1987-08-25

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 Petition No. 332-2955.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to two motions which I will put, with consent. I think Your Honour will find that there is unanimous consent to adopt them. I move:
That, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for a period of three days during the month of October in relation to its mandate under Standing Order 96(2); and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.']
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion is as follows. I move:
That, the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel from place to place in Europe between September 24 to October 11, 1987, inclusive, for the purpose of studying the impact of airline deregulation on the Government's policy for the ownership and management of airports, airport facilities, safety, and airline concentration and privatization; and rail and bus passenger services and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, today it is again my duty to table petitions from members of my constituency who visited the Byward Market this summer and with whom I met to discuss the plan of the Government to tax food, as proposed as an alternative in the White Paper produced by the Government. The petitioners object to that measure.
The petition states that whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed upon Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular, on medical and dental supplies, snack food, candies and soft drinks, and whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing a general tax on goods and services, including food, and whereas food constitutes a vital element to everyday life, and whereas the imposition of this tax would have the effect of penalizing certain categories of taxpayers, for example, the aged, families, unemployed, low-income taxpayers, and youth; therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures

August 25, 1987
Order Paper Questions
that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition on behalf of Canadian citizens who support the initiative of Mr. David Bader, the Director General of the Canadian Herbalists Association of British Columbia, who wrote to the Health Minister concerning unfair selective enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act vis-a-vis the health food industry.


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. 165.


Mr. Murphy: From January 1, 1986 to May 1, 1987, were any costs incurred by the Cape Breton Development Corporation in arbitration cases and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: From January 1, 1986 to May 1, 1987, costs incurred by the Cape Breton Development Corporation for arbitration cases were $137,378.77.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, August 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Flonours that this Flouse agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (6), 2(a) and (6), 3, 4(a) and (6), 5(a) and (6), 6, 7(a) and (6), 9 and 10(6) and (r) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (6) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitons are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (6) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (6), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(6) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (6), 10(6) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (6), 2, 3, 4(a) and (6), 5(a) and (6), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(I) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of
which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the
payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, when I interrupted my speech yesterday at five o'clock, I was saying it might be appropriate to provide a few historical notes. During the fifties and sixties, there were many complaints because
August 25, 1987

Canadians felt that the price of drugs was too high. Eventually, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission held an inquiry on the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs, under Section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act. 1 can assure the House that this was an exhaustive inquiry and that the recommendations contained in the report subsequently published by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission were quite significant. I shall quote the findings of the inquiry.
Consideration should be given to the establishment, under the auspices of the federal government, of an authoritative publication giving all necesary particulars concerning new drugs-
As the Commission believes that close control exercised by patents has made it possible to maintain prices of certain drugs at level higher than would have obtained otherwise and that such patent control has produced no benefits to the public of Canada which would outweigh the disadvantages of the monopoly, the Commission recommends that patents with respect to drugs be abolished. In the opinion of the Commission this is the only effective remedy to reduce the price of drugs in Canada.
We must remember that the government's decision at the end of the sixties to amend the Patent Act was made following an inquiry conducted by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which had clearly ruled that the price of drugs in Canada at the time was too high and that steps had to be taken to force the companies to reduce the price of drugs in Canada. This means that people were aware of the high prices of drugs that enjoyed patent protection and that at the time, these prices were judged to be too high.
In fact, other studies made at the time as well reached the same conclusion. A Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate made a similar study and reached the same conclusions, and so the Government's action followed recommendations made by the competent authorities whose duty it is to determine competition levels in Canada, as in the case of the Restrictive Trade Practices commission and a recommendation, unanimous at the time, made by Members and Senators of the Parliament of Canada.
Our present system which sets limits on the rights of companies under the Patent Act was at the time approved unanimously by all political parties in the House and in the Senate.
I have heard some Conservative Members say that we condoned plagiarism, that we let generic drug companies copy the discoveries made by pharmaceutical firms. So we did. So we did, but with the unanimous support of all Members, including the Conservative Members who sat in this House in the late 1960s. There was one basic reason why the system was set up: we wanted to make sure that the already inflated drug prices in Canada would decline.
To the Conservative Members who maintain that certain countries enforce regulations to protect inventors of pharmaceutical products for 17 years and even more, my response is that in such countries as England, France and a few other European countries the drug companies may indeed be better protected than our own Canadian firms, but then these companies are subject to much stricter price controls.
Patent Act
Unfortunately the federal Government has no authority to enforce price controls because they come under provincial jurisdiction. When we are told that the patents of a drug company in France are protected over a much longer period of time than is the case here in Canada, I say fair enough, but you conveniently forget to point out that this drug company simply cannot market its products unless it has reached an agreement with government authorities concerning a fair price which will enable it to earn a fair return on its investment, a fair profit.
What we in the Liberal Opposition are concerned about right now is that Canada does not have any control over drug prices. So we are going back to the old system. To put it another way, the Government has decided to bring us back to those days when drug companies were much better protected than they are now, to the extent that they would not have to face competition from Canadian generic drug companies before ten years.
Well, we believe that this ten-year protection is excessive under the circumstances, the more so because there is nothing in the Bill to guarantee that the companies will keep their prices at an affordable and reasonable level for consumers.
Unless it is amended along the line of the proposals put forward by Liberal Senators, this Bill will be toothless. It will have no power to compel pharmaceutical companies to keep their promises, namely to make investments, to create jobs and especially to keep drug prices at levels which are affordable and reasonable for Canadian consumers generally. Well, this Government would like us to trust blindly the pharmaceutical companies and positively give them "carte blanche" for the next 10 years, without really knowing whether they will do any actual research in Canada, create as many jobs as they say they will and especially maintain reasonable prices.
We feel that the Minister, regardless of his good will, is placing himself in a position of vulnerability with respect to the pharmaceutical industry, because his Bill lacks the means to force these companies to deliver. And that is what makes the whole difference with this Government which wants to amend the Patent Act to allow the pharmaceutical companies to benefit more from their research and earn a higher return from their investments.
We fully agree on the need to amend the Act to make it possible for these companies to recover at least their investments. But we just cannot agree on this excessive protection. There was a commission of inquiry and Professor Eastman, who examined this matter thoroughly, found that a four-year protection was quite sufficient. As a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 ask again the same question as yesterday: Why does the Government insist on giving these additional six years to the pharmaceutical companies? To what extent does it hope to convince us that these six years are absolutely essential to attract invesments into this country? We feel that the Minister

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is much too generous with the pharmaceutical companies, while his first responsibility should be to protect Canadian consumers, and not to demonstrate so much generosity towards the pharmaceutical companies. It is all right to amend the legislation to allow for a fair return on their investments, but not to give them "carte blanche" to grow fat and rich at the expense of Canadian consumers during the last six years of protection they would enjoy under this Bill.
Those who think that the Liberal party is against investment in the Montreal area are greatly mistaken. We support investment by drug companies in the Montreal area. It is indeed because we support that kind of investment that we want the legislation to be quite clear and binding. It is not. The companies may in the first months of the new system invest some funds in research, but there is nothing in the legislation that compels them to carry on their efforts in the area of research during the 10 following years, during which they will be given a protection that in our opinion is very generous, even too generous and dangerous for Canadian consumers. This is why 1 hope that the Government in its wisdom will reconsider that decision and will accept the amendments that were proposed in good faith in the interests of Canadian consumers by the Liberal senators.


Mr. Blais:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a few comments. It is always a surprise to hear the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who had no qualms telling us, and I quote: "We support investment in the Montreal area". I find no word to characterize, 1 see no logic in that way of thinking . . . Although I have been trying over these last few months to follow the logic of the Official Opposition on that issue, I have not succeeded yet.
When we refer to creating new jobs in the Montreal area, and this is what my comments will deal with, we referred to 1,300 jobs because we banked on the jobs that were guaranteed to us by the companies. And this they did not tell us behind close doors-they did so officially, they said it to newspapers, they made a commitment. And as I read in Le Devoir economique . . . Drug industry people in the Montreal area are not referring to 1,300 jobs, they are expecting up to 10,000 new jobs in the drug industry, to once more give our young Canadian scientists-not only from Quebec but from across Canada an opportunity to work in that industry. This they had been denied for some years. Scientists have to move down to the United States, they must emigrate abroad in order to find work. So they are digging in, they have the gall to suggest we did not put enough teeth in our bill. This in my view is showing a form of bad faith, because it is the first time in more than a decade that a Government decides to take a firm stand in that area and ensure that the Canadian Government is no longer a cowboy, a freelancer in the global drug industry.
This country was operating in a totally opposite direction from other nations in that area. I would understand it if
Members of the Official Opposition remained silent on that, especially those from the Montreal area. If I were in their shoes I would hide in shame. But no, they are here. They are responsible, but they blame us for not fully accepting the Eastman report, as if we should always accept a report that is submitted to us. But in the same breath they reject the Macdonald report, a report chaired by a former Liberal minister who recommends that we increase trade with the United States. There is no logic in that attitude.
I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, how they can openly tell us Quebecers, us Canadians, that preventing those kinds of investment to be made soon in the Montreal area, those brains . .. Certainly the Hon. Member has young children as 1 have. We must provide work for them. There is work now in various fields, but in the industrial sector, in the high technology, in research and development, what do they have to suggest to stimulate research and development in the Montreal area? For our part, we do not merely have an assumption, but a confirmed assurance. People in the Montreal area-not politicians, but the entire medical profession expect some ten thousand jobs. I will conclude my comments with that.
My question is as follows: What do they have to suggest? What guarantee do they have? They told us that the first budget of this Government would result in the loss of 200,000 jobs and after less than three years, 900,000 jobs have been created. What is their logic? How can we believe those people? What is your position? What is your answer? What do you have to offer to the Montreal area?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I find such demagogy regrettable on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary as it clearly shows his ignorance.
These are the facts. The Patent Act was amended to allow compulsory licencing because drug prices were higher in Canada than anywhere else in the world. When this legislation was passed, it was passed not only by the then Liberal Government, but also with the unanimous consent of all Conservative Members of Parliament.
The Liberals are therefore not to blame for developing in Canada a new system which was certainly different from other systems in the world. The Government had the courage at the time to tell the pharmaceutical multinationals: We have had enough, you are exploiting the Canadian people by selling your drugs at excessive prices.
We developed a system to protect the Canadian consumers. The pharmaceutical companies are now saying: We are willing to create jobs and to invest more in research in Canada if you remove the compulsory licencing system. As for us, we are saying that we are willing to accept this offer and provide the guarantees and protection which the drug companies say they need to make these investments. However, in return, we want the companies to make some firm commitments and we want them to keep these commitments.
August 25, 1987

As for the Parliamentary Secretary, he is willing to trust blindly in the pharmaceutical companies even though they exploited consumers in the past. There is no clear stipulation in the bill that these investments will take place or that the pharmaceutical companies will maintain reasonable prices and not bring about excessive price increases as they did in the past.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that he wants a system which will allow the pharmaceutical companies to invest more in the Montreal region, and I quite agree with him. 1 would like the pharmaceutical companies to invest more in research in Montreal. However, the world situation is such that the Canadian market is very small compared with the American and European markets, and the fact is that the pharmaceutical multinationals carry out their research in well-established centres. Much of this work is now carried out in Puerto Rico, where it costs much less to operate, and via Puerto Rico, the multinationals have free access to the American market. The pharmaceutical companies have also moved much of their operations to Ireland, where they have obtained major concessions, because of which they can operate at a very low cost and have access to the European market.
It does not take long to realize that Canada is not in the same position as Ireland and Puerto Rico, and that whatever research can be carried out in Canada will be minimal compared with world research in pharmaceutical products, unless the text of the legislation contains specific guarantees to force the companies to do research in Canada and create jobs.
This is what we are asking, and this is what the Bill does not do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux).


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate. 1 shall not speak any longer than necessary this morning to Bill C-22, since my Conservative colleagues have already spoken on the subject, and I may refer more particlar-ly ot the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), who was eloquent, as always, in his speech last Friday. My colleagues have already put forward a number of arguments, all of which are extremly convincing and favour the passage of Bill C-22 as proposed by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not repeat all these arguments, but nevertheless, I wish to add my voice to those that are urging the House and especially the Senate to adopt this important piece of legislation as soon as possible, for the sake of the thousands of jobs that would result, jobs whose future is now being threatened by Opposition Members who refuse to listen to reason, and why, I frankly don't know. We are ready to accept constructive criticism, but when we have an Opposition that criticizes for partisan purposes, and that is particularly
Patent Act
true of the non-elected Liberals in the Senate, that we cannot accept.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to refer to a specific case that has strengthened my personal convictions in favour of Bill C-22, and it is the case of Hoffmann-La Roche whose now vacant buildings are located in my own riding of Vaudreuil.
The history of this case reflects the devastating impact that, slowly but surely, the Liberal Government's amendments to the Patent Act of 1969 have had, an intolerable situation, Mr. Speaker, that our Government is now actively trying to improve. I would like to quote, in passing, a few paragraphs from an editorial by Albert Juneau published in Le Devoir this morning. I am using this particular editorial, Mr. Speaker, because it happened to appear this morning, but I could quote from many others published in recent months. 1 quote:
The Liberal Senators have launched their defence of the average consumer with unusual zeal, in their parliamentary skirmishes against Bill C-22 concerning drug patents. Their partisan tactics fool no one but say a great deal about the state of health of the Liberal Party and the Upper Chamber-
Through their exaggerated juxtaposition of the foreign multinationals, especially the U.S. companies, and the poor Canadian consumers, the Liberals are undermining the debate and ignoring what is really at stake.
The basic principle underlying Bill C-22 is that drug patents should again be issued with ownership rights similar to those which prevail in other major industrialized countries. Back in 1969, the Liberal administration had brought in an important amendment under which protection granted new drugs was reduced to a year and a half, whereas our main trading partners kept the widely accepted 17-to-20-year standard. The Government was hoping to force a decline in prices and promote stiffer competition between so-called innovating companies-research and development oriented-and generic medicine manufacturers who "copy" and market the new drugs.
The new legislation increases to seven years the protection period granted any product for which a mandatory licence has been issued (it would be ten years in the case of imported products). For their part the Liberals suggest that the maximum monopoly period be four years and that the current 4 per cent royalty paid by generic manufacturers to research firms be raised to 14 per cent.
It is difficult to understand why the Liberal Senate is fighting tooth and nail against the elected House of Commons to try and gain a few years protection, when impact studies on the Government legislation clearly demonstrate that Canadian consumers will come out winners-
To the industry, especially the innovative companies, this Bill provide incentives for research and development investments. The 1969 amendments did not prove beneficial to Canada which now ranks behind poorer nations such as Italy and the United Kingdom as far as drug research and development is concerned. Quebec, where half of the research and development spending is concentrated in Canada, has severely suffered because of such memorable closings as Ayerst and Hoffmann-LaRoche in 1982. Since then, Quebec scientists and politicians have been unanimous in their efforts to have the legislation amended.
While stubbornly confining themselves to idle chatter, the Liberals are unfairly stopping a Bill which is acceptable both to the consumers and the industry.
In its brief to the chairman of the Eastman Commission created by the former Liberal Government to study the pharmaceutical industry in Canada, Hoffmann-La Roche, or Roche Canada as it is better known, explained in detail how

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
the 1969 amendments to the Patent Act adversely affected its operations, resulting in the loss of jobs and millions of dollars for research and development in Canada, in the Province of Quebec, and in the riding of Vaudreuil,
The 1969 amendments to the Patent Act under the then Liberal Government had a dramatic impact on the sales of Roche Canada's major pharmaceutical products. Since the beginning of the 1970s Roche Canada's viability steadily deteriorated to the point where it began to incur substantial losses. Indeed, in the early 1980s Roche Canada lost millions of dollars on its operations. Management therefore decided that massive and immediate cost reduction measures had to be instituted to stop the ever increasing deficits. One of those cost reduction measures announced in November, 1982, consisted of the complete and permanent closure of the company's plant in Vaudreuil, Quebec, effective in the summer of 1983.
The closure of Roche Canada's Vaudreuil operation resulted in the loss of close to 80 manufacturing jobs and about the same number of related jobs. The reduction in Roche Canada's activity led to a corresponding reduction in its contribution to the Canadian economy as a whole. This is of course not to mention the very severe economic impact on the local economy of my riding and its surroundings.

