxpayers' money, an ex gratia payment, to this individual. At the same time as this payment was recommended, payment was denied to another former member of the RCMP, Mr. Kim Westberg, who performed an outstanding service for his country in a major undercover operation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, at the very least, to call upon the Solicitor General to set the record straight by indicating that by the payment of this sum of $56,000 or by his silence on the characterization of Warren Hart's actions as laudable, the Minister himself is not imputing that those actions were acceptable.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make it quite clear that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) seems to be somewhat misinformed. I did not make the statement that "while in Canada for over four years he performed laudable service for the people of Canada". That was a conclusion reached by the McDonald Royal Commission after a rather exhaustive discussion of the entire matter. I merely quoted the statement made by that commission in its report.
I would also like to point out that I did not recommend the payment of $56,000. This recommendation was made by a person who had conducted an independent inquiry into this particular matter. He came to the conclusion that this payment should be made, and as a result of that, the payment was so made.
1 quite agree with the final statement made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). 1 would not in any way want to suggest or have Hon. Members feel that anything Mr. Hart did with respect to the characters or reputations of these two gentlemen would be condoned by me in any way. 1 regard both Hon. Members as hon. gentlemen. Indeed, one is my predecessor and I have no reason to consider him anything but an hon. gentleman, and the same is true of the Hon. Member from our northern Ontario community of Nickel Belt.


Mr. Speaker:: The point the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has made is an important one. Many Hon. Members who are here now remember the incidents of which the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has reminded us, and they are not necessarily happy memories. 1 am not surprised at all that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has raised this matter.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) made a suggestion which might resolve the matter, and that suggestion seems to have been picked up very quickly by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher). In authorizing the payment of this amount of money to this particular individual upon the recommendation of a committee, the Solicitor General in no way endorses the activity of which the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and no doubt others would complain. In fact, I think those complaints would go well beyond the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
The Chair is indicating that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt would have a good deal of support in this House for the complaint he has brought to the Chair. The point the Chair is making is that the Hon. Member for Burnaby seems to have made a very helpful suggestion. 1 think the Hon. Solicitor General has made an absolutely unqualified statement indicating that in authorizing this payment, he is in no way and under no circumstances impugning the character, the loyalty or the patriotism of any Hon. Member in this place including the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. As that statement was quite unequivocal, I think it would dispose of the matter at the present time.

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
I say to the Elon. Member that I believe I express the feelings of a great many Elon. Members in saying that we regret very much that Hon. Members had to be reminded of that unpleasant event.
concerns of Canadian taxpayers with regard to this important piece of legislation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at 1 p.m., the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) had the floor.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to continue my submission on third reading stage of Bill C-22.
In his opening remarks, the Minister talked about a number of things and I responded by addressing the process of Bill C-22. I responded to the Minister's challenge regarding polls, and I believe that if you check the record, Mr. Speaker, you will find that 1 concluded just before the break by mentioning the positive effects the 1969 Patent Act had on job creation throughout Canada.
Unfortunately, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) indicated to the House, though I do not believe he did so intentionally, that somehow opposition Members were merely attempting to promote fear and cause anguish and anger over Bill C-22. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that Canadians who understand and realize only too well the effects of Bill C-22 have been writing to Members of Parliament and, yes, Members of Parliament have been writing to them.
I have here a letter from the Manitoba Women's Institutes dated January 16, 1987, signed by the executive secretary. She says the following in part:
The Manitoba Women's Institutes position re Bill C-22 is as follows:
1.	We reject the proposed legislation.
2.	We would accept a four year monopoly on a drug developed by a
pharmaceutical company providing-
3.	Any royalty monies derived be directed into research within Canada.
This particular representative of the distinguished Manitoba Women's Institutes made that presentation in a letter addressed to the committee studying Bill C-22. I do not believe it fair or reasonable to conclude that such individuals as this are attempting to promote fear, anguish and havoc among Canadians with regard to this Bill. These are legitimate
An organization from Vancouver called End Legislated Poverty sent a letter to the clerk of the committee. It is signed by Jean Swanson, the co-ordinator. It reads in part as follows:
We believe that changes to the Patent Act proposed in Bill C-22 will increase the cost of drugs and jeopardize provincial free drug programs. The universality of the Canadian medicare system is at stake.
To conclude, we believe that the existing Patent Act and the program of compulsory licensing provides balance between the generic and brand name manufacturers and benefits sick Canadians. The Act does not need to be changed. If it is changed in accordance with Bill C-22 low-income Canadians will get poorer and sicker.
The Minister referred to letters which he received. I want to refer him to letters I received which I am sure other members on the standing committee received as well. I have a letter dated December 17, 1986, addressed to the clerk, copies of which were sent to Members of Parliament. It reads in part:
We are very concerned that the proposed Bill will raise the cost of drugs which are necessary to many people's health and are already too expensive.
Many women we work with don't have the money to pay for drugs now when they or their children are sick. We cannot afford any increases in those costs.
That letter comes from Ellen Woodsworth of Wages for Housework in Vancouver, British Columbia. The letter is dated December 17, 1986. I was not appointed to the legislative committee by my Leader until some time in January of 1987. This is another organization which opposes Bill C-22.
The Second Mile Club of Toronto wrote a letter on February 11, 1986, to the Clerk of the standing committee. They said:
The members of High Park Branch, Second Mile Club of Toronto, unanimously supported a resolution in support of the stand taken by the Ontario Association of Senior Citizens Organizations representing 18 organizations and about 250,000 seniors in the province protesting the forthcoming Mulroney Government Bill C-22 that the seniors claim will cost Canadians an additional $650,000,000 in drug prices in the next 10 years.
They have attached a list of signatures of some of those individuals. I have no reason to question the authenticity of those names. I suppose I could spend my every waking hour for the next several weeks checking with every individual. That is another organization opposed to this Bill.
During our deliberations at committee stage we heard a number of good presentations. One of the best was that of the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation which came before us and expressed a great deal of concern. They talked about the historical perspective of the Patent Act prior to 1969 and thereafter when legislation was passed by this House. They talked about the Canadian pharmaceutical industry and its profitability as announced by Professor Eastman in his study which was concluded in September,
1985.
May 5, 1987

I believe that Professor Eastman is recognized by all political parties as an authority on the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. It was he who stated quite categorically that as a result of the 1969 Patent Act Canadians saved millions and millions of dollars. Therefore, the senior citizens in this organization made the case that the profitability of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is very good indeed. They talked about the impact of compulsory licensing and raised a number of questions about the future cost of drugs.
In addition to talking about the cost of new drugs which will be entering the Canadian market after this legislation is passed they raised the question of what will happen to the drugs which are presently in the system, the generic drugs. Generic companies operating in Canada which are told that the rules of the game have changed, that they will have to wait seven to 10 years before they can reproduce drugs newly manufactured by the multinational corporations, have two options. They cannot reproduce the new drugs coming on to the market and, therefore, can either go under or increase the price of generic drugs on the market today.
If you have discussions with housewives and other individuals who purchase drugs at the drugstore you will learn that that is happening. I do not have the money to conduct a survey to substantiate that that is taking place in every part of the country, but I know that it is taking place in certain parts of the country.
Leslie Batterson, the President of the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, and the Ottawa representatives, Herbert Hanmer and Ross Chapman, made a very impressive presentation of the reasons they oppose Bill C-22. These are average, ordinary Canadians making submissions to Members of Parliament from all three political parties with regard to an important piece of legislation. I suggest to you again respectfully, Sir, that this is not information manufactured or innovated, if you will, by opposition Members of Parliament.
The Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations made a presentation before the committee. Contained in their presentation is the following:
Proposed changes to the Patent Act contained in Bill C-22 will reduce the availability of low-cost alternative generic drugs and that, without competition, brand-name costs are certain to rise;
Commitments made by multinational firms for investment and job creation in Canada are unenforceable;
Canada will never achieve world class research status in pharmaceuticals without a strong domestic industry, which this Bill prevents; the legislation can't effectively penalize brand name manufacturers who fail to follow pricing guidelines; direct payment costs for drugs will rise; private insurance plans will be forced to increase premiums, provincial taxes will be forced to rise to continue public drug benefit plans; hospital costs will increase with a concurrent effect on provincial medicare premiums; Jobs will be lost through a cut-back in the generic industry and the failure to establish a Canadian fine chemical industry.
Patent Act
All of these statements made by this worthy organization can and have been sufficiently substantiated that I would concur with them.
Provincial taxes will be forced to rise to continue public drug benefit plans. The Government has, in effect, admitted that. Otherwise, why would it provide $100 million for the provinces over a four-year period? If it is simply pulling that figure out of the air, then it represents rather sloppy management and forecasting by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
It is another organization that has a great deal of concern with regard to the purport of Bill C-22. It illustrates that it is not only members of the opposition Parties who are opposed to this legislation. The Nova Scotia Government Employees Union wrote to us. They wanted to appear before the committee and wanted to travel to Nova Scotia. While the Minister can suggest that we have had ample time for this Bill and so on, the number of people who wanted to make presentations and address this matter is remarkable.
In Nova Scotia the President of the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union said: "If this Bill is allowed to pass as it stands, it will have serious effects on people residing in the Province of Nova Scotia". That explains the situation quite succinctly and appropriately.
Other groups that are opposed to Bill C-22 may share my thoughts with regard to the effects on senior citizens, the elderly, the poor, the sick, and those who do not have any private medicare drug plans. Will the Minister tell the Royal Canadian Legion that its 590,000 members have it all wrong? Is he suggesting that all of us are village idiots and that we do not know what we are talking about when it comes to Bill C-22 and the fact that prices will rise? Will the Minister go to every Legion command in this country and tell our veterans and the associate members that they do not know what they are talking about? The Minister does not have the guts to do that because he knows that the prices for prescription drugs in this country will go up.
The President of the Royal Canadian Legion wrote to the Minister in November, 1986. Let me quote from part of that letter as follows:
We believe the proposed changes will undermine compulsory licensing by granting brand-name companies ten (10) years of patent protection for all new drugs before they can be made available as less expensive generic equivalents.
As this letter clearly suggests, older Canadians are quite concerned. But the Minister says that it is the Opposition's fault because it is trying to cause anguish and fear among Canadians. I do not believe that opposition Members of Parliament will fool the Royal Canadian Legion, particularly its President. The President goes on to say:
Despite statements that the new legislation will not increase the price of existing brand-name drugs by one cent, we expect that within a very few years the Government's present initiatives will end up costing all Canadians more money. The elderly, the sick and the poor are all bound to suffer financially with any change in federal legislation.