But let us return to the here and now, Mr. Speaker. Another article, which appeared last fall in the Le Devoir economique section, foresaw the creation of 10,000 jobs in the Montreal area due to the direct and indirect economic fallouts from Bill C-22. Mr. Speaker, how could we understand and accept the bickering from non-elected Liberals in the Senate when a great many prestigious groups and personalities both in Quebec and the rest of Canada are urging the Government to go ahead with its Bill? I refer among others to Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa, to Mayor Jean Dore, to the Armand Frappier Institute, to the School of Medicine of the Montreal, Sherbrooke and McGill universities, the Federation of General Practioners of Quebec, as well as a great many others, Mr. Speaker.
As the member for Vaudreuil I support the immediate passage of Bill C-22 as introduced by the Government. Several innovative pharmaceutical companies are located in my Vaudreuil constituency and nearby ridings, including the Dollard and Lachine constituencies, and they provide a great many jobs which, in turn, bring important economic spinoffs for our region. And those research and development jobs are for our university graduates who have no other choice today than to expatriate themselves, when we could give them the opportunity to work at home and make people around them benefit from both the economic spinoffs and the impact of their research which we need for reasons fully explained previously. We cannot do without the millions of dollars in investment and jobs which will be created in our region with the passage of Bill C-22. And by region, I mean of course more particularly the Vaudreuil area, but also the province of
Quebec and the entire country. 1 therefore encourage all those who want to prevent the passage of the bill to stop and finally listen to reason.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) indicated they support the idea of making the economic climate better so that these companies will invest more and produce more jobs. One would think we are dealing with some poor, under-financed, hard done by companies. Last week The Globe and Mail printed a couple of interesting articles about these supposedly poor companies. Let me just put on the record some of the facts they reported. I quote:
Canadian subsidiaries of multinational pharmaceutical companies are among the most profitable businesses in the country-
-even under that patent regimen, many of the multinational drug companies already make a level of profit rarely reported by other Canadian manufacturers.
The financial statements of 10 pharmaceutical companies were sampled for 1983 and 1984.
I am sure Hoffmann-La Roche was one of them. It continues:
Their return on shareholders' equity-a common measure of business success-averaged 25 per cent in 1984 and 23 per cent a year earlier, which would put the companies near the top 25 in the Report on Business ranking of 1,000 companies.
One of them, Wyeth Ltd., reported a return on shareholders' equity that would put it in the top I per cent of the ROB 1,000.
How much more do we have to give these companies to persuade them to invest in this country? If we want to give incentives to produce jobs, would we not be better off giving them to companies like Bombardier, Northern Telecom and Canadian General Electric, all of which have major operations in Quebec, and all of whom employ thousands of workers? None of them make the kind of return on investment which the Government wants to give these multinationals.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure to let the people of Vaudreuil know exactly what the Hon. Member has just said. It will be interesting for those people. They saw the erection of an eight-storey building in Vaudreuil by Hoff-mann-La Roche. The company started operations there and then, because of the 1969 amendments, closed it down and put the workers on the street. People had to leave their jobs because of the impact on research and development by those companies the Hon. Member says are rich. That will be a lot of comfort to the people who lost their jobs in Vaudreuil. Those companies are prepared to create good jobs in research and development for our young graduates who grow up in ridings such as mine. They go to universities, obtain diplomas, then have to go elsewhere in order to making a living. They cannot contribute to our economy in research and development. I will mention that to my constituents.
August 25, 1987

[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, who is an honest and conscientious Member of the House, would certainly not leave on the official report of our Debates statements which are absolutely unfounded.
He has just made two. First, he claimed that the 1962 legislation was the reason behind the closing in his riding by the Hoffmann-La Roche Corporation of their Vaudreuil facilities. That was only an excuse! No impartial observer in Canada would claim that this is the real reason why this company decided to leave. It was just an excuse. It was a decision made in a particular context and which was used by the company to comply with a management decision taken outside Canada. Those who were working for this company in Canada did not want the plant to close. Such decisions made by multinationals abroad affect the economy and the labour situation in Canada.
When we rely exclusively on multinationals for the economic survival of our country, we are most vulnerable, and there are situations such as that one where business executives residing outside Canada make decisions which have serious consequences for the Canadian economy.
Unfortunately, this Bill has not enough teeth to ensure that decisions such as those made in the past by business bosses abroad would not be repeated.
The other thing I should like to bring to the Minister's attention is a statement made by Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Conservative Leader of his Party, and I quote:
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 action 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.

It is obvious that Sir John A. Macdonald recognized to the Canadian Senate the right to consider a bill introduced in this House and the right to amend the legislation.
Now the Minister of Labour, when suggesting that the Senate is filibustering, is leaving out a step. I hope that he will have the decency of acknowledging that he is anticipating the facts.
The Senate up to now has carried its duty which is to consider a bill from this House and to suggest amendments, as has often been done in the past. The Senate has not yet gone beyond its duty. We are considering a motion to return the bill to the Senate without the amendments which it has proposed.
Patent Act
It will be only after the House has taken its decision and the bill is returned for a second time before the Senate that the Minister may say whether the Senate is filibustering or exceeding its constitutional mandate. He cannot say such a thing at the present time because up to now the Senate has only been performing its duty, that is to consider the bill and suggest amendments. It did not yet say whether it will insist on those amendments. It has only submitted them to this House. It is quite an important difference which the Minister should accept.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, 1 take good note of the Hon. Member's comments, and although I do not wish to enter into an exchange of compliments, 1 feel obliged to reciprocate because the Hon. Member, who has a long experience of this House, usually performs very serious work that is appreciated by all Members in this House.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to be pleased and admit I was wrong if there is no obstruction in the Senate, because this will mean the legislation is passed in its original form, as proposed by this Government.
So I will be pleased if indeed there is no obstruction as the Hon. Member suggests, and I sincerely hope so because I believe the legislation as proposed is good for Canada as a whole, good for Quebec in particular and most certainly for the constituency of Vaudreuil, where Hoffmann-La Roche used to be located, and of course we could discuss at length all the pros and cons of a decision that was taken during those years. But the 1969 Act is very high on the list of reasons for the Hoffmann-La Roche decision, as the people in the constituency of Vaudreuil very well remember.
Mr. Speaker, as to the quote made by the Hon. Member, I take good note of it. I will read it again with much attention. 1 remember the following terms, "hasty or ill-considered legislation". It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that-

If there is one piece of legislation which is not hasty, it is Bill C-22. As far as being ill-considered, after debate in this Chamber and in the other place the Government thinks that its version is the best one. We do not think it is ill-considered. I hope the Senate comes to that conclusion. If it does, I will congratulate it and apologize for thinking that perhaps it may have caused de Tobstruction, monsieur le President.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I was not surprised that the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), who led off this debate for the Official Opposition, took almost three hours to explain the Liberals' position. After all, they have a lot of explaining to do. It was the Liberals, when they were in Government, in fact the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), when he was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who opened this whole can of worms.
Let us have a brief history lesson, Mr. Speaker. Until 1969 Canada had the second highest prices for prescription drugs in

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
the world. The only country that had higher prices was the United States. There was a great deal of complaint, very justifiably and understandably. A number of studies were done, and during the Liberal regime a parliamentary committee held lengthy hearings and finally made a report which led to the change in the Patent Act laws in 1969 as they affected prescription drugs.
From 1969 until the present time, instead of having the second highest prescription drug prices in the world we have had among the lowest. The successor to the Hon. Member for Papineau as Minister of Consumer Affairs, Mrs. Erola, who has now taken a very well-paid job as a lobbyist for the multinational drug companies, buckled under to pressure and appointed Professor Eastman to conduct a study. Professsor Eastman conducted that study and reported, fortunately or unfortunately, after the Government had changed and we had a Conservative Government. Professsor Eastman said essentially that the system had worked well, that we had saved the Canadian consumer, either directly or indirectly through public and private prescription drug insurance plans, hundreds of millions of dollars, but that we could improve the system.
He said that we could extend the period for exclusivity for the companies which developed the drugs by a few years, that we could increase the royalties which the generic companies had to pay for the right to produce generic drugs, but that aside from that the system was working quite well.
Instead the Conservative Government buckled under completely to the pressure of the multinational companies and the pressure of President Reagan who made it a condition of even talking about free trade that we change our regulations. The Conservative Government brought in legislation. It ignored almost every important recommendation made by Professor Eastman.
The Minister talks about the support for this Bill. It has some support, about which I will elaborate in a moment, but what the Minister did today and my hon. friend for Dauphin- Swan River (Mr. White) did yesterday was to say that those people who do not support the Bill do not know what they are talking about.
Who are these people who oppose the Bill? It would take me all day to list all the groups and organizations, but I will summarize who they are. They are labour organizations, seniors organizations from one end of Canada to the other, the Consumers' Association of Canada, and farm groups such as Keystone Agriculture in my province of Manitoba which represents all the farmers who produce various commodities except grain. As well, six of the ten provinces told the Government that they have considered its proposal and believe it will cost their pharmacare plans tens of millions of dollars.
Of course, there are some who support the Bill, including some medical researchers. It is not surprising that they support the Bill because they are so starved for research funds that
they are prepared to take funds from anyone who will provide them.
I remind Members of the House that when the Conservatives were in opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) attacked the Liberals, saying that it was unacceptable and inexcusable that we were one of the lowest investors in scientific research and development among the industrialized countries. He promised that when a Conservative Government took office it would move quickly to invest 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product for scientific research and development.
Let us consider what has actually happened. Instead of the 1.9 per cent of GNP that we were spending when the Liberals were in government, we are now spending 1.3 per cent under a Conservative Government that promised to spend twice that amount. Obviously, scientists are moving to the United States. Why would they stay in Canada when there is no work for them and the Government has made it very clear that it will not invest or force the private sector of the economy to invest the kinds of funds which are necessary?
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) talked about Hoffmann-La Roche in his constituency of Vaudreuil. Let me tell the Minister what the Government did to my city of Winnipeg. There was an agreement between the former Liberal Government of Canada and the Province of Manitoba to build a centre in which scientific research could be done in the City of Winnipeg. The agreement was concluded and the building erected. The building is virtually empty because the Conservative Government, in its desire to hold the line and reduce the deficit, cancelled the money for the funding needed to operate the centre.
We must understand a number of points. First, we have heard repeatedly from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), and now from the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary, about how many jobs will be produced if and when this Bill is passed. There is not a single word in the Bill requiring the companies to produce the jobs that they have promised. There is not a single clause or a single word in the Bill providing penalties for the companies if they do not produce the jobs they have promised. In fact, there is nothing in the Bill that would require any company to do anything. The Bill does not even stipulate that those companies which produce jobs will get benefits and those companies that do not will not get benefits. There is simply a general assumption in the Bill that everything will work. All the organizations and groups which oppose the Bill have said that is unacceptable.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs continues to talk about the amounts of money and expenditures on research and development that will be made. The Minister tosses around figures of hundreds of millions of dollars like they were confetti. Yet the figures add up so fast that he is unable to keep track of them. For instance, on August 15 he claimed that $900 million would be invested. That required
August 25, 1987

two additional amounts of $280 million and $130 million to be added to the PMAC figure of $553 million. The figures are meaningless when he can simply pull them out of the air as he sees fit and then threaten that this investment will disappear if the Bill does not pass, as the Minister of Labour said a few moments ago.
It is this combination of promotion and blackmail that tries to obscure the very real issues associated with drug industry research. One does not achieve real basic medical research by spreading the money out in dribs and drabs. Instead, it should be put into establishing a major medical research centre which we do not have.
The pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves have said that it can cost up to $100 million to make a major breakthrough and produce one real new drug that will treat an important illness, such as cancer, heart disease or stroke. Does anyone really believe that in Canada, with our small population of 25 million and a very limited market, any drug company will really invest up to $100 million in the hopes of producing one new drug? That is nonsense. The drug companies will simply continue their past practice of experimenting with a drug to derive a new variation which they can sell in competition with another company and thereby have an edge for a few months or years.
The Government would have us believe that it was only after the 1969 legislation that a situation developed in which it was not profitable for the drug companies to invest in research. Let us consider what happened before 1969 when we did not have this legislation. I challenge anyone on the government side or someone from the drug companies to tell me and Canadians the name of one major drug discovery that was made in Canada before 1969 when, according to the Government and the industry, this terrible legislation destroyed their ability or desire to do research?
There was one major discovery which has saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. That was the discovery of insulin. Yet lo and behold, insulin was not produced by one of these multinational corporations but was produced in a laboratory of the medical college of the University of Toronto. I suggest to the industry and the Government that if we want real research done in Canada, let us give the universities and scientific community, particularly the university medical and biotechnology researchers, the opportunity to do so.

I wish to deal for a few moments with the question of the supposed inability of these drug companies, these poor drug companies, to do research. I wish to put on the record some of the facts we learned, or should have learned, that appeared in two articles published in The Globe and Mail on August 21 last. The first states in part:
Canadian subsidiaries of multinational pharmaceutical companies are among the most profitable businesses in the country, but taxpayers may end up footing much of the bill for the increased research the companies are promising . . . even under that patent regimen, many of the multinational drug
Patent Act
companies already make a level of profit rarely reported by other Canadian manufacturers.
In a sample for 1983 and 1984-
Their return on shareholders' equity . . . averaged 25 per cent in 1984 and 23 per cent a year earlier, which would put the companies near the top 25 in the Report on Business ranking of 1000 companies.
How much more do we have to give them before they will agree to do anything? The article raises another important question, that is, the whole question of inter-company transfers. The article points out:
The money that multinational drug companies take out of Canada often flows in ways other than the normal dividends a subsidiary pays to its parent.
That is a big figure in itself-in one recent two-year period, 10 companies sampled paid dividends totalling almost $60 million a year, about equal to the industry's Canadian spending on research. But further huge amounts also move through other intercorporate arrangements.
These transfers, which include royalties paid to the parent ($20 million a year in the period studied) and fees paid to the parent ($9.5 million) are a cost of doing business for the subsidiary, and therefore have the effect of reducing profit.
But the biggest factor-and one that Revenue Canada is disputing with some companies-is transfer pricing-
Transfer pricing is a way of shifting money within related companies to move profits out of high-tax areas into more favorable jurisdictions. In a typical transaction, the Canadian subsidiary would pay an offshore affiliate an inflated price for the raw material used to make a prescription drug. This overhigh price becomes a cost to the domestic company, cutting its profit and therefore its tax bill.
I digress for a moment to remind Hon. Members that these are among the most profitable companies in Canada.
In the 10-company sample, eight multinationals' total purchases from related companies totalled more than $250 million a year. The two other companies did not give exact figures, but one said it was "dependent" on a related party and the other said a "majority" of its business was with related companies.
I know that I have just about used up my allotted time, Mr. Speaker. Revenue Canada has been looking into this intercompany transferring for years. In fact, at least one of the companies settled by paying over $650,000 to Revenue Canada. We are talking about very wealthy and powerful companies. They do not need this legislation if they really want to do research. They are already making very high profits. The extent to which we subsidize them must be cut back. We should be doing more for other companies which employ more people, many more people than these companies, and which should be getting help so that they can do research to make them more efficient and better able to deal with competition.


Mr. Leblanc:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on what the Hon. Member has just mentioned in his speech. Since this morning I have been listening to what the Hon. Members from the Liberal Party and The New Democratic Party have to say, and 1 am wondering if those people believe that Canadians can only be carters of water and drivers of screws. While we have before us a bill intended to help our professionals in the field of research, they are proposing that we create employment to keep people busy driving screws and

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
carting water. That is what makes us different. We believe, and 1 personally believe, that we have, here in Canada, enough trained and capable people to do research. That is my first question.
Here is my second question. He argues that we are yielding to American pressures and that this explains why we are adopting such a bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is quite the opposite. When the Liberals adopted the Act some years ago, our research scientists left for the United States. It seems to me that this was to the advantage of the United States. What we want to do today is to make up for that lost time and keep our investigators in Canada. 1 cannot see how one can insinuate and make the Canadian people and Hon. Members believe that the Americans are twisting our arm. 1 think it is quite the opposite. On the contrary, we want to keep our professionals here, we do not want to send them to the United States.
That is what I have to say. If no research on drugs is done here in Canada, what will happen? It will be done in the United States, in Europe or elsewhere. Which does not necessarily mean that we will be getting our drugs any cheaper. We simply want the research to be done here, at home. If we were doing research on drugs in Canada, we might get better drugs, we might be able to give better treatment to our senior citizens, our sick people. Then, why stop doing pharmaceutical research, when we are doing some on farm tractors or on automobiles? This is as though research on drugs to get good medicinal products to treat our patients was forbidden. In my opinion, this opposition is utterly ridiculous.
Let us talk, for instance, about generics. When we produce generics, we only copy, and it is not by copying that we will create new drugs. So it is totally ridiculous to say that we should encourage generics, in other words encourage copying.
I would like to ask anyhow to the Hon. Member who just spoke why he keeps misrepresenting the facts. In reality, I do not think he, himself, believes what he is saying. He is misrepresenting the facts. I met older people in my riding last week who told me that because of Bill C-22 drugs were going to go up more than 20 per cent, but he knows very well, and it is in the Bill, that we provided for a board to keep prices in line with the cost of living.
My question to the Hon. Member is this: Why does he keep making misrepresentations to our sick and elderly people by telling them that the price of drugs is going to go up 20 to 25
p. 100?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the people in this House who are misrepresenting the facts are not the members of the Opposition but the Ministers and Conservative Members of Parliament. If the Hon. Member had taken the trouble and the time to look through the Eastman Report he would have seen the figures produced by the last real study done on drug prices and costs in this country. He would have seen that the people of
Canada have saved about $300 million a year, and I am speaking from memory, in terms of the price of prescription drugs because of the legislation which we have in place. The suggestion is false that we are opposed to medical research. The Hon. Member should have listened when I was speaking, but I remind him that the present Prime Minister promised that under a Conservative Government we would move quickly to spending 2.5 per cent of our Gross National Product on scientific research. Instead, we are presently spending 1.3 per cent of the Gross National Product, which is only half.
The private multinational corporations do not need to be subsidized to do medical research. Stop starving the medical research council, which is what the former Liberal Government did and the present Conservative Government is doing. Give the medical researchers who are working in our universities the money to do research and they will do research and not move to the United States.
I wish to say one last thing in respect to misrepresentation. There are two sides to any argument, and there are two sides to the debate on this issue. I wish to point out two misrepresentations by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Perhaps the Minister did not have his facts straight. The Minister has stated several times in the House and outside that Dr. John Polanyi, our most recent Nobel Prize winner, supports this Bill. That is not true. Dr. Polanyi has urged increased support for scientific research. Dr. Polanyi did not say anything about this Bill.
In the House the other day the Minister stated that the University of Manitoba supported this Bill. That is not true. I have spoken to the Vice-President of the University of Manitoba, and that university has made no statement. Some medical researchers who are working at the University of Manitoba have supported the Bill, for the reasons I earlier indicated. But the University of Manitoba has not given its support to this Bill. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should not be misrepresenting the facts and claiming support for the Bill from groups and individuals who have not supported the Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: The House will know that the New Democratic Party has traditionally been opposed to the Senate. In fact, in the past some Members have suggested that the Senate should be abolished. However, last week the New Democratic Party reversed its position in the words of the House Leader, and I quote from The Globe and Mail, "We would assume that the Senate would see the wisdom of stopping this Bill as well". The House Leader then went on to say, "But the fact is that they do some good work some of the time".
My question to the Hon. Member is, does he support the new position of the New Democratic Party that the Senate, which is an appointed body, should have the right to veto this legislation, or any other legislation passed by a democratically
August 25, 1987

elected House of Commons? In other words, does the end justify the means?


David Orlikow: The Hon. Member knows the position of our Party.


Philip Derek Lewis: Last week or this week?


David Orlikow: I listened to the question of the Hon. Member and I did not interrupt him. 1 would ask him to give me the same courtesy.
The New Democratic Party has always supported the idea that the Senate should be abolished. The Senate is part of the parliamentary system. Unfortunately, unlike any other second chamber in any other democratic society in the world, the Senate has almost equal rights to those of the elected Members of the House of Commons. It has the legal right to amend, approve, or reject any legislation enacted by the House of Commons. That is its legal right. But does it have the moral right to veto, block, or stop the legislation passed by the House of Commons? I do not believe so, and I do not think that my colleagues believe so. The Senate can exercise this right legally, and constitutionally. The former Liberal Government and the Conservative Government have not challenged this right until today. But if the Senate exercises its right, the New Democratic Party will respond at that time in the manner it feels it should. I can assure the Hon. Member that the manner in which we will respond will be very clear and will be in line with the position that we have always taken.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who, I believe, is one of the senior Members of the House. He has given us an explanation concerning the Senate, but I have the impression that his younger hawkish colleagues are forcing him to provide this kind of explanation because, unless I am mistaken, all New Democrats have always turned down appointments to the illustrious Upper House. Be that as it may, does he not believe that if the NDP were consistent with itself it should indeed be supporting this Government's Bill C-22, given the fact that he, for one, does not have any use for the other place?
Second, how is it that the Party to whom he belongs, drawing inspiration from the likes of Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and others, would choose to endorse the Senate position aimed at doing away with the kind of consumer protection which for the first time would make it possible to gain full control over generic drugs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. Debate. The Hon. the Minister of State for science and Technology (Mr. Oberle).
Patent Act


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous question, I explained my position and the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to the Senate.
The Senate is there. We did not create the Senate, and we did not appoint the Senators. The Senate has the duty and the right to consider Bills passed by the House of Commons. It exercised its right and moved a number of amendments. We believe that some of those amendments, if approved by this House, would improve the Bill. To the extent that the Senate improves what we consider to be a bad Bill, we support those amendments.
If the House of Commons was presently in debate and rejected those amendments, and essentially passed the Bill, as was done at an earlier stage, and then the Senate does not accept the Bill, as I have already indicated, we will deal with that situation if and when it arises. I can assure the Hon. Member that we will not be any more sympathetic to the Senate in this case than we have been in any other.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I almost missed my turn to debate this issue. On the way from my office I was held up by a large demonstration in front of the Chamber; it is presently ongoing, and Your Honour should be apprised of. There are at least 1,000 young people there who are demanding that politicians who held prominent positions of another age free up the debate of this House and proceed with the passing of this legislation. These young scientists and engineers out there are demanding jobs.
Naturally, as the Minister of State (Science and Technology), I am interested in their message. I am sure you would assume that at one point I would wish to say a few words on Bill C-22 because this debate does concern science and technology. This debate does concern research and development. This debate does concern Canada in the 21st Century. This debate is about using science and technology and research and development to carve a niche for Canada in the new age and to overcome some of the historic problems of regional alienation and a lack of resolve in this critical area of science and technology.
The world is changing in a very dramatic fashion. Some say it is the dawning of a new age. Every single person in our country, every nation in the world, will determine its place in the 21st Century by the way it responds to the challenges and trends which are out there. The socio-economic well-being of entire nations is being determined by what is happening.
I have heard it said that over the next 30 years we will experience as profound a change in our socio-economic conditions in western civilization as we have experienced over the last 200 years of the industrial revolution. Just imagine what that means, Mr. Speaker. Can one even contemplate

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
what that means? How do we respond to this? How do we prepare ourselves for these changes?
We are designing new rules. New norms and standards are being created every day, and each one has to measure his or her own performance, and nations have to measure their performance in accordance with these new rules and the trends that are measurable throughout the world.
Since we pride ourselves on being one of the seven most important industrial nations in the world, we too have to begin to play by the rules which have been established by the people with whom we compare ourselves, by the general rules of the western world of which we are such an important part. Certainly, this Government intends to stay in the fast current, to stay with the leaders, to man the new frontier with the very best, because we have the potential to do that. We have the energies and resources to do it and we shall not disappoint future generations by depriving them of their opportunities to be with the best in the world.
We must compare our performance with those with whom we compete, and they are the best in the world. We must play by the rules we have collectively established. Clearly, what is known at this point is that knowledge, intellectual capital, shall be the currency of that new age. It is no longer the land it was in the agrarian age. It is not energy as it was throughout the industrial revolution. It is knowledge and intellectual capital. The rules that are being established in accordance with the management of this capital, who has the right over it, who can accumulate and who can claim ownership, have already been established in the international market-place.
There are really two sets of rules established. They are not new. Those rules were established in the agrarian revolution and the industrial revolution and they are consistent with the trends we are experiencing now.
Our socialist friends, of course, would like to play by a different set of rules where we have collective farms, collective ownership of capital and the right of the collectivities to manage the economy in a central way. Those are not the rules of the people with whom we compete in the world. They are not the rules of the people with whom we share the responsibility of making the world a better place to live, the western civilization, where private enterprise and private initiative are very important and salient factors.
Our socialist friends have other ideas, and that is understandable. But what is not understandable is the confusion of our Liberal friends. That is not understandable. They lament the fact daily that our performance in research and development and science related activities lags behind that of all these world leaders. I agree it does in many different ways.
Spending comes to mind. It is true, sir, that we are spending significantly less, that is, in terms of a percentage of the Gross National Product, than do the United States, France, Germany, and the European Community, generally, particularly Japan. In fact, we are spending perhaps just a little over half
of what these countries are spending on science and technology. My socialist friends have cried that we should be spending more; massive amounts of new money should be contributed. The Liberals are saying that as well. The Liberals had 20 years to plan ahead.
Let me just draw you a profile of what we found when we arrived here three years ago, Mr. Speaker. We found absolutely no planning, no reading, no recognition of the trends that were clearly established at that point, the trends that will establish the role of a nation like Canada in the 21st Century. There was no forward planning. There were no resources set aside for science and technology or for research. More importantly, the apparatus of government was not arranged to respond to these new trends and priorities.
So what did we do? First, we had to plan ahead and develop a vision for Canada. We had to work with the other players, with the provinces, so we sat down with the provinces. It took us two years to develop a national policy for science and technology. It was not a policy that came out of this place, or out of some historic discussions in some back room. It was a policy signed by 10 of the provinces, the two territories and the national Government. It is a focus for Canada, a vision for Canada. It was signed in March of this year in Vancouver.
We have a national strategy called "Innovaction" which lays out a clear focus of where we want to go and what we must do to respond to the challenge. We established a Standing Committee of this House of Commons on Research, Science and Technology for the first time. We established a central coordinating agency to manage the $4.2 billion the federal Government spends annually on science and technology to ensure that we do not duplicate our effort, that it is properly co-ordinated so that we use our scarce resources to lever private sector activities.
In our international comparisons we found as well that the effort of the federal Government was not at all bad. It was quite respectable when one compares what the federal Government spends in Canada with what the U.S. Government spends in the United States, particularly when one considers that over three-quarters of the expenditures in the United States, for instance-and that holds true for France, although not so much for Japan-is spent on defence related research and development activities. So there is quite a profound difference. We do not spend that much money on defence. We have perhaps other priorities.
We did find that we have a lot of catching up to do. We have to mobilize our resources. First, we needed to know what we wanted to spend our additional resources on. We needed to reorganize the apparatus of Government to ensure that we have the proper advice. As you know, sir, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed a council of the most prominent prestigious people in the country. It is a council which advises him personally on matters related to science and technology. That council has been meeting now for a year and is coming up with all kinds of interesting solutions and suggestions.
August 25, 1987