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
In addition, we foresee possible cut-backs in existing health services and/or drug subsidy plans in some provinces.
On behalf of our organization, which has a membership in excess of 590,000 I wish to express disapproval to the Government's proposed course of action which may force Canadian taxpayers to pay more than they now do to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry.
In a small province like Nova Scotia, its people and its Government will have to get more money to fund their drug plan. We are a have-not province and it will either have to raise taxes or impose cut-backs. It will have to cut back in the health care sector on such things as jobs in our hospitals. The first to lose their jobs will be the cleaners and those people on the bottom. The doctors, senior Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers in the Department of Health will not lose their jobs, it is the jobs of the working men and women that will be cut in order to raise the money. Of course, the Government has confirmed this as a result of its offer of $100 million on which the provinces can draw on a per capita basis.
The Minister of Health in the Province of Nova Scotia said that it will cost the taxpayers of that province up to an additional $25 million a year.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Royal Canadian Legion of Canada that the price of drugs will rise and will affect citizens throughout Canada. Not only will it affect elderly Canadians who are on a pharmacare program, what will happen to the four million Canadians who do not belong to a pharmacare program? They will not be subsidized and will have to pay through the nose so that multinational corporations can enjoy a larger profit margin. Mr. Stacey of the Royal Canadian Legion wrote to the Minister. It is not just opposition Members of Parliament who are opposed to the Bill.
Another organization that has a great deal of credibility, like the Royal Canadian Legion, is opposed to the legislation. Does the Minister suggest that the United Church of Canada has it all wrong? Are all those who oppose Bill C-22 fear-mongers who are trying to perpetrate havoc and anguish among Canadians? Are they all wrong? Is that what the Minister is telling the United Church of Canada?
Let me quote what the United Church of Canada thinks about this legislation:
The Working Unit has reviewed the proposed changes and has concluded that they threaten the long-term best interests of Canadians. We urge you to abandon the proposals and to reaffirm Canada's commitment to providing security for Canadians who are sick and dependent on affordable drugs.
We are disturbed that this decision is being taken under pressure from external, political and corporate sources. We are also disturbed that the case for the changes to the Drug Patent Act is being made on grounds that give little assurance to Canadians that the values undergirding the country's health care system will be retained.
That letter was sent to the Clerk of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-22, and it was distributed to all Members of Parliament for their benefit. In fact, it was a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on December 17,
1986.
Is the United Church of Canada wrong? Is the director of the office of the church, Dr. Bonnie M. Greene, a fearmonger?
Is she trying to perpetrate havoc in this country? I think not. I think the Minister's charges are totally unfounded and unwarranted and, from my perspective, they are not fair or reasonable at all.
The Cangene Corporation which came before our committee talked about patents. This is an interesting company because it is a Canadian company founded in 1984 by two experienced Canadian industrial genetic engineers. It said, and I quote:
-patent policy can also serve the purpose of furthering the Government's industrial policy with respect to a particular sector of the economy. This, of course, has been amply demonstrated, not only in the existing Patent Act, but also in the amendments proposed in Bill C-22 as they relate to the pharmaceutical industry. It is also amply demonstrated in that other nations have used variations in fundamental patent policy for the purpose of encouraging development and innovation in particular sectors of the economy.
That was one of the primary purposes of the 1969 Patent Act. Yes, it was to lower prices, but also to use this as a tool to develop our own Canadian pharmaceutical industry. Since that time we have seen the proliferation of generic companies which, I think, have added substantially to the providing of affordable drugs to Canadians from coast to coast.
Cangene was very concerned about the proposed changes to the Canadian Patent Act, and I quote from page 2 of its brief:
In this brief we will provide a rationale for the role patents should play in the development of a Canadian-owned genetically based pharmaceutical industry, and explain why Canada should not permit or encourage, as a matter of policy, the granting of patents on natural products per se, but rather on the real advance illustrating the invention; namely, the biotechnology process method utilized in the production and manufacture of the natural product already existing in nature.
This is another Canadian company, incorporated under the laws of this country, and doing rather well financially, I might add, which is also opposed to Bill C-22 for all of the reasons I have already stated.
In September of 1986, when the Government was in the process of reintroducing the Bill, it attempted to bring forward on June 30, 1986, a number of national organizations, such as the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Health Coalition, the Catholic Health Association of Canada, the Federal Superannuates National Association, the Inter Pares/Women's Health Interaction, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, the President of the National Council of Women of Canada, The National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Health Action International-Canada, the President of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Chair of the Canadian Federation of University Women. They all signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister requesting that he not proceed with the drug Bill.
All of these agencies are national in scope. Professional people work with these organizations. They have all had an opportunity to review and examine the legislation and thereafter to make their views known. They have let it be known to parliamentarians, to government Members as well as to members of the Opposition, that they are opposed to Bill
May 5, 1987

C-22 for many of the reasons to which I have already alluded, that is, higher prices, no enforceable guarantees for research and development or jobs, the ineffectiveness of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and, of course, the human tragedy it will cause to individuals who will not be able to afford drugs because of their high cost.
One of the more interesting submissions we received, and 1 say "interesting" because we had a good opportunity for questions and answers, was from a company called Green Shield Prepaid Services Inc. This is a Canadian company. It is a non-profit Ontario corporation offering pre-paid extended health services, including pharmaceuticals, dental, hospital, nursing, vision and audio care, prosthetic devices and, more recently, legal service plans. It has been in business for quite some time. It was interesting to hear what it had to say with regard to Bill C-22 and the cost of drugs, and I quote:
Drug costs are comprised of two elements, namely, the professional fee paid to the pharmacist, and the cost of ingredients. The professional fee, payable by Green Shield under its program, has increased almost in lock-step with the rise in the Consumer Price Index.
There has been a 118.8 per cent increase in fee compared with the Consumer Price Index of 112.4 per cent in the 10-year period from 1976 to 1986. There is only a difference of 4 per cent or 5 per cent. The professional fee went up in concert, if you will, with the Consumer Price Index. The report continues:
On the other hand, the cost of ingredients has risen significantly in excess of the increase of the CPI for the same 10-year period.
There was a 247.1 per cent increase in ingredient costs as compared to a CPI of 112.4 per cent. It has more than doubled. We have the two costs, the professional fees, which kept in line with the Consumer Price Index, and the ingredient costs, which more than doubled the CPI. That is fairly significant. The report continues:
These cost increases are comprised in part, of inflationary changes plus the sharply increased cost of new drugs when such drugs are first introduced to the market-place. (For example, a month's supply of Tagamet, when first introduced, cost $27, but drugs newly entering the market-place, today can cost as much as $100 for a month's supply).
Thus the professional fee paid to the pharmacist by Green Shield has been reflective of the market-place in terms of inflation, but the cost of ingredients has risen well in excess of the cost of inflation producing a significant enhancement of revenues of the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Green Shields is an non-profit organization which has been in the field for a considerable period of time, and that is part of the submission it made to members of the legislative committee examining this particular piece of legislation.
I think we should take note that the objections and concerns being expressed by Canadian organizations are rather substantive, to say the least. The submission concludes:
We respectfully submit that the changes proposed to Section 41 by Bill C-22 are inappropriate in the interests of Canadians. The costs will be borne by Canadians-the benefits will accrue to the multinational drug manufacturers, companies which are already very profitable by any standard of measurement.
That is precisely what members of the Opposition have been saying in the Chamber, outside the Chamber, on the hustings and in the provinces. This reputable non-profit organization
Patent Act
came before the committee and made this substantive conclusion based on its experience in the pharmaceutical industry.
Again, I refute very seriously the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that the opposition to Bill C-22 is merely in the imagination of Members opposite.
One of the many-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member will be speaking for a few more moments, and I regret to interrupt him, but I would like to bring to the attention of the House the Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tonight.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Film industry-(a) Distribution-Canadian control. (b) Government position; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Trade-Canada-United States negotiations- Parliamentary debate on possible treaty; the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Harbourfront-(a) Moratorium on construction projects at Toronto waterfront. (b) Types of projects involved.

[Stage Direction]
\English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, one of the many magazines and booklets that I receive in my office and to which I refer on a fairly regular basis is a magazine entitled Policy Options. This is a publication which is produced in Atlantic Canada and, as Hon. Members might expect, coming from Atlantic Canada 1 am very careful to examine its contents to make certain that I agree with it. If I do agree with it I want to be in contact with the authors of the articles so that I can better familiarize myself with points that they are trying to make. An individual by the name of Roy Davidson wrote in the December issue of Policy Options an article entitled "The Scope of Patents". In the article he referred to some of the findings of the Eastman Commission of 1985. One of the things he stated was the following:

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
The 1985 Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry... estimated that savings to Canadians as a consequence of compulsory licensing amount to a minimum of $211 million annually.
That is a significant sum of money. He went on to state:
Total employment in the industry rose by 29 per cent in Canada between 1967 and 1982, compared with an increase of only 23 per cent in the drug industry in the United States for the same period.
I wish to read some of the author's conclusions into the record because I am sure Hon. Members would like to reflect upon them. The author states:
The legal grounds for compulsory licensing are straightforward enough. In the first place, the compulsory licensing provisions of the Patent Act are not in contravention of the international Patent Convention to which Canada is a signatory. That Convention principally requires that the advantages extended to Canadians by the Patent Act, also be given to the nationals of other countries that are likewise signatories. The Convention does not require that an unqualified monopoly be conferred on the patent owner.
I wish to make these points because 1 will be coming to arguments, particularly one on intellectual property in the convention which established that particular matter, in order to refute the Government's claim that somehow Canada is in breach of that particular aspect. The author went on to state:
In the second place, the idea that compulsory licensing infringes the Canadian Bill of Rights has already been rejected by the courts. The Federal Court has held that title to a Canadian patent for medicinal products is granted subject to the compulsory licensing provisions of the Act. Compulsory licensing, the Court said, does not therefore constitute subsequent interference with title. It is a qualification of the title as and when granted.
The notion that inventors are entitled as a matter of natural justice, not just to monetary rewards, but to complete control over the use of their inventions, is nowhere accepted in practice.
I think Hon. Members should take particular note of the following:
Various countries have identified particular fields where patents are not granted at all. Some countries give products themselves patent protection, while other countries give patent protection only to the processes by which products are made. Other countries besides Canada make provision for compulsory licensing, but the grounds on which compulsory licences may be granted vary.
He went on in the article to note:
The United States and Canada grant patents for a period of 17 years from the date of issue. Most member countries in the European Economic Community grant patents for a period of 20 years from the date of filing. So does Japan. The term of patent protection in India is only seven years.
Further in the article he states:
-South American countries do not generally grant any patent protection at all to drugs, and neither did Italy until quite recently. Japan requires foreign firms to co-venture with domestic firms to market new drug products. Britain and Norway rely on the centralized purchasing power of the state to regulate both price and industrial benefits.
France and Belgium impose price controls on pharmaceutical products. Many countries establish selective or negative lists of drug products as the basis for determining eligibility for reimbursement under government pharmacare plans.
In refuting the Minister's claim that Canada has to keep up with the rest of the world the point has to be made that there are countries that are presently operating pharmaceutical
industries which are quite different. Canada was one of the countries which had a unique system which benefited Canadian consumers. I believe, as I think has been confirmed by Eastman in his report, that it has saved us millions of dollars. It has also addressed in a very fundamental way the Canadian pharmaceutical industry and the development of a Canadian pharmaceutical industry.
We should not be apologizing for the behaviour that was set in motion in 1969 with regard to the Patent Act because it has been a great success. It is not in contravention of any international statutes to which Canada is a signatory. It is not in breach of any of the federal statutes here in Canada, whether it be the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do have a law which is on the books which is working, and working to the benefit of Canadians.
Yet what has the Government chosen to do? Change the law to benefit whom? Multinational corporations.
Finally, the author of this article concludes by saying:
In summary, the reasons so far given by the Government for changing existing policy on compulsory licensing of patented drugs are not persuasive. The proposed policy cannot be justified by a naive appeal to inalienable property rights that don't in fact exist. The proposed policy is likely to be a costly and relatively ineffective industrial development strategy. The proposed policy weakens, rather than strengthens, Canada's bargaining position in trade negotiations.
The author of this article, Mr. Davidson, is a reputable Canadian. He was educated at the Universities of Alberta and Toronto. He has made his findings after examining quite thoroughly, I would assume, the legislation, as well as the reports that have been written on the pharmaceutical industry. He concludes that this policy that we will adopt by the will of the majority of 211 Conservative Members of Parliament is not in the best interests of Canadians.
Another group to appear before the committee was the Manitoba Coalition on Health and Higher Education. That organization was formed in late 1985 and consists of 34 member groups. The coalition represents 250,000 Manitobans who are committed to ensuring that high quality health care and higher education services are available to all Manitobans, indeed all Canadians. The coalition maintains that these amendments to Bill C-22 will give multinational drug companies a 10-year monopoly on any new drugs developed, and cost the Canadian consumer millions of dollars a year. They will seriously jeopardize the ability of certain segments of the population to purchase medication. They believe that if passed, the amendments will have a serious effect on Canada's ability to provide its people with the quality health care they deserve. For that and other reasons the coalition strongly opposes Bill C-22.
May 5, 1987