What have we done in the area of spending? My friend said this morning we have done nothing, that we are doing less now than we did when we came on stream. Let me put the record straight, as I did the other day. We are hearing the lament that we are not making any progress in finding new resources. Well, Sir, 1 made a comparison between the period since our mandate, the last three years, and the three years preceding our mandate. We have achieved an increase in spending in research and development and science related activities, that is the total national effort, including the private sector and universities. The provinces are spending very little; it is mainly the federal Government. In real dollars; that is, discounting inflation, we increased our effort by 21 per cent. That is very respectable. With the incentives we have put in place, and by our removing some of the obstacles, business has increased its effort by 23 per cent in real dollars.
The National Research Council had these drastic cuts. My friends will tell us every day we slashed our spending, but there has been a 23 per cent increase in allocation to the National Research Council in the last three years over the three years preceding.
Then we put in place provincial subagreements in order to get the provinces involved in this national thrust. There was an increase of 40 per cent in the worth of science and technology subagreements. That is very respectable in light of this other compelling priority of which we are not ashamed, and that is to bring our fiscal house into order and to quit mortgaging the future of the next 10 generations.
There is one other overriding and compelling urgency and obstacle that stands in the way of our objectives and that is the lack of a management regime, an investment climate and a regulatory environment within which the private sector would play its rightful role in the scheme of things. This, of course, is because of the antiquated patent laws and the antiquated ways we manage our intellectual capital under the Copyright Act and other such Acts. It is in that area where we are now moving as quickly as we can because we are not dealing only with pharmaceuticals, we are dealing with computer software as well.
We lose jobs every day because computer software companies cannot do research in Canada. When they are finished, they have to patent their findings in other countries. Until we reward people and permit them the right to keep some of the fruits of their labours, we will pot get research in the pharmaceutical industries.
We know what will happen when Bill C-22 comes into force because of some of the initiatives that have already taken place. Almost every week I am invited to attend press conferences at which major companies announce the establishment of labs in Canada, and particularly in the Montreal region which has become a centre for the pharmaceutical sector. There will be at least 3,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in new
Patent Act
investment. That is how to improve efforts in science and technology and R and D.
Try as we might, the federal Government, even if joined by the provinces, would not be able to respond to the challenges. That response requires the mobilization of our combined energies and resources. It requires the intellectual genius that resides in Canada. Every citizen must know what is happening in this new world and must be prepared for it. Every sector of the economy including traditional industries must become knowledge-intensive in planning and must use new technologies to improve efforts.
Our science and technology strategy is geared toward the revitalization of traditional industries including the forestry, mining, agricultural and fisheries sectors. Those are traditional industries which have been the basis of the prosperity we have enjoyed. The federal Government is playing a key role in important research in all these areas.
We must revitalize the regions that have become so dependent on primary resource industries. We must permit them to retain and improve their competitive postures in world markets. As Hon. Members know, commodity prices are under serious pressures as the technological revolution produces all kinds of substitutes for traditional materials with which we build our automobiles and homes. We must use technologies to stay on the cutting edge of technology. We must convert and add value to our resources and the refining of them.
Our national strategy on R and D and new technology is also designed to develop new technology-intensive industries. No longer will it be good enough for Canada to import 80 per cent of all the construction machinery and equipment that is used in the resource sectors. Entire sawmill systems are imported from Finland, Germany and the United States. However, we export 80 per cent of all the products of our aerospace industry. What a source of pride that is for all of us. We have ignored important opportunities we can now cash in on as we plan our new strategy in science and technology.
The challenges are great. The opportunities are unlimited. We cannot afford to allow a group of people who held prominent positions and served the country well in another age, but who are now sitting in the Senate, respectful as we are of this great institution, to deprive the present generation and future generations of Canadians of their place in the sun. We shall not stand for that.
We must decide by whose rules we want to play to achieve our place in the sun and to stay in the fast current that is sweeping mankind toward this new age. We on this side have made our decision. We will build on the great tradition of Canada. We will remobilize and rekindle the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great in the first place. In order to do that, we have to play by the rules of the western world, of which we are an important part, and not by any other rules. We have no choice.

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
The rules for patents and the protection of intellectual capital have already been established. All we want Bill C-22 to do is to put in place what every other industrial country already has in place. We cannot afford to be members of the club but play by our own rules. We cannot have it both ways.
Members of the NDP and the socialists would think that we can have it both ways. We do not think so. Nor do we want it to be that way. We want to get on with the job. I would hope that at least Liberal Members would see the wisdom of this approach, would look ahead to the 21st century for a few minutes and would get on with the job.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, 1 was interested in the remarks of the Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Mr. Oberle). He seems to be able to compute new figures right on the floor of the House of Commons. He said that the figures used by Statistics Canada indicating that the amount of research and development under the Conservative Government is at 1.3 per cent of GNP are wrong and that in fact while the Liberals were in office, the Statistics Canada figure of 1.7 per cent of GNP was wrong. How does he manage to say that the Conservatives are spending more real dollars on research and development when Statistics Canada does not agree with that?
Second, would the Hon. Member outline for the House the regional breakdown of these development dollars; how much of this mythical $900 million per year or whatever it would be that is to be spent by the multinational drug companies would be spent in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Yukon or Prince Edward Island? I am sure the Minister of State (Science and Technology) has those figures at his fingertips. How much will be spent in the regions of Canada?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to give the Hon. Member a lesson in mathematics. The comparisons of which I spoke are usually made in accordance with the performance of a country in terms of its Gross National Product. It is quite true that in that comparison, we have not improved. In fact, we kept roughly-


James Ross Fulton: Downward.


Frank Oberle: No, there has not been a decline but we kept the percentages at about the same rate. The Hon. Member forgets that we had the largest growth in national industrial and economic performance of any other of the major industrial countries in the world. With a growth of 3 per cent and 4 per cent in the Gross National Product, which is at just over $500 billion, and calculating that back, we have not been able to mobilize enough resources to keep pace with that spectacular growth.


James Ross Fulton: That's right. It's dropped 30 per cent.


Frank Oberle: It is massive, spectacular growth. All the reports from OECD indicate this growth rate will continue and
Canada will be the leader in industrial recovery. We pride ourselves on that.
To keep pace with spending as a percentage of that growth is very difficult. What I am saying is that in real dollars we have increased spending. Comparing the three years we have been in power and the three years prior to that, it increased by 21 per cent. The National Research Council had a 23 per cent increase in its allocation over that period.


James Ross Fulton: What about regional spending?


Frank Oberle: Now that my hon. friend from Skeena understands that, I will go to regional spending.
It is true that certain regions of the country have certain strengths. A group in Montreal looked at this very seriously and it predicts that in one region of Quebec, Montreal, 10,000 new jobs will be created. The 3,000 jobs I am talking about are the pure science and research jobs. There are more spin-offs in that exciting area than in any other industrial activity. That region will benefit most and I make no apologies for that. This is where the regional strength is.
There is strength in Vancouver as well with the Terry Fox Foundation. There is strength in Montreal. There is strength in southern Ontario. There are even pockets of strength in the Atlantic provinces. We are looking at the national effort here. Do not bring out that red herring of proper distribution. When you give it to the private sector they will do the right thing. Let us unleash the genius which resides in UBC and the University of Victoria and so on. You will see what happens out there. The regions will all have their place in the sun with proper management.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, no other issue deserves more attention than Bill C-22, and I believe that it is a good thing for the House to be asked to examine it further because of the amendments proposed by the Senate.
The Government is always repeating that the pharmaceutical companies have promised to invest some $1.4 billion within the next ten years and to create a number of jobs.
We also know that six Canadian provinces have asked the Government not to go ahead with Bill C-22, as have a number of important witnesses, such as the Canadian Consumers Association and too many others for me to list them all in the short time at my disposal. As for the six provinces, that is Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, they object to Bill C-22 because, first, this Bill will result in higher prices for drugs in Canada, and second, the Government has no written guarantee from the companies that they will indeed invest.
Representing as he does a Government which is-how can I put it-so little in possession of the truth, and which has lost all credibility within three years, how can the Minister expect Canadians who object to this Bill to trust him when he says that he has guarantees even though he has nothing on paper
August 25, 1987

and there is nothing in this Bill to guarantee that a single job will be created or one cent invested?


Philip Derek Lewis: Judy Erola says so.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 do not believe her.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, you would not wish me to recite the litany. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), read a page and a half into Hansard-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I can read in those who are opposed if you want.


Frank Oberle: -of all the groups, associations and provinces which have openly declared themselves in support of this Bill. Neither would my hon. friend want me to repeat all that has been said about increasing prices. That myth has been dispelled. There will not be the predicted increase in drug prices. The drugs affected are 7 per cent of all drugs being sold. The other 93 per cent are for specific illnesses. There is not a great consumer market for them so obviously those who copy drugs are not interested in that. They leave that to the people who do the research. They can produce those drugs even though there will never be any real commercial benefit.
What about the written guarantees from industry? 1 can tell my hon. friend that we just happen to have faith in the private sector and the entrepreneurs of our country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In God we trust; all others pay cash.


Frank Oberle: We just happen to believe in private enterprise, unlike the Liberals. Where are the great Liberals of the past? They have reduced themselves to a little rump of the socialist party sitting opposite.
Have faith, my friend, in the pioneers of this great country. They built this nation on the principle of free enterprise and personal initiative. We just happen to have that faith and we will be proved right once again. We predicted that by playing a smaller role in the economy we would revitalize it and all the signs are pointing in that direction. We are registering the largest growth-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not your fault.


Frank Oberle: -in the economy than any other industrial country. Yes, it is our fault because we rekindled the spirit and removed some of the barriers which were put in place by the Liberals.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Minister on laying out what a bright future we have in medical research once the Opposition stops blocking this motion. If any of them were to take the time to talk to the 1,000 people now demonstrating on the Hill in favour of this Bill, they would probably change their minds.
I want to ask my colleague a question about the new-found policy of the NDP. Traditionally the NDP has been opposed to the Senate. In fact, they want it abolished. Quite recently, last week in fact, the NDP House Leader announced a reversal of that policy when he said we would assume that the Senate would see the wisdom of stopping this Bill as well. He went on to say that the fact is they do some good work some time.
How does the Hon. Minister feel and how does he think the people in his constituency would feel about an appointed Senate blocking the will of the democratically elected representatives of the people, Members of this House of Commons?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister has one minute to answer.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to answer this question. I monitored very closely the speeches of our friends in the NDP and I am reminded of the concept developed, that politics is the science of expediency. When it is expedient for the NDP they can even defend the Senate.
I was in the riding of my hon. friend for Skeena for three days a couple of weeks ago and talked to the Chamber of Commerce in Kitimat which passed a resolution asking for his resignation. That demonstrates the faith he has in small enterprise, in growth in jobs, and the great potential in the great riding that he represents.


James Ross Fulton: When are you going to the Senate?


Frank Oberle: I have no ambition to go to the Senate. The Senate exists and it is exercising its right, but it is time it saw the error of its ways and allowed us to get on with the business of the nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is really sad to see what is happening to the debate

August 25, 1987
on Bill C-22. Today, we have employees from the multinationals at the door. It is easy to get 1,000 people when the company pays for their buses and day off. Next week, the generics are going to pay 1,000 of their own employees to come and demonstrate.
The Senate is conducting its own protest. The Conservative Government is doing its own thing as well. But is anyone paying attention to the average consumer? Who is protecting the poor souls who can't get a free ride from the companies to come and demonstrate? Who is going to ask the views of Mrs. Solange Denis, who told the Prime Minister: "Charlie Brown, you lied to us!"?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to be responsible and not give in to blackmail by the multinationals, to adopt the resolutions or amendments proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), to protect consumers, to protect the jobs in Quebec, and please stop this circus!
the environmental consequences of this low-level flying could not recommend against it, that it could only make recommendations with respect to how the effects of the flying might be mitigated.
It seems to me, leaving the question of the actual environmental effects of low-level flying aside, that the ruling of the Minister jeopardizes the very notion of environmental assessment. Surely if we are committed to assessing the environmental consequences of something we have to be open to the possibility in theory that the environmental consequences will be so bad that the people charged with that assessment could recommend against doing it.
I think a very bad precedent has been set, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government take this same attitude toward nuclear submarines in the Arctic? Are all things military to be exempt from environmental assessment to the point that these panels will be told that they cannot recommend against the very things they are being asked to assess?



HIGH PRICE OF GASOLINE IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, recently certain parts of eastern Ontario have experienced unreasonably high gasoline prices. These higher prices are driven up by the major oil companies which either directly or indirectly control most of the retail outlets. These high prices may be great for the major oil companies' profits, but they are not acceptable for the consumer. The small group of major oil companies are abusing their oligopoly's power.
Crude oil prices have declined in recent weeks and, unfortunately, it is without optimism that I wait for reduced pump prices. The present free market system is not working. Perhaps we should be looking at radical changes for the industry. Perhaps the time has come for total divestiture legislation so that independent retailers will allow the free market system to work for the advantage of both retailers and consumers.
*
*



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to register my concern about the recent ruling by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) with respect to the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel that was set up to examine the effects of low-level flying in Labrador. The Minister ruled that the panel set up to study



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, last August 19 I was one of several privileged to make the "return to Dieppe pilgrimage" under the leadership of the distinguished Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). We walked on the beaches and looked up at the formidable cliffs as did nearly 5,000 Canadians 45 years ago, but the circumstances were oh, so much different. On that date 45 years ago, over 900 Canadians died and about 2,000 more were sent to spend the rest of their days during the war in prisoner of war camps.
Their actions were to contribute greatly to the final liberation of Europe. We were able to witness firsthand the joys of the people as they experienced that freedom on the beaches and in the towns. We felt the warmth and gratitude of those same peoples as they cheered us as we marched through the streets, and as we stood together at the several markers and memorials to recite those words "We will remember them". Long live Canada!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last week it was reported that the Atomic Energy Control Board has put
August 25, 1987

forward proposals for improved nuclear reactor safety, including additional research into reactor behaviour, installation of extra safety equipment, minor but significant changes to reactor designs, changing some operating procedures and improving decommissioning plans. A spokesman for AECB said that costs and exposure of workers to radiation are taken into account in the safety proposals.
However, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is resisting such proposals, citing high costs, technical arguments, and potential difficulties in selling and building future reactors as reasons for inaction, and in most cases is seeking compromises.
As a Crown corporation with a monopoly on nuclear reactor design, public safety for present and future generations should be Atomic Energy of Canada's highest priority.
Therefore, I urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) to instruct Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to reconsider the proposed safety recommendations in this light and to put a moratorium on new nuclear plant construction in Canada at least until the dispute on public safety is resolved.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the current conflict between CN and CP rail workers and management highlights the need for a new approach to resolve labour-management disputes. Strikes and lockouts in this segment of the transportation industry are outdated and costly, not only for the parties in dispute, but for all Canadians.
When we consider the total cost of the current strike to travellers on vacation, commuters who have difficulty getting to and from work, as well as the thousands of employees of VIA Rail who are now laid off, the price is too high.
In addition to this, the movement of commodities is brought to a halt. Western Canadian grain farmers, already faced with dwindling prices, will not tolerate this during harvest. Grain must move.
I commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) for the action he has taken and urge him to prepare the necessary legislation to bring an end to this present situation if negotiations break off again without a settlement.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the fact that there are a number of demonstrators with regard to Bill C-22 outside on the Hill. For the record, I want to say how happy and delighted I am to see a great number of individuals from the Province of Quebec and the Province on Ontario on Parliament Hill, drawing attention to perhaps one of the worst pieces of legislation that this country has seen, Bill C-22.
I am delighted that these demonstrators have taken the opportunity to focus attention on a very major issue affecting all Canadians. I want to thank them, on behalf of our Party, for drawing to the attention of Canadians the real problem of Bill C-22, which is that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) once again is on his knees to the multinational corporations hoping to assist, aid, and abet multinationals, as opposed to trying to help protect senior citizens in this country with regard to the high cost of prescription drugs. I want it to be known that 1 appreciate the attention that the demonstrators are drawing to this very important issue. Hopefully the debate will continue and we will defeat Bill C-22.



LEADER OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Now hear this! This month, a Member, on behalf of his NDP colleagues, requested in a letter a private, confidential briefing on the free trade negotiations. The Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) forthwith sent an invitation to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), which the leader of the socialists immediately declined, stating in part that to attend the briefing "would seriously restrict "him" in carrying out his obligations as Leader of the NDP".
Say that again! Hearing the true facts on free trade would seriously restrict the NDP Leader! It would zipper up his lips! He could no longer get ink in the socialist press with piffle like: "Free trade will destroy Canadian sovereignty"; "Free trade will cost us jobs"; "Free trade will give away the rest of Canada"; "Free trade will completely obliterate the automotive industry in Canada"; et cetera, et cetera.
You are right, Mr. NDP Leader, the truth would restrict you and your Party. What a pity!

August 25, 1987



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now for a little of the truth.
1 want to sound an alarm, not only for the demise of rural post offices but for the demise of rural Canadian life. The Post Office is on a forced march again with a scorched-earth policy to close down rural post offices-a definite threat to rural life in Canada. This is taking place right across the country.
It is being done without adequate consultation. The consultations are being rushed rather than taking the 90 days which they are supposed to take. People are not being given the option of keeping their existing post offices. This follows from a notion of centralized economic planning as it affects rural Canada rather than a decentralized approach which is sensitive to community life. It is imposing upon rural Canada poverty wages, one-fifth of what the people who run those post offices earn today.
This centralized, insensitive, destructive approach to rural communities has to stop. It is time that the Government woke up and started to listen to rural Canadians.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: A few minues ago, Mr. Speaker, we saw a demonstration in a democratic country, a demonstration for democracy in front of the halls of democracy. Montrealers and Quebecers came to defend 1,300 paying jobs, jobs for intelligent people, that the future holds in store. Why? Because of a Senate full of Grits from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, which is challenging our democracy.
I wonder where the Leader of the New Democratic Party was, when he was needed to defend our democracy, Mr. Speaker. Where was the powerless Liberal Leader? Where was his Quebec Lieutenant, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau)? And where were the other Liberal Members from Quebec? The Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine-East (Mr. Allmand), for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), for Laurier (Mr. Berger), for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin), for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin), for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone)? Were they hiding in the quarters of an arrogant Senate overcome by Trudeaumania, Mr. Speaker?



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1984, the Tory Government abolished part of the Regional Industrial Development Program which allowed the development of municipal infrastructures. We know that many municipalities have older infrastructures but due to the lack of financial resources and government programs, they cannot make the required improvements. Therefore the situation is worsening.
According to a review made by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, a sum of $15 billion will be required before the end of the decade to bring the present facilities back to a satisfactory condition. The Federation has therefore proposed to the federal Government an investment plan for public works that would provide maximun economic benefits and thousands of jobs. Needless to say, my party through its leader has supported the project deemed essential to the survival and the cleaning of our lakes and rivers.
As for the Ontario Liberal Government, its response was to implement a new program called Lifelines which will enable Ontario municipalities to receive financial assistance for waterworks and sewage disposal systems. However, it cannot act alone. The federal Tory government must show some leadership with respect to that issue and has a duty not only to support but also to implement the investment plan proposed by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we live in a democratic society. Canadians have the right and the duty if they so feel to express their views on any subject, to write, to phone or to talk to their Members of Parliament. I support that right.
We have today a demonstration outside this building by people who have come here to urge Members of Parliament to support Bill C-22, and they have every right to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Members of the House should know that the people who are outside are employed by drug companies. They were given the day off from work to come here. At least one company closed its operations for the day. Their expenses for coming here were paid for by the drug companies. There is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, they have every right to
August 25, 1987

do that. But Members should know the conditions under which they are here. They were paid for and supported by the multinational drug companies.




Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, just as my colleague the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), I shall speak loud enough to make my voice heard in the other place.
Today, outside of this great House where democratically elected representatives meet-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor, and I would ask all Hon. Members to extend him the usual courtesy.


Marcel R. Tremblay: -Canadian men and women have gathered to tell non-elected Liberal senators: Pass the Bill!

"Pass the Bill".

I take it upon myself to convey to this House the comments they have made to Conservative Members:
Bill C-22 is very important to us since it means saving our jobs in the pharmaceutical industry.

It is important to protect the integrity of patents. R and D should grow in Canada. We should keep the profit for reinvestment and regional development here in Canada.

Support research. Protect our jobs.

Bill C-22 means jobs. Bill C-22 means investment. The health of Canadians depends on Bill C-22. Canada needs Bill C-22.
They have a message to deliver, and they have delivered it. [Translation]
Is that sufficiently clear, Mr. Speaker?

We Tories are all behind these participants.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Ora! Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Our grain sales are in peril, the western Canadian economy is in jeopardy, there are 30,000 commuters stranded in Toronto, and another 15,000 in Montreal. The Government of the Prime Minister must take responsibility for the situation, because in its haste to achieve deregulation of the transportation industry, it failed to put into place adjustment programs for the workers who necessarily lose their jobs.
I ask the Prime Minister why are there no programs to provide adjustment assistance for workers who are losing their jobs in the railway and other transportation industries, which is a fundamental cause of this particular strike?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect factually.
I will refer to CN, as it is a Crown corporation. CN has a program which is certainly one of the best in all of the industry in Canada with respect to job security and employment security.
A person with a minimum of eight years service with CN, who is laid off as a result of technological, organizational, or operational change, is eligible for guaranteed employment. I will not go into all of the details.
A person with a minimum of two years service with CN is eligible for employment security under the income maintenance agreement which includes retraining to become qualified to fill other vacancies within the railway, lay-off benefits, severance pay, early retirement if the person is the correct age, and the rest.
Within CN there is already quite a generous plan to cover these situations.


DEREGULATION OF INDUSTRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport made similar arguments and a similar speech before the rail workers in Moncton, and it did not solve the problem. The Minister did not deliver.

Mr. Speaker, the railway system in Canada is having difficulties because of the Conservatives' poorly implemented deregulation process. The Government could have averted this situation by providing for ways to help workers affected by deregulation. It is one of the most important themes voiced during this strike.

August 25, 1987
Oral Questions
If the Government and the responsible Minister introduce back to work legislation, will they at the same time announce and implement programs aimed at helping workers adjust to the deregulation-provoked situation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this situation of the railways has no more to do with deregulation than the hon. gentleman has to do with the moon. No one likes to hit someone when they are down, but in any event the whole process of deregulation was started by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry in 1984.
The facts are that in North America the nature of the transportation system is changing and, with deregulation or without, employment in the railway industry has been decreasing. That is because the railways no longer carry the same percentage of traffic they carried in the past, and 1 can give a number of other reasons. It is not deregulation that causes this situation. We have a situation where the parties are now bargaining. There is mediation. Why the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition would attempt to stir this all up at this particular sensitive moment is simply beyond me, but I can understand the trauma he is suffering from at the moment.


John Napier Turner: I could be provoked into examining the Hon. Minister psychologically but that would take too long, would be too uncertain, and too indeterminate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: The
Minister can exercise his usual bravado in attempting to skirt around the answer, but he has a responsibility for having ducked the fundamental reason why the parties are at loggerheads at the moment, namely, the failure of the Government in the railway industry, the trucking industry and the airline industry to provide sensible programs for worker adjustment so that the convulsions necessarily following upon deregulation could have been anticipated so that the workers concerned could have had a feeling of security.
That is an issue in this strike. That is an issue the Government has to face. When will the Minister announce some programs for adjustment of transportation workers? And when will he restore some of the programs the Government has already cancelled?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition seems to
be annoyed at me because my picture was in the paper today lifting the arm of a certain person who shan't be named because of the effect it might have on his temper.
The hon. gentleman also forgets. What was he doing all the years he was a director of Canadian Pacific? Why did he not introduce these revolutionary policies? Why is he waiting for the Government? He had his opportunity when he was a director of CP.
This is a matter of collective bargaining and for collective bargaining. We are proud that our Crown corporation, CN, to whom we delegate to the board of directors, the capable management and the right to manage that corporation. It is a leader in this area in Canada, and we can be proud of it. If it can improve its system and survive economically, it will do it.


RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-JOB SECURITY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
While the Minister of Transport is talking of collective bargaining, could the Minister of Labour indicate whether a bill has already been drafted to force railway workers back to work without giving them any job security guarantee?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that the both sides have been meeting since 9 o'clock this morning in the presence of mediator Carson and Bill Kelly, my Associate Deputy Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the two sides to reach a negotiated agreement. But I can also assure the House and all Canadians that, if ever I have reasons to believe that these negotiations are likely to fail, I will be ready to act.


RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to put to the Minister. He says he is willing to act. Could he give us the assurance that if he must introduce a bill, that bill will not force railway workers to return to work without giving them the job security that is absolutely necessary in the circumstances?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that right now, parties are the masters of their own fate at the bargaining table, and I encourage them sincerely to come to a negotiated settlement.
August 25, 1987


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-U.S. OFFICIAL'S MEMORANDUM
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I now have a U.S. Commerce Department memo from William Cavitt who is identified as co-ordinator of the U.S.-Canada free trade area negotiations, in which he says:
-the negotiations are focusing on those programs which provide financial assistance to a specific firm or industry. The U.S. negotiators are asking the Canadians to end these subsidies at both the federal and the provincial levels.
Will the Prime Minister confirm this U.S. focus and will he admit that small businesses in sectors from Newfoundland to British Columbia would be severely damaged by this?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the fact that apparently he has a memo from some United States functionary in regard to free trade talks and he asks for a comment. I would have thought that he would have wanted to comment on the report the Economic Council of Canada released this morning which indicates that a free trade agreement with the United States would produce 350,000 new jobs in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 would urge my hon. friend to look at the report which indicates a positive impact in just about every sector of our economy. Moreover, this very significantly produces large economic gains in a balanced way across the country.
We are trying to make sure that the tremendous growth we have experienced is shared more equally. We want to see Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick get the kinds of breaks that are now prevailing in southern Ontario and elsewhere in the country.
I know my hon. friend would want to join the Government of Canada and Ambassador Reisman as he pursues his initiatives in Cornwall this week in supporting the kinds of concepts endorsed by the Economic Council of Canada. He should perhaps pay a little less attention to information coming to him from American functionaries.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact I have read the council's report, commented on it already, and identified it as hocus-pocus which has no basis in fact whatsoever because its assumptions are completely false.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member put his question, please?
Oral Questions SERVICE INDUSTRIES


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a supplementary question with the Prime Minister by going back to Mr. Cavitt who, in this memo, indicates very clearly that services, especially in sectors like the insurance industry, are a key focus of concern, something which the Economic Council ignores.
Will the Prime Minister not concede that focusing on services will hurt women's employment especially because 83 per cent of their jobs are in the service sector?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there was an article on August 1 by Linda Diebel of the Montreal Gazette which began as follows: "When Victor Fingerhut of the U.S. speaks, New Democrats listen."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: "Mr. Fingerhut is a prominent Washington consultant and adviser." I urge the Hon. Member to stop celebrating everything coming from the U.S. and start believing in Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 do not know Mr. Fingerhut but he sounds like a nice guy.
I just want to tell my hon. friend that before he dismisses a study by Judith Maxwell of the Economic Council of Canada he should look at the impact of free trade by 1995. It says that the GNP will be up as a result of a free trade agreement by 3.3 per cent. Inflation will be down by 5.7 per cent. Productivity will increase by seven-tenths of a per cent. Real wage rates will be up by 3 per cent. Disposable income will be up by 3.1 per cent. Income up by almost 7 per cent. Unemployment down by 1.3 per cent. That has to be good news, even for the New Democrats and Mr. Fingerhut.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member and the Right Hon. Prime Minister have read to each other enough Economic Council reports so we can get to a specific question and specific answer.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL REPORT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister now admit that the Economic Council report to which he referred as endorsed by the Council has not been approved by the Council, was not put before the Council's governing board, and therefore is not an official statement-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -of the Council whatsoever?

August 25, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it becomes official when Mr. Fingerhut approves it.
This is a very serious matter. Judith Maxwell is a very distinguished Canadian economist who heads the Economic Council of Canada, an organization which for some decades has been known for its impartiality and professionalism. It has produced a report which says the Economic Council of Canada has just completed new research indicating that free trade with the U.S. could create as many as 350,000 new jobs in Canada by 1995. Surely that should be good enough as at least a modest ray of optimism even for someone like the Hon. Member who persists in failing to realize that jobs depend upon the kind of arrangement we are seeking with the U.S.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Zou Yu, Minister of Justice of the People's Republic of China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Speaker:: 1 also wish to bring to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Wayne Cheverie, Minister of Justice for Prince Edward Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAX REFORM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my friend the Right Hon. Prime Minister. According to a Department of Finance survey, 71 per cent of Canadians oppose this Government's option to tax bread, milk, butter.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, on the initiative of the Official Opposition, petitions with 25,000 signatures that were collected in a very short period of time. They come from across Canada, and those people also oppose your option to tax bread, milk and butter. Over the weekend, the leader of the Quebec
Conservative Caucus said it was stupid to uphold a decision to tax bread, milk and butter.
I have a very simple question for my Right Hon. friend the Prime Minister: Can he explain why he insists so obstinately on taxing food, when the majority of the people oppose that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my hon. friend yesterday 1 specifically answered that question raised by one of his colleagues, the Hon. Member for Papineau. The answer has already been given.
But since he is now in this House today, he might perhaps tell us where he stands on the matter of non-elected Liberal Senators who are now in the process of denying Montrealers 1 300 jobs and $700 millions of investments.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Prime Minister's question, if he wants to solve the problem in the Senate, let him stop bragging across the land and table in this House a bill on an elected Senate, and I will support that.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DENY POSSIBILITY OF TAX ON FOOD
Jean-Claude Malépart: To
get back to my question, now that the problem of the Senate is solved, the people, Canadian families are against its option.
Will the Prime Minister now have the courage to tell Canadians and Quebecers alike why he still intends to slap a tax on bread, milk and butter? Why not say right now-sooner or later he will backtrack as in the case of old age security pensions-that there can be no question of taxing bread, milk and butter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, now there is an interesting and momentous statement on the part of the Hon. Member.
Yesterday I replied to the question of the Hon. Member for Papineau. The question, the suggestion was false yesterday, and it is still false today.
Still, important statement from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. He fails to respond to the claims of people in Quebec and Ontario with respect to the 1,300 jobs and he is asking me to introduce a bill to abolish the Senate.