As Members of Parliament surely we would want to listen very carefully to what those people are saying. They have to deal with those affected. They must have some understanding of how the system works and how it will work as a result of this Bill. I cannot understand why the Government, or perhaps I should say the Minister, continues to say it is only opposition Members who are opposed to Bill C-22. We have reputable organizations like the Manitoba Coalition on Health and Higher Education who are opposed to Bill C-22.
I received a letter, as all members on the committee did, from a couple in British Columbia. They sent a copy to their Conservative Member of Parliament. God knows what he did with it. However, it was sent to him and to the Clerk of the committee. It is dated December 28, 1986. It says:
Dear Sir:
My husband and I are both in our 60s and we are writing to express our urgent concern over the proposed change in the drug legislation. We feel this legislation should not be allowed to pass as it will, without a doubt, lead to increased drug prices. We can now purchase a generic drug at one-third to one-half the price of the same brand name drug. If the generic companies are no longer able to copy a brand name drug for at least ten years, people, and particularly the older person, will face an increased burden on their already limited income.
As concerned citizens and voters, we urge you to reconsider this legislation.
Ordinary Canadians, concerned about prices they have to pay for prescription drug prices, are writing Members of Parliament to express their opposition to the thrust of Bill C-22.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada came before our committee and made a very impressive and moving presentation. In listening to that presentation and reading their brief, I thought, for the benefit of Members who did not have an opportunity to be there, including the House Leader of the NDP, I would read into the record-


Nelson Andrew Riis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening with rapt attention to my hon. friend's comments on this Bill which, I appreciate, he is speaking against. Since the time on third reading debate is limited to today and another day, tomorrow or some other day, does he plan to continue his comments which, in a sense, preclude his colleagues from speaking, as well as others, in this House? I am as much concerned about his own colleagues who have indicated an interest in speaking. I am just kind of curious about the motive of the Hon. Member with respect to helping us decide how we might approach the debate on this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not a point of order but maybe the Hon. Member can say whether he plans to share any of this debate which, as you know, will come to an end after two days. I know other Members would like to speak, but it is up to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). The Chair is at your disposal.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in response to the reasonable request of my colleague, I do have other things I wish to read into the record. I do not think it will take an inordinate amount of time. They are important-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Indeed they are.
Patent Act


David Charles Dingwall: -to our deliberations.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada made a presentation to the committee, as I was saying before a point of order was allowed by the Chair, and I would like to read into the record the conclusions and recommendations the presentation made.
Results of the survey indicated that while the majority of their respondents had full or partial assistance in the payment of their drug costs, 24 per cent did not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I do not know whether I misinterpreted what the Hon. Member said. Did he say the point of order was allowed by the Chair? I said it was not a point of order and I put the question to the Hon. Member. I do not want to get into an argument between the NDP and the Liberals. It is up to them to decide who is going to be the next speaker and who is not. I do not intend to recess this House again in three, four or five seconds either. You have to decide among yourselves what is going on. The Hon. Member has unlimited time, and I am just suggesting to the Hon. Member that this is a two-day debate and maybe he would like some of his colleagues to take part in the debate. That is all I said and that is the way I interpreted it.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am glad you made that clarification because I had a different interpretation of your remarks. I appreciate your second statement because it does, for me, qualify the interpretation I originally had of your first submission. So I thank you very much for rising in your place and explaining that very important point to me.
Of those paying their own drug costs, 29 per cent paid between $50 and $100 a month, and 18 per cent paid over $100. On an annual basis this represents a direct cost of between $600 and several thousand dollars to each of these people. That is a phenomenal amount of money for those people to have to pay.
Of the 16 most commonly used drugs by respondents, eight had generic or other competition. Savings achieved by the use of cheaper equivalents ranged from 21 per cent to 89 per cent. The proportion of drugs with competition in any future list will decrease if amendments to the Patent Act are passed.
This presentation, which is neither against nor for the legislation, assesses very reasonably the shortcomings in Bill C-22. It should be read in its entirety by all Hon. Members in order that they will have a better and fuller appreciation of what is taking place.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops also wrote to the Minister. I believe it was the Bishop of Calgary, Paul J. O'Byrne, who wrote to the Minister expressing his concerns about Bill C-22. I should like to read part of his submission to destroy the very weak argument and comment of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that the opposition to the Bill is in the imagination of opposition Members of Parliament. He wrote the following:

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
We have followed the debate on this legislation and have noted that the pressure to change Canada's generic drug laws has not come from the people of this country. Indeed, national organizations representing thousands of Canadians from virtually all sectors of society have been unanimous in calling upon your Government not to proceed with the proposed legislation.
We add our voice to that call because we believe that this legislation, if enacted, would have detrimental effects on average Canadians, especially on the elderly and the poor. Thanks in large part to existing drug patent legislation, Canadians enjoy low prescription drug prices and high standards of health care.
The proposed amendments will cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars annually in drug price increases. The changes will also have serious implications for health care costs and for the future of medicare in this country.
The letter goes on, but basically it asks the Government to withdraw the Bill for many of the reasons which Members of Parliament, ordinary citizens, and other Canadians have expressed about the effects of Bill C-22.
We on the committee were not only limited to receiving briefs and presentations from individuals who appeared before us. We also received numerous presentations from individuals who could not attend. One such group was from the Province of Quebec, the ACEF-Centre, Association Cooperative D'Economie Familiale du Centre de Montreal. It indicated the following opinion:
-Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act, should be withdrawn.
By making it impossible for pharmaceutical companies to copy drug products quickly, the bill would result in the medium term in the consumer having to pay more for prescription drugs. Indeed, the consumer would end up paying more, either directly at the pharmacy or in taxes or medical insurance premiums.
Furthermore, the ACEF-Centre believes that this bill does not deal directly with the real problems affecting the pharmaceutical industry, namely the overabundance of similar, useless and even harmful drugs on the market, the lack of research to develop drugs that are truly effective in treating illnesses which are now incurable, the excessively high percentage of funds allocated for advertising purposes, etc.
Another distinguished Canadian organization of professional people opposes the thrust of Bill C-22.
On several occasions the Minister said to the House that he had two resolutions from the Province of Quebec supporting the thrust of Bill C-22. 1 do not doubt it. However, it is interesting to note that other legislatures or assemblies in different provinces have also had the subject matter of Bill C-22 before them.
I do not wish to downplay the significance and importance of the resolution from the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec, because it is an important one, but equally so I would have thought that a Minister of the Crown would have availed himself of the opportunity to express very clearly what other legislatures have done.
The Minister of Health and Social Services in Prince Edward Island and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General wrote a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in November, 1986, in which they said:
This Government is strongly opposed to any amendments which will result in an increase in the cost of prescription drugs. While this position was conveyed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the Minister's Conference in Thunder Bay, we feel it is necessary to reiterate it in writing.
To date, we have no guarantee that the proposed amendments will result in any economic benefit to the Province of Prince Edward Island or that the provincial drug bill will not increase because of these amendments.
One of the persons who sent that letter was the Liberal Minister of Health of the Province of Prince Edward Island. As well, the Legislature of Prince Edward Island convened a session and, by unanimous consent, passed a resolution in opposition to Bill C-22, which I should like to read into the record. For whatever reasons, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs failed to make mention of the matter in his deliberations. I am not suggesting that he did not want to give balance to his argument. He just wanted us to hear only one side! I hope to give balance to the argument and to put both sides of it before the House. The resolution reads:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has introduced amendments to the Patent Act which will inexorably over time result in an increase in the price of prescription drugs;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Prince Edward Island has recently introduced a Drug Cost Assistance Plan which strives to reduce the cost-burden of drugs for senior citizens;
AND WHEREAS increased prescription costs will adversely affect this Plan and indeed all other citizens of our Province who require drugs from time to time;
AND WHEREAS there is no more than a token, non-statutory requirement in the proposed federal scheme for pharmaceutical manufacturers to meet any research and development expenditure commitments;
AND WHEREAS there is no direct economic benefit which will accrue to Prince Edward Island as a result of the proposed amendments;
AND WHEREAS this Government is committed to obtaining prescription drugs at the lowest possible cost to the citizens of Prince Edward Island;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Prime Minister in the strongest possible terms not to proceed with this Bill.
That was Resolution No. 6 regarding the Patent Act dated March 10, 1987, passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island. However, the Minister rose and spoke as if they did not even exist, as if the senior citizens, the elderly, and the other people of that province did not count for anything.
I think it is a very important document, just as important as the one from the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec. I hope Hon. Members give due consideration to what the people of both those provinces are saying through their elected representatives.
I have another resolution opposing Bill C-22 which was passed by another legislature. It is of great importance. Again, because of the Minister's refusal to look at both sides of the issue, he did not draw attention to it in his deliberations. I am not suggesting that he did it intentionally, because that would be unparliamentary. However, I have a telex from the Clerk of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly which was addressed to the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to all Members of the House of Commons which reads:
May 5, 1987