Jean-Claude Malépart: An elected Senate!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have already proposed to the House, in March 1985 1 believe, I have formally said so and I repeat today that if I had the support of the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal leader, we would be in a position to proceed immediately with the abolition of the Senate. The NDP leader has endorsed my position, but the Liberal leader withheld his consent because he would rather keep the non-elected senators.
August 25, 1987


THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On the weekend he indicated that in the discussions leading up to the Meech Lake Accord he had suggested to the Premiers that the Senate be abolished. The Premier of Ontario is reported to have said in response that: "He mentioned it as a throw-away comment, more or less out of the blue. Nobody took it particularly seriously."
In light of the comments he has just made, is he serious about abolishing the Senate? If so, can he explain to the House and the people of Canada if he intends to pursue this with the Premiers at the first opportunity?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in response to, I think, a question from the Leader of the NDP in February or March of 1985 in this House I said that if we could have the approval of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition we would proceed that very day or the very next day with regard to a resolution abolishing the Senate. As I recollect, the Leader of the Opposition declined to provide his consent at that time, I think for obvious reasons.
With regard to the First Ministers' Conference, the question of the Senate arose and, without any disparaging allusions to any of the good people who sit there, I put forward the view that 1 believed that at a conference like that we should consider the abolition of the Senate and/or its reconstitution in a more democratic manner. I put that out for consideration by the Premiers. At the time they thought that there was some value in it but that perhaps, because of its complexity, it ought to be referred to our first constitutional meeting.
If my hon. friend is speaking on behalf of his Party, and if the Leader of the Opposition will undertake today to meet so that we can arrange for a resolution to go before both Houses to provide for the abolition of the Senate, I can assure him that I will bring it in as quickly as I can.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTRODUCE ABOLITION MOTION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He knows, as he has indicated, of the very clear support of our Party for abolishing the Senate. The Government brings in resolutions, motions, and Bills weekly. Would he demonstrate his leadership on this issue and bring a resolution to the House of Commons, at its earliest convenience, to begin the constitutional ball rolling which would eventually result in the abolition of the Senate?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is as fervent as he says he is in his clear support for abolishing the Senate, why is he supporting the Senate in its frustration of the House of Commons on Bill C-22?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: You are the one who is supporting it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think Hansard will reflect that I put forward the matter for consideration by the House. In fairness, my hon. friend's Party responded quickly to that. My recollection is that the Leader of the Opposition was disinclined to follow through at that time. It may very well be that there will be a change of mind.
Since that time I have undertaken with the First Ministers a constitutional process which we believe will lead to a very informed and improved Senate. That was a year and a half after we first raised the matter in the House of Commons. The First Ministers agreed with that process. We are now engaged in it, and will follow through with the full support of my hon. friend.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTRODUCE MOTION TO PROVIDE FOR AN ELECTED SENATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a proposition for the Senate. I will direct a question to the Prime Minister. He knows that a resolution to abolish the Senate would not gain the consent of the provinces. He has already talked to them about that and they treated the question as a facetious one.
Two years ago the Prime Minister neglected an opportunity when he had his then Minister of Justice bring a resolution before the House which was debated only two hours, one hour by the then Minister of Justice and one hour by myself, during which time we put forward the proposition for an elected Senate.
The Prime Minister has made Senate reform through abolition, election, or changing the nominating process, virtually impossible through the unanimity clause in the Meech Lake Accord.
The Prime Minister does not need my consent or that of the NDP or anybody. He has a huge majority in the House of Commons. Would he accept my offer to bring in a resolution for an elected Senate which would give the regions of the country better representation in the Parliament of Canada? if he does that he will get our unanimous consent immediately.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this gets more and more interesting.


John Napier Turner: More and more relevant.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that is a very interesting suggestion. Because of its seriousness it requires-

August 25, 1987
Oral Questions


James Ross Fulton: Backpeddling pretty fast.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition feels, as I do, that the Senate is being abusive of the House of Commons.


André Ouellet: No, no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be happy to respond to that. I can assure the hon. gentleman of my good faith and that of the Leader of the NDP. Perhaps as an indication of his good faith, his leadership, and his commitment to true Senate reform, he could instruct the non-elected Liberals in the Senate today to pass Bill C-22.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MEECH LAKE ACCORD BE REOPENED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has an opportunity to introduce a motion at any time. I have suggested to him that abolition of the Senate will not gain the consent of the provinces.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Does MacEachen agree?


John Napier Turner: Yes, the Liberal caucus is on record in favour of an elected Senate as is the Liberal Party. If the Prime Minister brings in a resolution to that effect and can assure us that he will reopen the Meech Lake Accord to make it possible-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Another condition.


John Napier Turner: Under that Accord the unanimous consent of the provinces is now necessary. If the Prime Minister can bring his provincial counterparts onside he will have our support 100 per cent here and 100 per cent in the other place in favour of an elected Senate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is an historic and significant announcement by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that he can deliver 100 per cent of those Liberal Senators. I think that is good news for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Your bluff has been called.


Martin Brian Mulroney: More seriously, I hope my right hon. friend will reconsider his suggestion, of which he seemed to speak approvingly, that this would necessarily involve the reopening of the Meech Lake Accord.


John Napier Turner: You have unanimous consent.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is a very disturbing comment by the Leader of the Opposition. He apparently looks forward to Thursday with some concern.


Mr. Nunziata:: Quit being a jerk. You can't abolish the Senate without changing the Accord.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think Canada has appreciated the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP, and the Leader of the P.C. Party with regard to the Meech Lake Accord.
In 1985 I proposed in this House, and was supported by the Leader of the NDP, the complete abolition of the Senate of Canada and was ready to bring in a resolution that day. I am still resolved to that. If my hon. friend will support the abolition of the Senate we will do that and attempt to persuade the Premiers that that having taken place we can reconstitute together an elected Senate which is much more representative of the people of Canada and much more democratic. However, that would require a substantial change in the position of the Leader of the Opposition.


SENATE REFORM-LIBERAL PARTY SUPPORT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting exchange. The Leader of the Government has suggested that he can bring unanimous p wincial consent to bear on this issue, which provincial consent he needs under the Meech Lake Accord. He has also made it far less likely that we will get any meaningful Senate reform because he has transferred the appointment process to the provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's a falsehood. Why don't you tell the truth, John?


John Napier Turner: When he had an opportunity to advance a style of Senate reform in this House two years ago when the then Minister of Justice introduced it he did not proceed with it despite the co-operation of this side of the House to move toward an elected Senate. If he will give us some meaningful Senate reform and an elected Senate, he will have this Party 100 per cent behind him. He must bring the provinces onside as he now needs all the provinces onside.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Meech Lake we were able to bring all of the provinces onside representing the entire country and four different political Parties, three of which are in the House of Commons. I think that is a tribute to the maturity of all Members of the House and the leadership of all political Parties.
August 25, 1987

I think it is imprudent of the Leader of the Opposition to start suggesting amendments to the Meech Lake Accord. 1 think that runs counter to everything his Quebec Leader has said.


John V. Nunziata: How can you abolish the Senate if you don't amend Meech Lake?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to complete his answer and, while doing so, I would ask all other Hon. Members to listen to the answer and extend the usual courtesy.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that in 1985 I proposed the abolition of the Senate. Inasmuch as the Leader of the Liberal Party did not respond, we then proceeded further to the Edmonton declaration last summer to begin the Meech Lake process, which resulted in a new constitutional accord which has been endorsed by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition. That process, in itself, carries with it a provision for constitutional meetings, including the item of Senate reform.
Inasmuch as the Leader of the Liberal Party failed in 1985 to give us the approval, I was then, as Prime Minister, obliged to bring this matter forward to the constitutional conference of the Premiers. It is now on the agenda.
I have publicly committed, here in the House and elsewhere, to bring forward a comprehensive project for Senate reform-


Mr. Lapierre:: Bring it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -including the election of Senators. Meanwhile, because it speaks to the notion of democracy and our desire for more democracy in the other House, I think my right hon. friend could provide leadership to the country in regard to his perception of a democratic Senate by instructing the non-elected Liberal Senators to respond to the will of the elected Members of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. As the Minister knows, several reputable Canadian legal authorities have warned that Bill C-84 most likely offends against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by infringing both on the rights of refugee claimants in Canada and on the rights of Canadians who help them.
Oral Questions
Therefore, has he or his senior Minister obtained a Justice Department report stating that Bill C-84 does comply with the Charter and, if so, will he table it in the House? If not, why not?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this kind of myth has been perpetrated by the Hon. Member, that somehow this Bill offends the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada. That contention is false. The fact is that we have been working in the Department of Justice with my colleagues in Employment and Immigration to make sure that this complies, each provision of the Bill complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Due process is involved in this particular legislation and provides for government under the rule of law and under our Charter. I wish the Hon. Member would not mislead the country by posing the question over and over again.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO SUPREME COURT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, if everything is as right and shipshape as the Hon. Minister has just stated, then in view of the widespread doubts by constitutional authorities across the country, will the Minister refer this Bill to the Supreme Court immediately for an advisory opinion as to whether it is constitutional?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have a House of Commons in which people are entitled to put forward their points of view. This is the place where policy decisions should take place. We should not try to transfer our responsibilities to the courts. A vast majority of Canadians want a fair and effective immigration policy. Why does the NDP stand in the way of the majority of Canadians in this particular area?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. This morning the Minister of State for Immigration stubbornly and arrogantly refused to amend proposed Section 95(1) and Section 95(2) which would make a priest or any other Canadian genuinely helping refugees liable to huge fines and/or imprisonment. Given that the churches and organizations do not encourage or condone refugee abuse, why did the Government place under the letter of the law a priest or nun offering humanitarian assistance in the very same category as the sleazy smugglers and consultants? Will the Prime Minister, for the sake of Canadian sense of justice-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Sergio Marchi: -make an eleventh hour intervention to distinguish legally between the abusers who should be

August 25, 1987
Oral Questions
punished by the law and the thousands of Canadians who legitimately aid refugees and should not be treated like potential criminals?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, for the last ten years it was not an offence to counsel or transport people to our border points. It was an offence to evade the legitimate border controls.
Nobody is above the law. The law must be respected by all. We will stop abuse. We will stop profiteering, stop racketeering, and we will finally have a process that is fair and just and gives an open determination to everybody in need of protection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-84 is Rambo-style legislation which makes Ronald Reagan look progressive.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the hour, 1 would ask the Hon. Member to put his question directly.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is before the committee.


Sergio Marchi: Take it easy, Joe, you are before a lot of things.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am ahead of you.


Sergio Marchi: 1 want to ask the Minister-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


André Ouellet: You are not the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question clearly and briefly.


Sergio Marchi: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Given that constitutional experts have predicted innumerable court challenges, why does the Minister refuse to tender and make public the Department's legal opinion on the constitutionality, as has been done with previous legislation? Rather than trying to drag the piece of legislation to a slow and agonizing death in the court system, why does he not refer a judicial review to the Supreme Court of Canada immediately so that this House and Canadians can afford themselves of a proper constitutional response, rather than having-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sergio Marchi: -this piece of legislation become tied up in six months time?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I like to receive the benefit of advice from people, but not from somebody who has recommended, as a matter of public policy on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, that we create detention camps for refugees and immigrants coming to this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This Bill is in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of Rights and all the safeguards incumbent in that Charter. If the Liberal Party wants to fly in the face of overwhelming public opinion to have an effective immigration and refugee system for the benefit of refugees and immigrants in this country, then it better lie on his shoulders.

[ Translation]


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or to the future Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry are worried about their future and that of their industry. Does the Minister recognize the fact that these representatives have democratic rights?

Can he assure the people of this industry and all Canadians that the Government will make all efforts to provide some $600 million in investment in the Montreal area and to create some 1,300 jobs to which the New Democratic Party and the Liberals are opposed?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in my 15 years around here when there have been picket signs in support of the Government and opposed to the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: They should be there. Because of the undemocratic actions in the other place and the shameful support of those actions by the New Democratic Party and Liberal Party, there is a possibility that this Bill could be killed, putting in jeopardy their jobs and the future of high tech research and development in this important area in Canada.
I hope many more thousands of Canadians come out and tell the NDP and Liberals that they should stop jeopardizing Canada's future in this way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
August 25, 1987


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Some time ago the Minister promised genuine consultation before the closure of any rural post offices. A new pattern of consultation is emerging now. A good example is in Wilno, Ontario. In Wilno, the post office meets with families individually rather than in public meetings. There, a response is demanded in two weeks rather than in the 90 days required. There, the keeping open of the existing post office is not an option. There, members of communities are not allowed to opt for the continued operation of their existing post office.
Would the Minister characterize this type of approach to consultation as intimidation and economic blackmail, as people in rural Canada are calling it? If not, what does he call it?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of one thing I am sure. It is that the Hon. Member's description of what is happening is totally false.
As indicated, the country is changing. Demographics are changing. We are becoming more urbanized. There is a need to get with it and to recognize that we are nearing the end of the 20th century. We have to make alterations to the way the mail is delivered in order that we can continue to deliver the mail, improve service and keep the price of stamps down.
There is a commitment that there will be at least 90 days' discussion with the people and MPs affected before any changes are made. There have been some slip-ups in one or two cases. I have instructed the Post Office, and it has already taken action, to delay, to ensure that there is that full 90 days of discussion. But it is up to the management of the Post Office to manage and to do it effectively and sensitively. I have every confidence it will continue to do that.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has referred to what 1 said as being entirely false, but that is exactly what he did in the community of Wilno in Ontario.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF OFFER MADE TO NEW POSTMASTER
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister is this: When the Post Office offers the new Postmaster one-fifth of the revenue for the same work as before, does the Minister think this is a genuine offer or an offer that is doomed to fail?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Post Office has a mandate from this House, approved by the New Democratic Party when the
Patent Act
Crown corporation was created, to operate in a fiscally responsible way and to operate as efficiently, as effectively, and as productively as possible.
The Hon. Member seems to be suggesting that the Post Office should continue to pay way higher than market prices, higher than necessary, and continue to deploy services that are no longer required because of changes in demography. Apparently, any change to the New Democratic Party represents a frightening prospect which it wants to avoid at all costs.


Cyril Keeper: It is an attack on rural Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will have noted that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked three questions in the second round. In view of the hour that leaves one question for the Hon. Member for Churchill.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, that is a logical conclusion.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
As he is aware, for some time now I have been concerned about the fact that women on maternity leave and people on child care leave who are entitled to paid benefits by their employers are not receiving those benefits. We have asked for remedial legislation. I would like the Minister to affirm to the House that that will happen, and happen soon.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated to my hon. colleague, as a matter of fact by letter dated July 30 if my memory serves me right, that is one option being looked at. It is being studied, and I will be consulting with the Hon. Member very soon to look at the consequences that such a change might bring.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (6), 3,
[Stage Direction]
August 25, 1987
Patent Act
4(a) and (6), 5(a) and (6), 6, 7(a) and (6), 9 and 10(6) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (6) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (6) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (6), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(6) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (6), 10(6) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (6), 2, 3, 4(a) and (6), 5(a) and (6), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of section 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991. for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(а)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of
which the payment is made, by
(б)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the
payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is still here. Before speaking about Bill C-22, I would like to challenge him to solve a problem. Bill C-22 is not a problem caused by the Senators. If the Prime Minister has the courage of his convictions, since he has said that he has no need for the support of the Opposition with his majority, let him table his Bill in this House and we shall debate it.
As for Bill C-22, it is not a matter of having a debate between the House of Commons and the Senate. What is sad in this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, is that if we look at today's demonstration-I have nothing against the demonstration; I went to meet those people-we find that they are all employees of the industry, and it is no surprise to learn that they were given a day off and sent on a luxury bus to Parliament Hill. I am not blaming those people for having accepted to make this trip to save their jobs.
The next thing we shall hear in this fight about patent protection, is that, next week, the generic companies will put up some money, close up shop and give a day off to their employees so that they can come here in luxury buses and demonstrate on the Hill.
In fact, this is a job war between two types of companies, the multinationals and the others, and if the latter had the opportunity to become multinationals, they would behave just like the first. However, what we have to remember as Parliamentarians and representatives of the Canadian people, is what the consequences will be for Canadian men and women.
In this case, we are talking about the health of individuals. Everyone in Canada supports research, not only scientific research, but all kinds of research. If we want to promote research, instead of financing the Western banks when they go bankrupt, instead of giving money to the rich, we should put back some money in university research, create jobs and innovate to cure the sick and give them back their health.
However, the Conservative Government says: No, here is what we are going to do, the multinationals have asked for a ten year protection, and we are going to give in to blackmail and do as they wish. We, Liberals, refuse to do so. This is not how we operate. Such a simple concept as saying that it would be better to increase taxes on everything to create jobs, something as stupid as saying ... A PC Member may rise and say: Well, since jobs are being lost in the funeral home industry, we are going to encourage euthanasia to create jobs. Come on! As if this was a principle upon which we could play with people's health, Mr. Speaker.
Instead of stubbornly maintaining its position or organizing a demonstration ... I referred to the representatives of multinationals. These people know what bargaining is all about. They should say: What is this all about? Now, there is no protection. While I am talking, the people of the Conservative Opposition could protect jobs, they want us to cry out. .. When you abolished the quotas to protect jobs in the footwear industry, was it because they were not university people? Are you going to protect these jobs because they are university people? They are certainly well paid. But when you were asked to protect the jobs of the men and women working in the Quebec footwear and textile industries, either in the Eastern Townships or in some Ontario regions represented by Conservative Members, you said: No way. We are negotiating free trade with the Americans.
August 25, 1987

But now, there are big American guys with pockets full of dollars who say that you have to protect the brains. But whose brains? This depends on the years you have spent in school.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we, as Members of the Liberal Party, have a position. It is my friend the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel who was the first to open the debate on this issue. Also, the previous Liberal Government had requested an independent inquiry by specialists who claimed that, to protect research, security, create jobs and prevent undue increases in the prices of medicine, a four-year protection was enough. All additional years on top of the first four were what is called "gravy", additional money in the pockets of multinationals.
I am not here to blame multinationals, for the heads of such corporations are sincere. They say: Claude, I have that much money to invest. But we remember that not so long ago, some oil multinationals in Western Canada told this Conservative Government: If you change the energy policy, we are going to invest so much money. Everybody was honest and sincere at the time. Then suddenly the oil crisis occurred and they said: Sorry, 1 just cannot.
Right now there is nothing in the legislation as put forward by this Tory Government that guarantees jobs to Montrealers, of which I am one. And I know very well the new jobs that will be created will not necessarily be for people in my constituency of Sainte-Marie. But I am here to defend the interests of the people in Sainte-Marie, and if 1 bow to the multinational corporations blackmail, or on the other hand if I yield too much to generic companies, I will not protect consumers in my constituency of Montreal-Sainte-Marie and elsewhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister who was supposed to be a top-notch mediator could have taken this opportunity to prove his talent, because since the beginning, almost three years now, it has been failure and catastrophe. Mediator my foot, the outcome was nil. But it is my feeling and my deep conviction that in order to protect the interests of consumers, which comes first, and when we refer to consumers we are referring to people who buy, not candies but drugs because they have some ailment. This is a matter of survival. I know this is not a great concern of Conservative Members, because they even slapped a 12 per cent tax on drugs, even on syringes used by people with diabetes in order to survive.
Certainly we must have compassion. It is of vital importance to ensure that those people can afford to buy drugs. Some will suggest this is a matter for provincial governments. But who pays for Provincial Governments, who pays for employer-employee health insurance? The middle income taxpayer always gets clobbered. Three million Canadians are not protected by any form of insurance. Today, 1 beg the Prime Minister to sit down with the multinationals and say: Just one minute! You had your way with me once when I was President
Patent Act
of Iron Ore. You had me close down the place and tip-toe out of the picture, but this time I won't be had.
In the bill-you're asking for 10 years; at present you have nothing, so let's opt for a middle course. Let's make a deal, let's negotiate. We'll go for five years in the bill. And five years down the road we will review the impact on consumers, the impact in terms of profitability and job creation. At that time and given that experience, we will be in a position to reconsider our decision and either renew for another five years, increase the protection to seven years or decrease it to three years. It seems logical to me and probably to managers of corporations and I even invite my friend Robert Bourassa, from Quebec. I know for a fact that Ti-Louis Laberge does not sleep around with the multinationals just to generate employment, and neither do Mr. Larose and Jean Dore, the Mayor of Montreal. I know these people well enough to know that they want to protect employment, yes, but not if it means choking to death those who suffer from illness in Quebec. That is how I feel and I invite the Conservative Members, who are quick to jump on the bandwagon as we remember from the old age security de-indexation saga. These fellows had really found their way to the heart of all senior citizens. I recall that the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) had said at the time that the Government was not bound by its promises. Not telling the truth to just about anybody was of no great consequence. But today, 79 percent of the population does not trust that Prime Minister any more.
There is something else I want to say. The Senate has a role to play in that matter. There is no doubt in my mind right now that the Senate accomplished a part of the job they are assigned under the Constitution. The Conservative Government is the one to blame. The Prime Minister has been making statements in every part of the country. He has bragged in Alberta, he has bragged in Quebec: "We will abolish the Senate, we will do such and such a thing to the Senate." Back here, he behaves like a lamb and does nothing. One day, he talks of abolishing the Senate. But what are we to make of a Prime Minister who says the Senate is an undemocratic institution? His chief negotiator on constitutional affairs is a senator. Because nobody was brilliant and competent enough in the Conservative caucus for that job, the Prime Minister had to seek somebody from an undemocratic body. When one does not believe in an institution, one does not appoint to it friends such as Bazin and others connected with the whole Oerlikon affair. How can we explain this and how can the people trust a Prime Minister who does not speak clearly and frankly? That is why I invite those Members over there who are reasonable to bring the Prime Minister to his senses.
1 think a large majority of Quebecers are for it. I do not want to be dishonest, to play the same game as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and try to make believe all Quebecers are in favour.
I could give you a whole list of people and organizations on record as being squarely and totally against Bill C-22, like the NDP. I do not share that view. I can take my responsabilities.

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
However, you cannot, as the Conservatives claim, make people believe that all associations of senior citizens or consumers are for that Bill. It is not so. If Hon. Members do not lie, they are poorly informed. There are people who totally disagree. But the vast majority-I was at the Economic Summit in Montreal, but neither the Hon. Member for Beauce (M. Bernier) nor the Hon. Members from Alberta were there. At this Summit were members of municipal governments, union representatives, senior citizens that I know very well, and officials of the provincial government. In principle, people for Metropolitan Montreal, and I support them, are for job creation, for protection of job creation.
But job creation in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, is called Space Agency. We do not necessarily want jobs immediately if it means higher prices for those who are sick. There are other actions that the Government should have taken to create jobs in the Montreal area. The situation has been going on for three years: Montreal East is in ruins, the shipyards are desperate. The Government wakes up suddenly. As a Montrealer, I cannot accept it for the good of the whole population of Montreal-Sainte-Marie, I cannot support the Conservative Party and allow that 10 year protection.
All the experts have clearly shown that a five-year protection for patents is more than enough for the companies to recover their investment. Second, in spite of all that has been said and with the best will in the world, and I believe that these people do want to invest, there is no guarantee that they will. We all remember the promises made by the Conservatives. Who can still believe the Prime Minister?
We all recall the de-indexation of old age security pensions. The Prime Minister had sworn that he would re-establish full indexation of old age security pensions, and he did the exact opposite. The same happened for family allowances. A report of this Government stated that the changes to the family support programs such as family allowances and the child tax credit would not be used to reduce the deficit. It was written in black and white. We had the word of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Once more, we were misled. The Minister of Finance took nearly $2 billion from the family support programs to reduce the deficit. Then, there was the case of the banks which went bankrupt.
Even more recently, the Government has talked about imposing a tax on food, that is on bread, milk and butter. As I said earlier, according to the polls, 71 per cent of Canadians are against this idea. Within a very short time this summer, 25,000 people throughout Quebec and Canada signed a petition asking the Government to abandon this idea. Even the members of the Conservative caucus, not because they believe in this, but because they know that the public has put pressure on them to do so, have asked the Prime Minister to give up this idea.
Once again, we see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) dragging his feet, unable to state clearly his options and unwilling once more to take action. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the national petition and awareness campaign is not over yet as far as we are concerned. If the Prime Minister had clearly stated today his opposition, we would have ended that campaign but now, we are going to keep it up throughout Canada.
And as I travel all across the main regions of Montreal to speak about patent and job protection, I can see that it is not the people who are complaining and are asking for that protection. Of course and it is quite understandable that those company owners should ask for that protection. What I dislike in this debate is the fact that-and it is normal in the case of competitors of that company that they too should ask for a lesser protection-one of them is trying to hoodwink us but I was not born yesterday and I know that for those people, money is the bottom line-and it goes for both sides, and the only thing they are interested in.
But for us, as parliamentarians, our role is not to make a choice between those companies. I agree that with their free market philosophy this is how the Conservatives would put it. I would like the Conservative members who will later comment and ask questions to tell us why in the regions of Quebec, Beauce, the Eastern Townships or the South shore, they did not fight to maintain jobs and the protected quotas in the shoe industry? Why didn't they fight for and protect the interests of their constituents who were asking for it? Why are the Conservatives crawling before the multinational drug companies and giving them that ten year protection?
We know perfectly well that drug prices will go up because the Government would not otherwise pay back several million dollars to provincial governments. In fact, where there is a provincial drug plan the provincial or the federal Government will have to raise taxes and taxpayers will end up footing the bill anyway.
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear many Conservative Members from the Montreal area-in fact those who still behave themselves have kept pretty quiet and the rest are involved in scandals. I wonder how many of them have not yet been dragged in some shaddy deal?
I would like the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) to tell me, for instance, how many senior citizens in his area feel that as in the case of the proposal to de-index old age security pensions, government members wanted to make us believe that senior citizens were for it. But when the Prime Minister backed down, everybody admitted to be against it . Well, I am suspicious of anyone who on two or three occasions has already, unintentionally, perhaps because of poor judgment, misled the Canadian people. Following public meetings and demonstrations, finally, the Government had to recognize that the Official Opposition was right.
August 25, 1987

Next week, on September 4, this Government will celebrate its third anniversary. 1 realize that those three years have been passing too fast for those in power. I also realize that those three years have been disastrous. But they have been particularly bad for the people.
If the university report is any indication, low and middle income families are the people who have been despicably attacked and deprived of a sizable portion of their purchasing power. This Bill as it is now drafted, Mr. Speaker, would strike another hard blow at these people, again the elderly and middle income families.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that when the provincial Government of Quebec pays for drugs, most of the time the list of drugs covered includes only generic products. This is something the Conservative Members should keep in mind.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) poses as the champion of the poor, yet now that we want to promote a sector of activities where wages are high, where we seek to push them higher still, the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie keeps saying that we are working against poor people. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec and Quebec's Opposition Party voted a unanimous resolution in Quebec's National Assembly on Bill C-22. The Hon. Member said earlier that Mr. Bourassa was his friend. That may be true, but the feeling may not be mutual.
Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand those Liberal and NDP Members who are trying to defend the poor and at the same time prevent jobs from being created. I don't know what they can be thinking of. Maybe they think jobs and money grow on trees. As far as I know, jobs and money come from the private sector. They keep telling us we are helping the multinationals. That is not true. We are helping people, men and women, to find jobs in areas where they can earn a decent salary, a very decent salary, instead of trying to find jobs for the poor. I think Canada is a country where there is more to do than just draw water and tighten screws on the assembly line. Canada also has an educated labour force that is capable of doing research and developrhent. That is what we are trying to promote, and that is how this country is going to get rid of part of the poverty that exists today. We have to look at the fundamentals instead of just skimming the surface and trying to use the poor as a way to criticize the Government. We want to raise the standard of living of everyone in this country.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is not addressing these fundamental issues honestly. He refuses to acknowledge that we as a Government are acting in good faith by promoting well-paying jobs. Just because we want to help people in Canada get better salaries, that does not mean we are playing favourites with the private sector and the multinationals. I think it is better to have research done in Canada than in the United States or Europe.
Patent Act
Well, in the area of medicinal drugs, the competition is international, if we want to maintain our competitive position and create jobs in this country, we must carry out research here. We should not abandon all this research to other nations. That is what the Liberal Party did some ten years ago. It allowed all investors, inventors and researchers to move to the United States or elsewhere. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) reminded us this morning, when the Liberals adopted this legislation about ten years ago, they completely cleaned out the buildings in Montreal West, buildings which have remained completely empty ever since. It is entirely unacceptable. And this mistake, of course, the Liberals today are unwilling to accept it, and they do not want to admit to the Canadian people that they did make mistakes.
Well, they are now caught at their own game. Of course, we are defending ourselves on this level. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal Party, with its majority in the Senate, which is paralyzing the democratic system. And all this issue of the Senate interfering with the discussion is nevertheless an excellent example of what is happening today and demonstrates to Canadians that our democratic system is somewhat outdated.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and I ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie to be honest and to explain to the Canadian and Quebec people why he is so anxious to keep only small jobs in Quebec. He should be proud to say that at last in Quebec our people are going to get involved in advanced technology and earn reasonable salaries, thereby making it possible for the Quebec economy to function better.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am greatful to the Hon. Member for Longueuil for his comments. They give me an opportunity to reply. I know that we have remarkable brains and competent people in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
However, I should like the Hon. Member for Longueuil (Mr. Leblanc) to tell me why he supported his Minister when he cut funds allocated to research, not only medical research but also applied research, high technology and robotics. Why is the member, who knows that we have trained young people who are capable of leading research projects, why is the Hon. Member for Longueuil encouraging the Tory Government, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Cote) to cut funds allocated to research?
Secondly, I should point out to the member for Longueuil that we agree on minimum protection. He was misleading the Canadian people, because he is uninformed, when he said that the Quebec Legislative Assembly has supported Bill C-22. The Legislative Assembly supported a principle which is the protection of patents and not Bill C-22 as such but some kind of protection against the brain drain at the level of research and we agree on that issue. However we disagree when the government-and I wonder if the Hon. Member can tell me what are the reasons-wants to crawl and grant a 10-year protection.

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
If we granted five years, companies would do some research introduce new products and after five years it would be reviewed. Those people would have the same benefits but it would be a wiser decision than if we stupidly sell ourselves short and grant a 10-year protection.
I conclude on the answer to his other question dealing with democracy and the Senate. Could the Hon. Member for Longueuil tell me, since he does not believe in the Senate, why he supported his leader when the latter appointed Mr. Bazin to the Senate? Since he was elected, that prime minister appointed seven or eight senators. When you do not believe in something-why did he waste taxpayers' money? Those people earn some $45,000-the seat, the secretaries. If I do not believe in an agency, I will not appoint someone there because what is involved is Canadian taxpayers'money-all that for pork-barrelling.
Second, again for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Longueuil, why-and I conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, why did his Prime Minister appoint a Senator as Minister? Is it because no one else is competent enough? But when you do not believe in an agency, when you do not believe in the people who are there-sorry, one does not appoint them to that kind of function.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two minutes left to the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland).