The Manitoba Legislative Assembly has directed me to send you the following resolution which it adopted on Wednesday, April 29, 1987.
The resolution reads:
Whereas the availability of safe pharmaceuticals at reasonable cost is fundamental to the health and well-being of Canadians, and
Whereas Section 41(4) of the Patent Act as amended in 1969 has provided the vehicle whereby Canadian licencees can produce low-priced generic substitutions of brand-name pharmaceuticals to be marketed in Canada, and
Whereas according to the Eastman Commission, these generic substitutions saved Canadians well over $200 million in 1983, and
Whereas these generic substitutions resulted in a saving in hospital, pharmacare and prescription costs for Manitobans amounting to over $14 million in 1986, and
Whereas the drug reimbursement paid out by the provincial Government through its universal pharmacare program has risen from $4.3 million in 1975 to $28 million in 1986, and
Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act which delay the introduction of new generic substitutions will result in even higher hospital, pharmacare and prescription costs, while providing few alternative benefits to Canadians, and
Whereas the cost to Manitobans of the delayed entry of new generic substitutions will be over $2 million in the first year after the changes, and could total $44 million by 1995, and
Whereas the increased costs will be borne directly by consumers both at the counter and through increased costs to our pharmacare program and will especially affect the elderly and those who require continuous medication, and
Whereas the federal Government, in spite of strong representation by the public opposing the amendments, and in the face of constant pressure from the multinational drug companies, continues to insist on amending the Patent Act.
Therefore be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Government of Canada to withdraw the Bill outlining amendments to the Patent Act which would result in higher cost drugs for all Canadians, and
Be it further resolved that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly be instructed to send copies of the resolution to the Federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and all other Members of Parliament.
This is signed by Mr. W.H. Remnant, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The telex number is available if it is to be tabled.
There we have another legislature in this country speaking out against the harmful effects that Bill C-22 will have upon the citizens of that particular province, namely Manitoba.
We hear this cry from other provinces. Ontario sent a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs opposing the proposals of Bill C-22. He offered some possible constructive changes to the Bill, and of course the Minister dismissed them. The additional costs in Ontario will be about $35 million. The Government of Saskatchewan is opposed to Bill C-22. There was a provincial election and money for the farmers. Then Saskatchewan changed its mind. Representatives came to committee and made a presentation. I have to be fair, it was not the Minister responsible in the Province of Saskatchewan, it was the Deputy Minister of Health, I believe. He was the one who, under cross-examination by Members of Parliament, in reading through his brief had about 9 to 11 preconditions and if they were to be met, Saskatchewan would support the Bill. Fortunately, or unfortunately, when I
Patent Act
questioned him, he would not, and perhaps in all fairness, could not say that he supported or did not support the Bill as it now stood because he was representing his Minister and was not in a position to exercise that sort of ministerial discretion which we know can only be given to a Minister and not his deputy.
We have seen government representatives, organization representatives, representatives of national organizations, representatives of non-profit corporations and representatives of Canadian corporations. We have had citizens groups, the Legion and people from the Church of Canada. Numerous Canadians from all walks of life, unions and what have you, all rose in opposition to Bill C-22. Some Members may say this is sickening. I do not think the stand, the suggestions, the queries and the concerns of the United Church of Canada are sickening. I do not think that the views of the Royal Canadian Legion of Canada, of their veterans, their associated members and all other members approximating 590,000, on the subject are sickening. I think they are relevant and germane to our deliberations as we proceed with the debate on Bill C-22 and the effects the Bill will have on Canadians from coast to coast.
The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, which I must admit is one of the lead organizations, is opposed to Bill C-22. It has a vested interest in being opposed and we should understand that off the bat. If one looks at the Canadian pharmaceutical industry, we want to see multinational corporations in operation as well as our own Canadian generic firms. That is what we want to see, Mr. Speaker.
I have listened attentively and patiently to many claims in committee. I wish to quote briefly what a number of organizations have said on this Bill. First, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association said this:
-we do not think there is any real social or economic reason to change the current system of compulsory licensing. It has brought only good to Canada ... world-class industry must have six separate sectors: pure research, applied research, fine chemicals, brand name manufacturers, generic manufacturers and the new biotechnological companies.. . Bill C-22 will reduce Canada's industry to only two components and will result in whopping big reliance on foreign firms for our drugs.
That is found at pages 3:7 and 3:8 of the brief, if Members find it important enough and wish to check on it.
What does the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada say? It says:
These companies (the multinationals) have indeed made their announcements (of investments). 1 think they have also said very clearly that if the Bill is not passed, not all of this investment will go ahead, and I expect you will see evidence.
I am not saying that this is blackmail, but it is pretty close to it. It is either "you pass this legislation or we will not proceed with our investment intentions". As a Canadian parliamentarian and one interested in public policy, I find that to be a very unfortunate statement made by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.

May 5, 1987
Patent Act
Let me quote the Canadian Labour Congress. It says:
It is the position of the Congress that the Bill presently being debated is one that is based on political considerations and not on economic ones-
The last thing in the world the ethical manufacturers in this country want is competition.
Let me come now to the Canadian Health Coalition, another reputable national organization which has professionals in its midst and has worked with this subject matter for quite some time. The coalition said:
Our conclusion is that the only ones to benefit from Bill C-22 will be the multinational pharmaceutical companies, while the cost to Canadians, both economically and in terms of their health, will be substantial.
Next is the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, which said:
-we are of the opinion that Bill C-22 and the policies related to it are seriously flawed. We therefore urge the Government to withdraw this legislation.
Now I come to the National Federation of Nurses Union, which said:
Unionized Canadian nurses, as taxpayers, health care consumers, and providers, urge you to withdraw the proposed amendments. The legislation is not the right combination.
Canadian nurses are opposed to Bill C-22. As you know, Mr. Speaker, many of these nurses are the ones who have to give medication which is prescribed, if you will, by physicians in Canada.
Let me read what the Public Service Alliance of Canada had to say:
We reject the premise that Canada will be denied access to needed medication unless Bill C-22 legislates a monopoly for drug manufacturers. We also reject the argument that Canada's drug patent system is unfair to the so-called innovative companies.
Of course, the Minister would lead us to believe that anyone opposed to Bill C-22 is out to lunch. That is not fair. He did not say that, he said that those who are opposed to Bill C-22 are opposition Members of Parliament. I think 1 have provided in spades today examples of Canadians' and Canadian organizations' opposition to Bill C-22. It is not merely opposition Party Members who are opposed to Bill C-22.
Professor Kell Antoft who came before the committee said the following:
-our experience has shown the branch plant operations are not concerned with basic manufacturing primarily but with repackaging-
We need to reinforce basic research in our universities ... I do not think this will be done by increasing the profit margins of the drug industry.
-but one can speculate about the plea that they (the multinationals) are unable to support research when the parent company is obviously directing research into what they can do with their excess cash.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, numerous organizations have come forward to express their reservations about Bill C-22.
Before my colleague from the New Democratic Party joins in this debate momentarily, I will conclude by saying that it has been our contention for quite some time that the Liberal Party is very much opposed to Bill C-22. We have adopted and promote the recommendations contained in the Eastman report which provide for a period of exclusivity of four years
provided certain moneys are paid into what is known as a pharmaceutical research fund. The Eastman report has been our Party's position from day one, and I want to reiterate that that is our position. We follow the recommendations of the Eastman report very clearly.
I think there is irrefutable evidence that drug prices will rise and will rise dramatically over the next number of years. Senior citizens, the poor and the less fortunate will have to pay the price of the Government's actions. There is very little support in Canada for changing the legislation in the way the Government proposes to change it. We have heard from legislative assemblies in Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and, yes, the Province of Quebec and from numerous organizations opposed to Bill C-22. We have questioned the constitutionality of this Bill and Ministers have responded by saying that there is nothing wrong with it. I suggest that there is.
Industrial benefits will not be equally distributed. There are no guarantees that it will enforce research and development commitments. There are no enforceable guarantees of job creation. I say sincerely that the process has been wrong and has been undermined by government Members of Parliament. The substance of the Bill will have a negative effect on all Canadians and particularly the elderly, the poor and those on fixed incomes. Canadians do not support the thrust of Bill C-22. For those reasons, I am opposed to Bill C-22, and I am certain that after reflection, you too will be opposed to it, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a Bill brought forward by the Conservative Government. I will not describe it as a Progressive Conservative Government because there is nothing progressive about it.
We are at third reading stage of a Bill which will wipe out the legislation enacted in 1969, legislation which amended the Patent Act as it affected the manufacture and sale of prescription drugs. Prior to 1969 when multinational drug companies controlled the entire prescription drug market, there was virtually no research done and Canadians paid the second highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, drugs which are so important to many people and particularly to the young and seniors.
A whole series of studies were done in 1967 and 1968 which proved the fact that Canadians were paying the second highest prices in the world for drugs. The legislation we enacted in 1969 permitted companies, which came to be described as generic drug companies, to receive licences from companies which had researched and developed prescription drugs after a certain period of time during which the brand name drug companies could get back the investment they made in researching, developing and producing drugs. Generic companies were permitted to produce drugs on payment of royalties to the companies which had originally developed the drugs.
May 5, 1987

The legislation that was passed in 1969 had a tremendously important effect on Canadians. The drugs produced by generic companies were sold to consumers at the retail level at prices that were usually half or less the prices paid for brand name drugs.
A few years ago when the former Liberal Government was in power, the multinational drug companies, which had always opposed the legislation because they felt it interfered with their very substantial profits, put pressure on the then Government and persuaded the then Minister, the Elon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), to appoint Professor Eastman, a professor from the University of Toronto, to study the organization of the industry and its profits and to make recommendations. Those recommendations were not tabled in the House until after the Liberal Government was defeated and the present Conservative Government was in power.
The legislation that is before us bears little resemblance to the recommendations made by Professor Eastman. Professor Eastman found that the companies were making very substantial profits, among the highest profits made by any industry in Canada. Professor Eastman told us that in 1983, the last year for which he had figures, Canadians saved $211 million as a result of the competition to multinational drug companies provided by generic companies. The professor suggested ways in which he felt the law, which had been enacted in 1969, could be amended so that multinational companies would have a little more protection but the consumers would not have to pay exorbitant prices. Those recommendations of Professor Eastman have all been virtually ignored by the Government as demonstrated in this legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a very important point of order. After the Speaker recognized that the Dome takeover was important enough to grant an emergency debate in the House of Commons, the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources decided it was appropriate to summon before it as witnesses the Chairman of Dome and the President of Amoco. We learned moments ago that the committee has decided to reverse that decision and not hold hearings with these two individuals as witnesses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. In view of the fact that this subject matter is not before the Chamber, I do not think I can accept this as a point of order. The Hon. Member could give written notice to the Speaker and raise it as the first item of business tomorrow. However, I cannot permit this particular point of order in the House at this time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 accept your judgment on this. I was only asking to serve notice with regard to a very special section of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. 1 refer to section-
Patent Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know exactly which chapter and verse the Member is going to quote. If the Member wishes to serve notice, he should do so to the Speaker and we can carry on with debate today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker. For clarification, do I take it that you would entertain a motion that the House summon to the bar various witnesses? Are you recommending that a resolution to that effect be put forward tomorrow?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Speaker will have to entertain the point of order and then make a ruling accordingly.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be so kind as to give a clarification? The Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) left the impression in my mind that the Speaker might be in agreement with such a motion. I hope that is not the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 cannot read the Speaker's mind. I cannot make a decision on the point of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), nor can I make one on what the Hon. Minister has just said. The Chair will decide when the Hon. Member submits a written request. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has the floor.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the Government as contained in this Bill was greeted with almost unanimous opposition by a host of groups from across the country which wrote to, telephoned, and visited Members of Parliament. Those positions were rejected by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who, in innumerable speeches, claimed that there was little opposition to this Bill and that the people who opposed it did not know what they were talking about and had not looked at the facts.
In debate on this Bill at second reading stage the Minister, who believed that members of the Opposition were holding the Bill up unnecessarily, argued that the Bill should be allowed to go to committee where all the witnesses would be heard and all the evidence would be seen. At almost the first meeting of the committee a government Member moved time allocation.
The result was that only a small fraction of the groups which wanted to testify and register their opinions on the Bill were allowed to do so. The time allocated to each group was limited to 45 minutes. The committee met five times a week and heard three delegations at each meeting. In the nearly 25 years that I have been in this House I have never seen a committee restrict discussion in the way in which this committee did.
When the Bill returned to the House at report stage, a motion was moved that debate at report stage be limited to one day and at third reading stage to two days. This motion, of course, passed as a result of the Government's large majority.