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, often one had better be deaf rather than hear what the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (M. Malepart) just said. I wonder if his constituents will be very happy to hear what he just suggested. The Hon. Member referred earlier to the Space Agency, which involves some 40 jobs, while we are talking of some 10,000 jobs in the Montreal area, many of which would be for young people whose parents laboured on small wages so that they could get degrees, so that they could have a better life. Here is what the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie in effect just said to his own constituents: Look, it made no sense labouring all your lives. Send your children to the United States. This is what the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte Marie just said, Mr. Speaker.
It is unacceptable that a Member claiming to represent a poor constituency, a constituency of workers, people who led hard lives, tell his constituents their children should live the same kind of life. Certainly people in Montreal-Sainte-Marie will not be pleased to hear that their Member of Parliament does not defend their young people, those 10,000 jobs in Montreal. That is unacceptable from a Montrealer, a Francophone, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this is really sad; and I sympathize with the people in Portneuf who are aching to elect someone who deserves to represent them.
What happened when his government closed down the Gulf refinery in the east end of Montreal, when his Government tried to close down Vickers, Canadian Steel Wheels and all
that? The Member for Sainte-Marie, acting with and on behalf of his constituents, fought hard to protect those jobs. But for the Hon. Member, It is not quite the same: he thinks that jobs can be created at the expense of sick people. Why does the Hon. Member nod when his Minister slashes funds allocated to universities where young people could do research and earn good money? The Conservative Government simply washes its hands and is attempting to have the sick pay for employment creation. This is not only unacceptable, it is inhuman.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate this afternoon because today is the day on which, for the first time in very many years and, according to one expert who has been here that long, for the first time in over 15 years, there has been a demonstration by Canadians as positive, constructive and democratic as the one we see held in front of the House of Commons today.


Jean-C. Lapierre: And paid for by the multinationals.


Robert E.J. Layton: I want to congratulate the men and women who have taken the time to come to Ottawa, the five or six hours by bus from Toronto or the two or three hours from Montreal, to demonstrate before this institution that they have rights as well and that-


Mr. Rossi:: And so did the elderly people when they came around.


Robert E.J. Layton: The activity of our Senate is totally unacceptable. The people are telling us to quit stalling and pass Bill C-22.
It is a pleasure and an obligation to participate in debate on Bill C-22, the Patent Act legislation. My riding of Lachine in the Montreal region is home to 42 per cent of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. In fact, 48 per cent of all pharmaceutical research and development is done in the Montreal area. I would love to take my colleagues on a tour of some of the very fine facilities which have been built and established in the west end of Montreal.
Over the years, the international community has seen Canada as a place where it is good to do business. It is ready to do business here but today it sees that any research and development work done by our scientists in our laboratories will be discarded. It is no wonder that the best of our graduate students will look for employment elsewhere.
Montreal depends on this industry and its growth. Driving down Highway 2-20 or the Trans-Canada Highway, one cannot help but appreciate the presence of the pharmaceutical industry, such good corporate citizens as Nordic Labs, Merck Frosst, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, Burroughs Wellcome, Beecham Labs, Pharmacia, Rhone-Poulenc, Ayerst McKenna and others. These companies have collectively pledged to invest
August 25, 1987

nearly $600 million in capital and research if Bill C-22 passes. This is an immense investment in my riding.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Put it in the Bill, put it in the Bill.


Robert E.J. Layton: These companies are not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope that the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who has been here for a long time would at least give the Hon. Member the courtesy of listening to his speech. There will be questions and comments afterwards and I will be glad to recognize him at that time.


Robert E.J. Layton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These companies are not all U.S. multinationals as claimed, they are from Switzerland, Great Britain, Germany and France. They are international companies that have invested here in Canada. All these companies are saying that Canada should come up to speed with respect to its patent protection legislation, to provide the kind of protection for intellectual property which is the standard in the western world. However, we are not proposing this legislation for them. Bill C-22 when passed will be for Canada and for all Canadians.
Health care in Canada will be improved. Three thousand high-tech jobs will be created over the next 10 years if this Bill passes. Research and development that has never been done in Canada will now be done here. The brain drain of our young generations will end. New patent protection for inventors will cause more innovation throughout Canada.
As I met with and spoke with many of my fellow Canadians in front of the House of Commons at noon today, I heard comments like the following: "Save my job", "Copycats cost jobs", "What about the health of Canadians?" "Why must I go south to pursue a career in the pharmaceutical industry?" "R and D will save our brains", "R and D will save our lives". One lady was going through the crowd singing a poem that had been written. It went:

"On top of the Hill, an old senator stands. He should stop being foolish, and say after me: Save our jobs, Mr. Turner."


Some Hon. Members:: Sing it!


Robert E.J. Layton: I do not remember the tune, fellows, sorry.
These statements come from real people, seniors, people with families, young students looking to the future. With its provisions for price controls and assurances of investment in new facilities and equipment for R and D, how can anyone claim this Bill is not good for them? We owe it to future generations to provide them with a high-tech environment for research and development in this field so they can remain in Canada and pursue their future goals.
Patent Act
How can we allow a non-elected politically appointed body to block a Bill passed by this duly elected House of Commons? It is vital to development of the industry. The Senate is in effect choking drug investment in Canada. Some 1,300 new jobs are projected for Montreal alone. These are the most challenging and rewarding kind of jobs, the kind of jobs Montreal and Quebec desperately need.
In a report prepared by the consultative committee on the development of the Montreal region, Chairman Laurent Picard, who was our guest at the constitutional committee this morning and spoke about the importance of the Meech Lake Accord, said that the development of the biotechnological and pharmaceutical sectors was most important for the future of Montreal. I ask the opposition Parties and the Liberal Senators from Quebec, how can they stand in the way of this legislation which is so critically important to Montreal? They will have to answer to the people of our region, indeed Canadians from all regions where research and development is being done and where many jobs and opportunities are at stake.
One of the most important, if not the most important, reasons that our Government, led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), want this legislation passed is to improve health care benefits for Canadians. Consumers are not going to suffer because of this legislation. On the contrary, they will benefit. This is especially true with respect to improved health care. This Government is deeply committed to maintaining a system that gives Canadians access to the medical care they need. Nothing in the original Bill opposes that sacred principle. In fact, it encourages the type of research that will lead to discoveries of drug therapies for diseases that are still a major cause of death today. Bill C-22 will speed development of new therapies. It will improve the quality of our health care system and reduce hospital care.
The Senate committee's proposals will result in a much smaller increase in R and D. The Senate proposed royalty pool would not bring Canadian expenditures up to world levels. Moreover, money from the so-called royalty fund would go primarily to the largest companies as opposed to hospitals, universities and small biotechnology firms. That would mean far less clinical research in Canada and fewer occasions for health care professionals to learn about and work with the new medicines, and consequently less opportunity for Canadians to benefit.
Canada has a real opportunity in Bill C-22 to participate in the exciting discoveries being made in many areas but only if the Senate proposals are rejected. All Canadians will benefit. The sick will benefit from improvements in therapy and the healthy will benefit from the reduction in health care expenditures which are often the result of pharmaceutical improvements.
A recent poll shows that 82 per cent of Canadians support the pharmaceutical Bill. Close to 3,000 energetic Canadians

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
are with us today on Parliament Hill demonstrating that support. Yesterday the Canadian Medical Association gave its overwhelming support for the Bill. The Canadian Kidney, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Associations all support the Bill. The Montreal Board of Trade and Chamber of Commerce support the Bill. Why is it only the Senate and the Opposition, trying to gain political points at the expense of Canadians and future jobs, who do not want this Bill?
Let us adopt a new system, one that protects consumers by regulating prices of all drugs as well as protecting existing jobs and creating new ones. That is what Bill C-22 does. The drug prices review board will use the Consumer Price Index as part of the law in establishing allowable drug prices. Use of this indicator would have saved Canadian consumers between $50 million and $200 million in 1983 alone, not only on generic drugs but also on drugs for which there are no generic equivalents. The board will monitor prices of all patented drugs, not just the price of drugs subject to generic competition which represent only 20 per cent of the drug market. As a result, under the new law more drugs will be monitored to ensure fair prices.
Our Government will review the new policy after four years and Parliament will conduct an in-depth study and review in the tenth year. In addition, the drug prices review board will submit annual reports to Parliament on the progress of this policy.
It should be noted that over 85 per cent of all Canadians and almost 100 per cent of senior citizens are covered by private and public health care plans which pay for most, if not all, of the cost of their prescription drugs. My riding of Lachine is made up of many senior groups and youth groups. This Bill will help both of them with better health care and benefits for the sick and a chance for Canadian technologists to have a high-tech Canadian job in years to come.
As a representative of the Montreal region, I cannot allow any further delay of this Bill. Economic development and actual lives may be at stake. I strongly urge all of us in this place and in the Senate to co-operate fully and endorse a Bill vital to Montreal and all Canadians. Let us not make lost jobs a bitter pill to swallow. Let us pass C-22 without further delay.
As a final note, and this comes from the experience of meeting the people who take the time to come up to express themselves on Parliament Hill, Canadians have a right to be proud of their pharmaceutical industry and the people who work in it. Those who visit the centres where our pharmaceutical products are prepared and packaged note the care and concern for the cleanliness and perfection of their processing. They are a key part of our national health care system and as good as there are anywhere in the world. Our pharmaceutical industry has made a wonderful and remarkable contribution to all Canadians, but particularly to our senior citizens who quite naturally depend more and more on the system and its lifesupporting products. Let us pass Bill C-22.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon Member for his speech and tell him at the same time that 1 am very disappointed to see how easily he has bought the arguments put forward by foreign multinationals.
The Hon. Member throws around figures about thousands of jobs; he is talking about 3,000 jobs, his colleague the Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) about 10,000 jobs and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about 1,300 jobs. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think Conservative Members are all mixed up in their figures. They are mixed up because they have no strong commitment from any pharmaceutical company.
1 invite the Hon. Member, instead of attacking the Senate who is really warning the Government about the imminence of a fatal mistake for the Canadian population, to learn rather from the wisdom of the Senate and negotiate more firmly with the foreign multinationals.
1 think the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton) went overboard in his comments on our drug industry, because 95 per cent of drug patents granted in Canada are foreign patents. They say they are not passing this legislation to please the Americans, Mr. Speaker, but you know as well as 1 do that this legislation was specially requested by the President of the United States, that the bill is a form of blackmail in the free trade talks, that the Americans made it a condition and that the Government is bending over backward to oblige them.
Mr. Speaker, if this legislation has so many good points, then 1 don't see why the Government does not put its agreements with the multinationals directly in the legislation. Why doesn't the Government make . . . You know, these things are negotiated. With the protection the Government is going to give the foreign multinationals, they will be able to make exorbitant profits. The companies claim they will reinvest those profits in Canada, but this Government is too weak-kneed to demand specific commitments.
I wish more companies would locate in the riding of Lachine or elsewhere. However, if I were the Member for Lachine, and we know the location is well suited to this kind of industry, I would demand that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs produce something in writing, not just pretty speeches. That is why this legislation is inadequate and incomplete, and I would ask the Hon. Member for Lachine why he does not demand firm commitments. He would be able to go back to his riding and tell his constituents: Sure, drugs will be more expensive but we will have economic spin-offs A, B, C, and D. Today, he is merely echoing the demands of the multinationals, without really knowing what he is talking about and what it means for his riding.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shefford asked about investment guarantees. There are, 1 admit, plans and projects that are ready to be implemented. We don't need guarantees because there is a procedure for regulating projects as well as prices. A kind of control.
August 25, 1987

We have the assurance that the industry is ready to act. We have a Bill before the House, and we must give them the right to invest. As an engineer, I realize a vacuum was created in recent years, and nature detests vacuums. There will certainly be investment, and some of it is guaranteed.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask a question and make a comment. The Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) said that we should put in the legislation the commitments of the drug companies. Can he tell us one piece of legislation which has ever been passed in this House which contained that sort of thing? I do not think he can. I have been here a lot of years and have never seen that happen.
Furthermore, the Member knows that the pharmaceutical companies have to make an annual report to the House and that there is a four-year review by Cabinet and a ten-year review by Parliament. 1 am quite happy with the commitment made to us by the pharmaceutical industry.
In addition, the Member for Shefford said that 95 per cent of the patents issued in Canada go to people outside of Canada. That is the very reason for this legislation. We want this legislation so that more patents can be issued in Canada. I do not know of one generic drug company that spends five cents on research and development in Canada.
I would like to make a comment on prices as well. I have heard it said many times by members of the Opposition that the prices of drugs will go up. I would like the Member to name the drug, tell us what the price is today, and tell us where it will go. The Member for Shefford does not know what the drug is because the drug has not yet been developed. He does not know what the price is because it has not yet been established. How can he say that the price will go up if the drug has not yet been developed and the price has not yet been established? Would the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton) comment on that?


Robert E.J. Layton: The Government received a major report on the drug industry from Dr. Eastman in which he made many proposals, many of which are included in the Bill. It is of particular interest to me that the very doctor who undertook the study and declared that certain things ought to be done is willing to serve as the chairman of that drug prices review board.
What better assurance can we have of an honest commentator than the very man who recommended these changes in our pharmaceutical law? In the future, Canadians will continue to be as proud as they are today of the pharmaceutical industry which will continue to invest and produce products which give us a better life.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Lachine (Mr. Layton) and say that he knows
Patent Act
what he is talking about. Earlier, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) made a joke and said that a figure of 10,000 jobs in Montreal was a bit ridiculous. However, I would like to tell the Hon. Member for Shefford that he should read the many articles which have been written about this in the Montreal newspapers, because when we speak about 1,300 jobs in Montreal, we are talking about 1,300 direct jobs in research activities, but when you have 1,300 scientists, you also have all the people who work with them, the technicians and so on, and this means whole teams of people who work around the scientists themselves.
When the pharmaceutical industries speak about 1,300 jobs, they mean 1,300 direct jobs, but to those have to be added all the indirect jobs, and we all know that, in high technology, there is a much greater number of indirect jobs than of direct jobs.
I would like to know what my colleague from Lachine thinks about the position of the Liberals and the New Democrats in refusing to have a price review board for all generic products.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, to reply to my colleague, it seems to me that members of the Opposition, and this includes the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, have always been afraid that the controls provided under this Bill would not be applied. I find it typical that they would refuse to have confidence in the performance of our leaders. As for me, I am confident that the price review board will do its job for all Canadians. I am confident that this method of accounting to Parliament will guarantee reasonable prices for all Canadians.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. friend on his comments. He certainly understands the essence of why we are trying to pass Bill C-22. My hon. friend will know that there has recently been a change in NDP policy. The New Democratic Party used to be against the Senate and wanted it abolished.


James Ross Fulton: Still are. Abolish it.


Philip Derek Lewis: ' Just last week the House Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Riis) was quoted as saying: "We would assume the Senate would see the wisdom of stopping this Bill as well". He then went on to say, "-but the fact is that they do some good work some of the time".
How does my hon. friend think the people in his riding will feel about the New Democratic Party's proposition that the unelected appointed Senate should have the right to stop this particular Bill and in fact any Bill passed by the democratically elected House of Commons of this country?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I can say without any hesitation that the residents of my riding are as shocked and upset with the performance of the Senate in this regard as are the 3,000 people who paraded in front of the Parliament buildings today. They represent a mass view that there is the right in our

August 25, 1987
Adjournment Debate
parliamentary system for the elected majority in this country to govern, and it is not for the Senate to