May 5, 1987
The Senate
Let us clearly understand the real views of the Government of Canada. 1 find it very strange, to put it mildly, that the Minister would continue to insist that there is very little opposition to the Bill given the large number of groups from almost every segment of our society which have opposed this Bill and continue to oppose it today.
On April 22 the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote to the Minister. I cannot believe that the Minister believes that this is not a responsible organization. They said in part:
We have followed the debate on this legislation and have noted that the pressure to change Canada's generic drug laws has not come from the people of this country. Indeed, national organizations representing thousands of Canadians from virtually all sectors of society have been unanimous in calling upon your government not to proceed with the proposed legislation.
We add our voice to that call because we believe that this legislation, if enacted, would have detrimental effects on average Canadians, especially on the elderly and the poor.
We heard from the Canadian Legion and the United Church. I will quote again, as 1 have done on other occasions, from a letter from Mr. Jack Penner, the President of Keystone Agricultural Producers, who wrote on behalf of that organization to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on November 25, 1986. He said in part as follows:
-KAP members share the concerns of those who believe that extended patent protections will, by limiting the ability of drug manufacturing companies to produce generic copies by means of royalty payments, raise the prices charged to consumers for pharmaceutical drugs to unwarranted levels. Farmers and their families are, of course, part of the general consuming public, and stand to be seriously affected in any such situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: When this debate resumes the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) will have seven minutes remaining plus a 10 minute question and comment period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 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-MOTIONS   THE SENATE SUGGESTED EQUAL PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL ELECTED REPRESENTATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Taylor:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and create a new Senate composed of Senators elected by the people of Canada on the basis of equal representation for each province and territory, and to initiate discussions to that end with provincial and territorial governments at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), which seeks to abolish the Senate and create a new Senate composed of Senators elected by the people on the basis of equal representation for each province and territory.
The motion also urges the Government to initiate intergovernmental discussions to that end at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members will know, Senate reform is getting a great deal of attention these days. The subject was broached last Thursday at the First Ministers meeting at Meech Lake, as part of the discussions on the Quebec constitutional question.
The First Ministers agreed to a second round of constitutional discussions where Senate reform will be analysed in depth. The provisions of the Meech Lake Accord with respect to this second round are as follows: The accord requires that a First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution be held not less than once a year and that the first be held within 12 months of proclamation of the present amendment but not later than the end of 1988; and it provides for entrenchment in the Constitution of the following items on the agenda: Senate reform, including the functions and role of the Senate, the powers of the Senate, the method of selection of Senators, and the distribution of Senate seats. It will also include the roles and responsibilities of fisheries and other agreed upon matters.
Mr. Speaker, it also provides for entrenching in the Constitution the annual First Ministers' Conference on the Economy now held under the terms of the February 1985 Memorandum of Agreement, and finally, the Accord stipulates that until constitutional amendments regarding the Senate are accomplished, the federal Government shall appoint persons from lists of candidates provided by provinces where vacancies occur and who are acceptable to the federal Government. Once these measures have been ratified, this fact should encourage the federal and provincial governments to reach agreement on the future of the Senate. Furthermore, as a token of its good faith, the federal government has promised to allow provincial governments to participate in the selection of Senators until a reform is implemented. This provision reflects the Government's desire to ensure that the provinces will be able to participate fully in our national political life.
1 also support the decision to entrench in the Constitution the annual First Ministers Conference on the economy. As Hon. Members know, the process for holding this annual conference was set in motion in February 1985 at the Regina First Ministers' Conference.
This constitutional commitment should promote two major objectives of this Government: The pursuit of national reconciliation, and the harmonization of federal and provincial policies with due respect for provincial jurisdictions.
May 5, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the other principles underlying the Meech Lake Accord.
First, the Accord acknowledges the distinctive character of Quebec within Canada, whose two major linguistic communities, one centred in but not limited to Quebec, and the other concentrated in the rest of the country but also present in Quebec, together constitute a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian federation.
The Accord also aims at providing constitutional protection for a broader version of an immigration agreement concluded with Quebec. Over the years the Government and seven provinces have concluded administrative immigration agreements taking into account their particular concerns.
The most comprehensive such agreement is the Cullen-Couture agreement made with Quebec in 1978. Under this agreement Quebec has extensive powers, based on its own selection criteria, in the choice of foreign immigrants. This agreement has proved to be quite constructive since it was first implemented, and its principles have been found satisfactory.
Pursuant to the Meech Lake Accord, Ottawa will also be able to make similar agreements with the other provinces, based on their own requirements.
In view of its distinct identity, Quebec has a vested interest in the membership of the Supreme Court. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec is the only province whose legal system is governed by the civil code instead of by common law, the system in effect in all other provinces and territories.
Quebec's civil code is entrenched in the Constitution and recognized by the Supreme Court Act, a federal Act that specifies that at least three of the nine justices of the Court shall be appointed from the civil bar. To be on the safe side, Quebec wants to have this safeguard entrenched in the Constitution.
The Accord provides for entrenching the Supreme Court, and the requirement that at least three of the nine justices come from Quebec, in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Accord will allow for provincial input regarding appointments to the Supreme Court. Quebec and the other provinces will thus have an important role to play in the appointment of justices selected from the members of their respective bars.
The courts have maintained for a long time that under the Constitution, Parliament can raise taxes in any manner or under any tax system it sees fit but it can also appropriate funds for any purpose whatsoever. In addition to funding the programs and activities that come under its jurisdiction, Parliament may therefore incur certain expenditures for purposes that go beyond its jurisdiction.
I am satisfied that the constitutional amendments arising from this Accord will have the effect of enhancing the legitimacy of our national institutions, with the assurance that any changes in those institutions can be made only with the consent of the majority.
The Senate


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the motion which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) with respect to the Senate of Canada is one which has considerable appeal for me. I take the position now, as I have for a very long period of time, that in a democratic system there really ought not to be any place for an appointed body which makes the claim that it represents either individual citizens, groups of Canadians, sectors of our society or regions of the country.
It is quite true that in a democratic society there are many appointed persons, for example, judges, public servants, presidents of universities and so on. However, in no case of which 1 am aware is an appointment made in total and complete absence of any system of accountability. It is also true that having a Senate of Canada lacking the obligations of precise and structured means of accountability does not mean that we do not have many hard-working and distinguished Senators. They may impose upon themselves very rigid and demanding sets of standards. We all know that an individual who is his own boss can be the hardest taskmaster possible. In the so-called other place down the hall there are undoubtedly such individuals. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the reverse may be true. However, it is not for me or for any Hon. Member to make these kinds of judgments.
From a report prepared by the Senators themselves, it is clear they are convinced that their role, their work, their importance and their functions can only be legitimized by way of election, be it by direct election or, in my view, a less desirable method of proportional representation where the successful candidates would be drawn from Party lists.
I note that the motion calls for abolition as a prerequisite to the creation of a new Senate composed of Senators elected by the people of Canada. It would seem to me that immediate abolition would signal the Government's seriousness about Senate reform. Before a new structure can be erected, it is of course necessary to clear the site. The old order changes, making way for the new.
For a long while I was one of those who believed that abolition in and by itself would be sufficient. Today, however, I am better able to see the value of a bicameral Parliament in a federal state such as ours. A second elected Chamber can be, or could be an effective protector of regional interests. A second elected Chamber could act as a check upon the very extensive executive powers which exist in a parliamentary system such as ours.
The Hon. Member for Bow River calls for equal representation from each of the provinces and the Territories. I want to commend him most heartily for having included the Territories. So often the two great Territories of this country are neglected, forgotten and left out. For example, they were absent at the recent Meech Lake meetings at which a very significant accord was arrived at for the future of this country.

May 5, 1987
The Senate
At one point the idea of equal representation from each province and territory gave me some difficulty. I contrasted a small province and a very large province in terms of population and it gave me some difficulties. However, having been an active observer at the First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights, I saw the important role played by the territorial Governments there, and I saw the important role played by some of the smaller provinces, for example, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. I also saw that where convincing and effective leadership was expected from the larger provinces they were often found to be wanting.
Professor Geraets of the University of Ottawa envisages in an article he recently wrote, which was published in The Globe and Mail, an enlarged elected Senate with the regions of the country having approximately equal representation. This is a slightly different approach from that advanced by the Hon. Member for Bow River. Professor Geraets sees the regions as being first, Atlantic Canada, second, Quebec, and third, the west. Of interest to me, leaving that aside, is Professor Geraets' suggestion that 10 additional seats ought to be established for the aboriginal people of Canada. That has a considerable amount of appeal for me.
In conclusion, I would like to raise a few questions to which I hope other speakers in this debate will provide the answers. If the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord is ratified, then provincial powers in this country are going to be greatly enhanced and the federal Government will correspondingly be enfeebled. I would like to know if an elected Senate would strengthen further the voice of the regions and the provinces at the centre, or would it find itself in competition with provincial Governments for allegiance and decision-making on matters which are vital to a particular region or province? I note, for example, that in the United States of America, a very powerful Senate has caused-not in all cases but in many-state Governments to be diminished in both their authority and influence.
1 ask also what the effects of a powerful elected Senate would be on the authority and functions of this House? It would undoubtedly change us in many ways. However, I still say that if ever an institution stood in need of a major overhaul and renewal, it is this Canadian House of Commons. The parliamentary system in Canada, I argue, suffers from institutional retardation. Our evolution lags well behind that of Westminster and behind the parliamentary system which has evolved in the federal state of Australia.
A reformed Senate, elected, equally representing the regions, and a reinvigorated and renewed House of Commons, I believe, would give Canadians a better kind of representation, and I think they deserve much better than what our institutions allow at the present time.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence this debate, I would certainly like to pay tribute to
the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Although he may be a senior citizen, I do not know of anyone who is a harder working individual. His energy, integrity and dedication are certainly an inspiration to all of us.
The Hon. Member's motion for an elected, equal and effective Senate has certainly captured the imagination of not only western Canada but of all Canada. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde), mentioned earlier in debate, the Meech Lake Accord is a major step toward that evolution, a Triple-E Senate.
I would like to speak about how we got to the Senate. I would like to refer to a paper prepared by Sean Graham from Calgary. He stated that the Constitution Act of 1867 stated two objectives of the Senate. The first was to bestow power to the less populous provinces so as to protect them from the heavy populated provinces and the second was to act as a chamber of second thought. Obviously, we will have to investigate whether or not the wishes of the founding fathers were fulfilled. I think it is obvious that they were not.
The British North American Act of 1867 dealt with the composition, powers and responsibilities of the Senate. Section 22 states that Canada was to consist of three divisions: Upper Canada, Lower Canada and the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Each division was to have 24 members. Sections 26 and 27 state that any additional members added to the Senate were to be added equally to each division, thereby maintaining equilibrium between the divisions. Section 147 states that in the case of the admission of Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island, each would receive four members in the Senate. In the event that Prince Edward Island entered Confederation, she would be considered part of the maritime region. The BN A Act of 1915 recognized the west as an independent division and granted it 24 Senators.
I would now like to quote Canada's first Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald, who said the following during the Confederation debate:
There would be no use of an Upper House if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent House, having a free will of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body.
He added further:
No Ministry can in the future do what they have done in Canada before-they cannot with the view of carrying any measure, or of strengthening the party, attempt to overrule the independent opinion of the Upper House by filling it with a number of its partisans and political supporters. .. The fact of the government being prevented from exceeding a limited number will preserve the independence of the Upper House, and make it, in reality, a separate and distinct chamber, having a legitimate and controlling influence in the legislation of the country.
May 5, 1987

Let us look at what has happened since those debates in the intervening 120-odd years. I would now like to quote the words of James K. Gray who addressed the Calgary Chamber of Commerce on February 17. He stated:
In World War I the price of wheat began to mount and the government of day froze the price; cut the top off the boom and extracted from the farmers of Western Canada a disproportionate contribution to the war effort.
He stated further:
In World War II it happened again! All prices were frozen, but at the time the freeze was introduced farm prices were still at the late-depression levels and the booming world prices, which could have provided an opportunity for our farm operators to clear debt and consolidate their operations, were withheld.
It happened again in peacetime between 1972 and 1985 when the central Government cut the top off the oil and gas boom. National policies on oil and gas reduced the revenues that would have flowed to the producing provinces by $56 billion. That $56 billion would have gone to the producing provinces and the producing companies. Instead, these revenues were passed on to the consumers of Canada and to the federal Treasury. That is what has happened. That is why the people of western Canada are demanding a stronger say in the system.
A number of people have looked at reform of the Senate. I would like to list some of the groups of people who have spoken out in this respect in the last eight years. The Canada West Foundation put out a report entitled Alternatives in 1978. The B.C. Government put out a constitutional report in 1978. There was an Ontario Government advisory committee in 1978 which dealt with the subject, as well as a federal government amendment Bill of 1978. There were the Conservative policy proposals in 1978, as well as an article by the Canadian Bar Association in 1979. The Pepin-Robarts task force called for reform of the Senate. The Canada West Foundation put out a regional representations paper in 1980 on this topic. The Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate on Senate Reform published its report in 1984. The Alberta Legislative Committee on Senate Reform issued its report in 1985, and the Macdonald Royal Commission published its report in 1986. There is no doubt that through this debate more and more people are looking at it and saying: "We have a problem. We have had this problem for 120 years. It is time that we addressed it".
What is happening in other parts of the world? In the House of Commons central Canada has 60 per cent of the seats. In terms of equal representation it would only have two parts out of 10. The West and the North have 28 per cent of the seats of the House of Commons, while Atlantic Canada has but 12 per cent. Essentially, then, 60 per cent of the House of Commons represents the population of central Canada in Ontario and Quebec. There are predictions that 50 per cent of Canada's population will be located in Ontario by the year 2000.
In the United States the largest state has two Senators, as does the smallest state. Switzerland has the same balance. In Australia the largest state and the smallest state each has 10
The Senate
representatives. In Germany the largest state has five Senators while the smallest has three. In Canada the largest has 24 while the smallest has four. We have a built-in imbalance in our system. This leads to alienation. To address this alienation we have to address reform of the Senate. We must move to a Triple E Senate.
I will finish my remarks as I commenced them by congratulating my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River, for bringing forward an excellent and worth-while motion.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in the debate on the motion presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). The Hon. Member is one with whom I at times violently agree and with whom I at times violently disagree. There is no doubt that the Hon. Member is indeed an experienced parliamentarian and that I have no trouble at all with many of his ideas. I enjoy listening to the Hon. Member when he takes a few strips off the CPR and the central banks. I sit and applaud him because I think that many of his arguments and reasons are sound. Indeed, he very often represents the sense of western Canadians. As such, I appreciate the remarks and the comments that he often makes. On this occasion I have very little difficulty in supporting the Hon. Member. The proposal for a Triple-E Senate has a lot going for it.
First we have the notion of an elected Senate. We in the NDP have always considered the appointed Senate to be an obsolete body. Imagine these people, most often appointed for purely political patronage reasons, having a say in the legislative process. That is surely a throwback to medieval times. It has no place in a modern democratic society. It is amazing that we have kept this appointed Senate for as long as we have. However, it has been, I suppose, to the advantage of the various Governments to maintain the status quo.
If we are going to have a second body, it of course should be elected. There should be no question about that. As to an equal Senate, if we are going to have a second legislative body like a Senate, then there is something to be said for it being equal. It should represent the regions of this country. The House of Commons is elected on a proportional basis, and we could have the Senate as a second body of review representing the regional interests.
In a unitary state you can make an argument that such a body is not necessary. In a federal state, however, one with continuous tensions between different regions, cultures, and, very often, points of view, to have an equal Senate allows the legislative process to take into account regional differences. I suggest that an equal Senate would facilitate a smoother functioning of Government in this federal state. I suggest that with an equal Senate it is possible that we will have less regional alienation than now exists.

May 5, 1987
The Senate
There is no question that today there is a tremendous amount of alienation in western Canada. I am sure you have heard on many occasions that our fellow Canadians out West do not feel they are really full partners in Confederation. They are and have been treated historically as second cousins. When times are good in the West, our wealth has been taken from us. There was the NEP. The previous speaker mentioned other historic cases such as during wartime where the prices of wheat and other grains were frozen, all to the betterment and advantage of the bulk of our population in central Canada. Having an equal Senate would ensure that those resource grabs will no longer occur. Western Canadians need that reassurance. It is one thing to have resources taken from you in the boom times, but in the down times we have a dickens of a job trying to get some assistance in the West.
The debate last week on the farm crisis is an illustration of the type of battle which has to occur in order to get back some of the wealth we lost in the boom times. When you survey the editorials of the eastern newspapers you find that they go on and on about how it is time that the farmers bit the bullet. They have to accept that we should have fewer farmers. These, Mr. Speaker, are fair weather friends. There are some people in central Canada who are quite willing to see great hunks of our farm population going under in these bad economic times. They are not willing to offer assistance to ensure that those farms remain viable so that when the price of wheat gets back up we will be functioning farm units.
Coming back to the question in front of us, I think an equal Senate would help in that regard. It is not a guarantee, but it is at least a step in the right direction so that all regions in this country are treated on an equal basis.
We then come to the third E, and that is effective. Again 1 have no problem with an effective Senate. There is work to be done by a second House. There is work to be done which will help contribute to wise legislation and wise governing of the country.
I am not certain about the final outcome of the conference at Meech Lake with respect to Senate reform. My initial reaction is that Senate reform will be frozen. In essence the patronage opportunity which used to belong to the governing Party on the federal level has now been transferred to the governing Parties in the provinces. Really we have replaced federal patronage with provincial patronage. As well, every province will now have a veto on Senate reform. That, I think, will make it extremely difficult to achieve Senate reform in the future. The First Ministers will be discussing Senate reform in the conferences ahead so we will know more about their attitude.
Whether the various provinces will be honest and prepared to see an effective and equal elected Senate remains to be seen. However, at this stage I feel somewhat pessimistic. I am not convinced that all the provinces will agree to Senate reform or forgo their new-found patronage opportunities and instead depend upon an elected Senate. That is why 1 was particularly surprised that the Premier of Alberta was not more forceful in trying to obtain a new agenda for Senate reform.
I accept and understand that the conference dealt primarily with obtaining some agreement to allow Quebec into the Constitution. I laud both the Government and the Premiers for their efforts and their accomplishments. However, I really had some fear that when it comes to Senate reform the agreement as it now stands will really not allow for genuine Senate reform. Certainly we do not have an elected Senate now. It will now be appointed by the provinces. We do not have an equal Senate because the distribution of Senate appointments remains as skewed as it was before, with central Canada appointing most of the Senators. We certainly do not have an agenda to allow for an effective Senate.
Again I am somewhat fearful that the way things are now we will not see genuine Senate reform in the very near future. Yet, as to the resolution in front of us, I am quite prepared to endorse it and support it and I congratulate the Hon. Member for Bow River for an excellent motion.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon on the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon), 1 have had the opportunity of working with the Hon. Member for Bow River since 1982. I certainly admire his dedication to the House and to his riding, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to sit with him.
The motion calls for the abolition of the present Senate and its replacement by an elected Senate with equal representation for each province and territory. It also asks that intergovernmental consultations to this end commence at the earliest opportunity. The motion is certainly timely in light of the recent historic agreement reached by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers at Meech Lake, Quebec, on April 30.
Calls for a directly elected Senate of some kind have grown significantly in recent years. In January, 1984, for example, a special joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate recommended a system of direct election which would give smaller provinces proportionately more Senators than populous provinces.
The joint committee also recommended that the Senate consist of 144 Members, with 24 Members each from Ontario and Quebec, 42 from the combined Atlantic provinces, 48 from the West, 4 from the Northwest Territories, and 2 from Yukon.
In March 1985, a Select Special Committee of the Alberta Legislative Assembly endorsed what has popularly become known as a Triple-E Senate, meaning direct election, equal representation by province, and effective powers. As the Alberta special committee argued, Canada needs an effective Upper House in order to protect the diverse interests of Canadians. The recommendations in that report were unanimously endorsed by the Alberta Legislature in May, 1985.
May 5, 1987

On March 10 of this year, the Alberta Legislature unanimously confirmed its support for the special committee's report.
Others have suggested looking at the Australian Senate as a means of grafting the federal principle on to a parliamentary system of government. Like the Canadian Senate, the Australian Second Chamber was intended to ensure that state interests would be taken into account with the national Government.
Senate reform and a directly elected Senate, in particular, are issues which have acquired considerable public appeal and hold great attraction to a number of political leaders in the west. There is little doubt that direct election represents, in part, a desire for a stronger voice in federal institutions. Similarly, there is some sympathy for the Triple-E proposal, though difficult questions remain about the powers of such a Senate, its relationship to the House of Commons, and its effect on the powers of provincial Governments. As noted by Professors Peter McCormick and David Elton in their March 1987 article for the Canada West Foundation entitled The Western Economy and Canadian Unity, the replacement of an existing Senate with a new elected Senate will raise a wide range of questions of detail which will have to be worked out. Nevertheless, they added:
If Canada is to maintain and enhance the opportunities for its citizens in an increasingly competitive world, it must create national institutions which are capable of acting in the interests of all Canadians.
Finally, Professors McCormick and Elton impressed upon the First Ministers the need for attention to Senate reform. They said:
We have only begun the process of the renewal of the Canadian federation, and if the impetus is lost now we may not have the luxury of waiting another century before the problems arise again.
Prior to the First Ministers' meeting at Meech Lake, Premier Getty endorsed the Triple E proposal. In his April 5 speech to the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party Convention, he declared that Canada "can only grow in a healthy way if our regional representation is fair and balanced''.
While not in any way downplaying the importance of Senate reform, on April 9 in the House the Prime Minister reminded all First Ministers of their commitment under the August 1986 Edmonton Declaration that the top constitutional priority was the following one:
-to bring about Quebec's full and active participation in the Canadian federation. There was a consensus among the Premiers that then they will pursue further constitutional discussions on matters raised, which will include, amongst other items, Senate reform, fisheries, property rights, etc.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
If the matter of Senate reform is reached pursuant to this formula enunciated by the Premiers, the Government of Canada will have a proposal to put forward in regard to Senate reform.
In this same spirit the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) injected an element of caution as we enter the second round of constitutional discussions. Speaking in Camrose, Alberta on April 25, he pointed out that many questions "have to be considered very carefully as we proceed with Senate reform because you cannot change one institution in isolation from the rest". The Minister also affirmed that "we want changes that make Canada work better, that require
The Senate
both commitment and care". He added that this was the approach in which the Government would address the undeniable need for Senate reform.
The Prime Minister and the 10 Premiers took a crucial step in strengthening the federation by reaching an agreement on the top constitutional priority-bringing Quebec into the Constitution. However, the process does not end there. The communique issued at Meech Lake on April 30 required the following:
A First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution be held not less than once per year and that the first be held within 12 months of proclamation of this amendment but not later than the end of 1988.
Among the items on the agenda to be entrenched in the Constitution will be Senate reform, including the functions and role of the Senate, the powers of the Senate, the method of selection of Senators, and the distribution of Senate seats.
Finally, as a demonstration of good faith on the part of the Prime Minister, the communique provided:
-until constitutional amendments regarding the Senate are accomplished the federal Government shall appoint persons from lists of candidates provided by provinces where vacancies occur and who are acceptable to the federal Government.
I remind Hon. Members that this change to the method of Senate appointments is a variation of numerous proposals in the past aimed at providing a role for the provinces in the selection of Senators. Among these was one put forward by the federal Government in the 1969 discussion paper entitled The Constitution and the People of Canada. The paper suggested:
The Senate could be partly selected by the federal Government and partly selected by provincial Governments. The method of selection of Senators by the provinces could be by nomination of the provincial Governments.
The Prime Minister announced the following in the House on May 1:
The Meech Lake Agreement is good for Canada and good for Canadians. It will unblock the constitutional reform process and enable Canadians to turn their attention to other issues such as Senate reform and fisheries.
The tabling and proclamation of the Meech Lake Agreement will conclude the first round of constitutional renewal. Senate reform is very much a part and indeed is at the top of the agenda of the second round.
Though much remains to be done, let us not forget that much has been accomplished. I believe, as the Prime Minister declared in his address at Sept lies, Quebec on August 6, 1984, that we are on the threshold of a true national renewal.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to debate the motion sponsored by our colleague from Bow River (Mr. Taylor) concerning the reorganization of the Senate. Perhaps it might be useful if I were to put this question in a certain historical context to make it easier to understand. First I would refer to the Charlottetown meeting of the Fathers of Confederation when these outstanding Canadians set up a parliamentary system designed to protect the interests of every region of Canada, and this was the advent of the House of Commons. They also established a Senate, and one of its objectives was to protect the interests of the various components of Canada, especially its minorities.

May 5, 1987
The Senate
Over the years Members of the House have heard a number of representations aimed at revamping and modernizing the Senate. So our Government too decided to change and modernize to take the present context into account, and particularly to correct the indecency of the previous Liberal administration which, in 1982, chose to ignore 27 per cent of the population of Canada-in other words, when the 74 Quebec Liberal Members forgot to include their province in the new constitutional agreement. Indeed it is easy to understand why they should display so little interest in anything constitutional: As I look around today I cannot see a single Member of that Party listening to what is being said in the House, proof positive that they could hardly care less about the very essence of Canada.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Government had promised to integrate Quebec in the Canadian Confederation. A few years had elapsed since we took that stand and, recently, thanks to the cooperation of all the provincial premiers, especially Mr. Bourassa from Quebec, our Government has been able to offer Quebec full participation in the Canadian Constitution. All Quebecers are delighted with this historic meeting of April 30, 1987, which will remain for us Quebecers and I am sure for a great many other Canadians as significant a landmark as our Fathers of Confederation's meeting in Charlottetown.
The meeting was a success, Mr. Speaker, thanks to our Prime Minister, who managed to obtain a consensus from ten premiers of 10 Canadian provinces on bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fabric. Today, this country is complete, from coast to coast.
Today, I am more of a Canadian because 1 feel Canadian through and through as a result of what was achieved by my Prime Minister on April 30, 1987. We corrected the mistake and the omission the Liberals made in 1982. Furthermore, our provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada decided to provide new possibilities for the provinces including a reevaluation and redefinition of the role of the Senate, and they included in the new Constitution a requirement to consider Senate reform.
They even decided, and this is to take place in 1988, to have a meeting of the 10 premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada on the subject of the functions and role of the Senate, the powers of the Senate, the method of selection of Senators and the distribution of Senate seats. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, to show our goodwill and receptivity to all suggestions by the various provinces that were involved in the Accord reached on
April 30, 1987, our Prime Minister has decided that he will not proceed with further appointments to the Senate before receiving a list of candidates provided by provinces where vacancies occur. We have wiped out the constitutional affront of 1982. We have wiped out Liberal arrogance. We are now Quebecers and Canadians who are proud to be part of Canada. We feel welcome.
Our Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister to formally accept provincial proposals concerning Senate appointments and to take them into account in appointing senators. What a difference with the previous liberal administration!
Think of such a move by Rene Levesque to have someone appointed at the time, and imagine the kind of cooperation that would have existed between himself and the former Prime Minister of Canada.
However, Quebecers and Canadians know there are always improvements to be made. They are needed. This is why my position is to respect a decision made by the 10 Premiers and the Prime Minister on April 30, 1987, until the next negotiation meeting on the Senate that will be held before the end of 1988.
I feel certain, Mr. Speaker, that all the First Ministers will be able at that time to reach a consensus leading to a Senate amendment that will be supported by all.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you recognizing me, knowing however there are only two or three minutes left before 6 p.m., which means I will have to conclude my remarks during the next sitting. In the circumstances, and to prevent my speech from being cut in half and less understood by Canadians, I would ask for unanimous consent for the House to adjourn until the next sitting, so that I may make my speech in one go, 10 full minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
May 5, 1987



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: I rise now to address a question that I have raised in Question Period with the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) regarding the Government's policy on film distribution. The facts are very well known to us. They are pointed out, I am afraid, in very sad detail in the report of the film industry task force which was published in November, 1985. The Government has had well over a year to consider its response. Its response has been very weak, especially considering the very serious situation that when Canadians go to see films at the cinema and pay their money, the money does not gets plowed back into Canadian film production. Because distribution outlets are overwhelmingly American-owned and because of the vertical integration within the system, the money goes mainly into American production. Only 3 per cent of the films actually seen on the screen are Canadian.
This task force came up with some very strong recommendations for reform. First, that the distribution of films and videos in all media in Canada be by companies owned and controlled by Canadians. Very specifically the Government was asked to make a clear policy statement that Canadian ownership and control over distribution in Canada is essential and to take the appropriate legislative and regulatory measures to ensure that this policy is carried out. Has the Government done it, Mr. Speaker? No, I am afraid not. It would appear from remarks made by the Minister that there is no intention to carry out this recommendation of the task force.
There are two more recommendations for specific action. One is regarding tax incentives and the third is the creation of a Canadian film fund with an annual budget of $60 million. Work on this third recommendation has been undertaken, but the fourth recommendation has also been ignored.
The fourth recommendation is to enact measures which will prevent all vertical integration, distribution and exhibition to the extent such integration limits competition and freedom of trade in Canada. The Government has taken only a very modest step in the direction of fulfilling Recommendation No. 4.
The task force composed of experts in the field concluded that its principal recommendations are relatively few. They form a whole and cannot be separated without threatening to upset the balance of the entire structure and should be applied concurrently. The task force is looking for a comprehensive response on the part of the Government and the Government has not made that comprehensive response.
Adjournment Debate
It has been estimated that the film import licensing proposal of the Minister will reduce American control by only 15 per cent or less. Instead of 97 per cent of the profits going out of the country, roughly 80 per cent of the profits would go out of the country. That is not a very significant change.
I would like to compliment the Minister for taking a step in the right direction and to point out the cowardice of the previous Liberal Government which had these facts available to it over the years. The previous Minister, Francis Fox, certainly had access to that information. Yet he turned tail and did not have the courage to stand up to the American majors who are milking money out of Canada, plowing that money back into American productions and leaving Canadians with little opportunity to see the excellent films that do get produced in Canada and a very small fund of money from which to produce more.
I note that the Minister's paper on cultural industries cites European examples of much more vigorous methods of dealing with film production and distribution. Other countries that do more include Austria, West Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, indeed all the EEC countries. Since the 1920s, these countries have protected the production and distribution of films to ensure that they have viable film industries, something which we do not have here.
Canada is treated as a colony of the United States for purposes of film distribution. It is shameful for Canadians to have to be treated within their own country as an appendage of the United States. Of course, we do not have the funds to develop our own industry.
I am afraid that the Minister's response so far has been the desire to be congratulated on the very modest step she has taken, not to look seriously at all four recommendations made by the task force. She seems to consider her step adequate. In effect, she has even repudiated the first recommendation for a Canadian-ownership and distribution policy, a policy countries larger than ours that need this protection even less have instituted.
Our Minister is not standing up to the American distribution companies and is not putting Canadian policy first. I would call on the House to ask the Minister to put Canadian distribution first so that excellent Canadian programs will be distributed and Canadians will have a chance to see them.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's concerns about the distribution of films in the Canadian film industry. The Government has taken decisive action to foster the development of a healthy Canadian film industry, building on the recommendations of the film industry task force chaired by Steven Roth and Marie Josee Raymond. This means addressing all phases of the industry: production, distribution and exhibition. Our goal is to have a viable film industry so that Canadians can have access to films by Canadians about Canadians.

May 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
In a pattern that has hardly changed in the past decade, only about 3 per cent of screen time in Canadian theatres has been devoted to Canadian films. To remedy this abnormal situation, the Government has acted on two complementary fronts. It established a new $30 million feature film fund administered by Telefilm to provide direct financial support of the production and distribution of Canadian feature films.
A stronger distribution sector is needed for two reasons; first, to bring Canadian films to Canadian screens and, second, to participate in financing the production of those films. To be strong, Canadian distribution companies have to be able to do more than distribute Canadian films. They have to be able to distribute more of the films imported into Canada.
To give Canadian distributors an equitable opportunity to distribute imported films, the Government is developing legislation to license the importation of films meant for commercial distribution in Canada. Such legislation will contribute to the establishment of Canada as a distinct market for film distribution. It will further the creation of a healthy production, distribution, exhibition cycle for Canadians and Canadian film and video productions. At present we are consulting with the Canadian film industry, the provinces and, indeed, the American film industry, the distributors of which operate in Canada on this pending legislation.
The American film industry is responsible for bringing more than $200 million in production activity into this country annually, which employs hundreds of Canadians in creative and technical positions.
Our consultations with the American film industry have drawn sympathetic support to the principles and objectives of the proposed legislation. However, we must address their existing presence in Canada with a degree of fairness while allowing Canadians the freedom of choice to see whatever movies they wish to, be they foreign or Canadian. The point of the legislation is to ensure that a significant choice is available in the market of high quality, well-promoted Canadian films to compete with foreign films. I must state that the Canadian film community is very supportive of this move by the Government of Canada.
With this legislation Canada will be treated as a separate country for purposes of the importation and distribution of films. The establishment of Canada as a separate market in North America clearly asserts our foreign identity. The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has announced her intention to introduce this legislation and the Government is committed to the continuing development of the indigenous Canadian cultural industries in Canada.


TRADE-CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS- PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON POSSIBLE TREATY
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when or why you became a member of the Conservative Party. I would like to have a chat with you about that one of these days. However, I became a Member during my university days. Before doing so I went to meetings of all three of our national Parties and I listened very carefully. It was after
listening to what was said at those meetings that I decided that my own views and philosophies were best reflected in the pragmatic, socially progressive and fiscally conservative approach of the Progressive Conservative Party.
One of the most appealing corner-stones of the Progressive Conservative Party, in my view, was its Canadian nationalism. It was the Party, as you know, which created Confederation and Canada. It was the Party which established something called national policy, a tariff barrier which stretched from sea to sea and created a Canadian industrial economy.
That, in my mind, was one of the things which clearly distinguished the Progressive Conservative Party from the Liberal Party, as evidenced by the great reciprocity debate of 1911. That tariff barrier policy was established by Sir John A. Macdonald and supported and defended by Prime Ministers Robert Borden, Arthur Meighen and R. B. Bennett. It has been and is, therefore, a corner-stone of Progressive Conservative policy.
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, can imagine my feelings and the feelings of many other supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party when, in the summer of 1985, the Government decided to embark upon a course of trade negotiations with the United States. I know that your fears, Mr. Speaker, my fears, and those of many other members of our Party were allayed when we realized what was facing us. We realized, first, the importance of trade to Canada. Twenty-seven per cent of our Gross National Product is derived from trade. One job of every three in this country comes from trade. In fact, two jobs of every five in my native Province of Ontario come from trade.
I came to realize the wealth which trade generated and that it helped to create and maintain our social services and cultural institutions. I realized that tariffs, which had been at 30 per cent 40 years ago, had dropped to approximately 9 per cent and even 5 per cent in the case of the United States. In all that time our national wealth had increased some three times and the number of jobs in this country had doubled. At that same time, there were some 300 separate Bills before the United States Congress that are now consolidated into an omnibus trade Bill which, if passed, would seriously affect and damage Canadian trade with the United States and cause jobs to be lost in this country.
The effect of the countervail tariffs of the United States on our softwood lumber products and the effects of the antidumping actions of the United States and the escape clause actions under the GATT escape clause provisions on our shakes and shingles all made me realize that we needed some sort of protective mechanism to protect our jobs in this country. The only way we could do it would be to sit down and negotiate with the United States. To do otherwise would be to invite disaster. Canadians would never forgive us if we allowed that to happen.
May 5, 1987

At the same time, I realize that four times in the past we have successfully negotiated trade agreements with the United States: One in 1935, one in 1938, the Auto Pact and the Defence Production Sharing Agreement.
While my fears, and I know yours, have been allayed, there are other members of our Party and other people in the country who still have great concerns and fears, which I can certainly understand. One of those people is one of my constituents. She is Mrs. Mary MacMillan, who lives on Barbara Crescent. A few weeks ago she visited me to express her concerns about these trade negotiations with the United States. She expressed her fears, and the fears of many others, about the possibility of U.S. domination, a weakening of our economic and cultural sovereignty, and the possibility that these negotiations were irreversible and her inability to take this on trust and faith. She expressed her feeling that we were negotiating our future and our ability to make our own decisions as a country. Of course, she expressed her strong and deep feelings for this country which I know you and I share, Mr. Speaker.
Those feelings largely stem from the fact that we do not know much about the negotiations that are taking place. There is a lot of secrecy in those negotiations, which is understandable, because there must be secrecy in negotiations of this sort. One cannot lay one's cards on the table in a poker game, and we cannot lay them on the table perhaps the way Canadians would prefer so they would know what is going on in negotiations like this.
At the same time, that is why I believe it is very important that all of the facts and all of the terms be made public and put before Parliament, and that there be an opportunity for Parliament to approve it before that agreement is signed. I am not sure that that will allay the concerns of my constituent, Mrs. Mary MacMillan, but it will allay the concerns of many people.
That is why on September 30, 1985, I directed a question to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and asked him if there would be that opportunity to have that information and have Parliament approve the agreement. That is why I repeated, on March 16, 1987, the same question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs made it quite clear that we would get that information, that it would be placed before Parliament and there would be an opportunity to approve it. In his remarks, the Prime Minister seemed to modify that somewhat when he said:
There shall be no treaty signed until such time as Members of the House of
Commons have been apprised of it and have been given an opportunity to
speak to it.
Tonight I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will clarify that once and for all, and advise us and all Canadians that before an agreement is signed with the United States we will know all the terms, all of the letters of understanding, and all of the side
Adjournment Debate
agreements if there are any, and that the House will have an opportunity to approve it before that agreement is signed.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I agree you are a very understanding and sharing Speaker as remarked upon by my friend, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). 1 must say that this was one of the better speeches I have heard on the trade negotiations and I want to congratulate the Hon. Member.
I understand the concern of the Canadian people in these trade negotiations. It is new territory. It is a large comprehensive trade agreement which is very important to the future of Canada. I might point out that although we are in many ways examining new areas, we are doing what I think is some very imaginative work. I go back to the opposition Parties which keep opposing what we are doing but do not come up with any alternative to the status quo, which we feel is just not right.
The question of provincial involvement, I believe, is one which has to be addressed in the approval system. We are bringing the provinces right along on these trade negotiations. The First Ministers meet regularly. They met recently in March and two meetings are scheduled for June and September. We must realize that the federal Government has jurisdiction over international treaties but there may be within the agreement some necessity for provinces to agree in areas of jurisdiction which will affect them directly.
The provinces have agreed with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to work right along with the federal Government in deciding on a ratification process a little later on.

As to whether Parliament can scrutinize and approve any trade agreement reached with the United States, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) already stated in this House that no agreement will be signed until Hon. Members have been informed of its contents and had an opportunity to comment.

1 can assure the Hon. Member as well that with an agreement will come legislation, obviously, which will have to be brought to the House of Commons. At that time approval will have to be given by this House of Commons.


HARBOUR FRONT-MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT TORONTO WATERFRONT. (B) TYPES OF PROJECTS INVOLVED
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on April 13, I asked a question about the Government's announcement of a moratorium on property development on the Harbourfront site in Toronto. Since the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) was not in the House that day, his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) took notice of my question. I am raising it again today because I think the issue is an important one.

May 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Hon. Members will recall that both the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and the Minister of Public Works had announced that certain development projects at Elarbourfront would be halted pending a review of its development policy. The Secretary of State announced there would be a total freeze on projects without City of Toronto building permits. However, the Minister of Public Works announced that some projects would be permitted to go ahead.
These two statements were made on a Friday. One of the Ministers left that day on business outside the country and the other Minister was absent from the House when I asked my question the following Monday. On April 15, two days later, the Minister of Public Works issued a press release which did not resolve the confusion created by the two statements.
There are a number of projects on the Harbourfront property in various stages of development. Whether or not they are going ahead depended on which statement was the real indication of the Government's intent. Some of the projects are commercial developments, including a proposal for a 40-storey office tower. Some are high-rise residential developments and condominiums.
As well, there is a co-operative housing project and two condominium projects on the Bathurst Quay which are meant for seniors and low-income families. Affordable rent and accommodation is badly needed in downtown Toronto. However, from the two statements issued by the Government it was not possible to tell whether these projects would be going ahead or not. It was not possible to tell which of the other projects would be affected by the moratorium.
I also asked for the Government's reasons in calling a moratorium. There was considerable media speculation. It would have been useful to have had a clear statement from the Minister in the House at the time.
Questions have been raised and concerns expressed about how Harbourfront, which is a Crown corporation, is interpreting its development policy. I realize that as a Crown corporation it is expected to act autonomously, but the situation appears to have developed to the point where Harbourfront was going its own way and everyone else was in the dark-the Government of Canada which owns the site and the City of Toronto which, through its official plan, zoning and building by-laws, is supposed to control its building permits, building height, density and so on.
Public concern grew with the construction of a couple of high-rise condominium towers on a relatively small parcel of Harbourfront land, and as the pace of development in general accelerated.
I assume these are some of the reasons why the Government has undertaken a review at this time. It seems that the
Government rushed to get the review under way and to announce it to the media. However, no information was given about the terms of the review or the expected date of completion. It seems that the situation had got so far out of hand that the Government was forced to impose a moratorium to get some control over it.
I assume that the review is proceeding. I am sure that the Government will make some sort of announcement in due course by press release, but Torontonians are vitally interested in knowing when the review is to be completed. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary this evening will inform the House of the actions that the Government proposes to take.
Harbourfront was intended to be a balanced mix of development, open space and cultural activities for Toronto residents and visitors. It is clear that the desired balance is not there. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will take this opportunity to give some information about the action the Government has taken to date, as well as its intentions for the future with regard to Harbourfront.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I trust the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) as a Torontonian will allow a Bramptonian, a neighbour who uses the facilities of Harbourfront quite often, to reply on behalf of the Minister. I might say, first, that I have a special interest in the Toronto waterfront, having been a former employee of Ontario Place Corporation. 1 have watched with interest, sometimes with pleasure and sometimes with displeasure, the development of the water-front. It is fair to say that the questions raised by the Hon. Member are those that concern the Government. Thus, a policy review and a suspension of new developments at Harbourfront was announced by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) on April 15.
The purpose of the halt is to respect the review of Harbourfront program, which is currently being carried out by the city, as well as to support the federal policy review. In making the announcement, the Minister stated that clarification of the application of the suspension would be issued within 30 days. The clarification is as follows.
First, all projects which have received building permits and are now under construction may proceed. There are no projects currently under construction which have not received their building permits. Second, Harbourfront Corporation will obtain the advice and comments of the City of Toronto on all projects which have yet to receive the requisite Government of Canada approvals.
Third, for those projects which may still require City of Toronto approvals, further Harbourfront and Government of
May 5, 1987

Canada consideration will also await receipt of the city's advice and comments.
In its review of the Harbourfront program, the City of Toronto established the Harbourfront Review Committee as a mechanism for obtaining input from interested groups and individuals. Advice and comments passed to the Government of Canada by the city will be based in part on this input. In addition, Harbourfront Corporation itself is planning to hold a series of public forums to debate issues surrounding its role and mandate. These public forums will begin in the first week of June at Harbourfront.
1 guess it is a matter of opinion as to whether there is a good balance of the various areas which make up our waterfront in Toronto. There are some very exciting cultural activities that go on down there. Within the last few weeks there was a major
Adjournment Debate
debate on capital punishment held down there. It is being used by the public. I share the concerns of the Hon. Member, as I think the Government does. We want to ensure that the development that does take place down there is proper, that we have a good mix, and that the public can still go down and participate in the myriad of attractions which take place at Harbourfront.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, May 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers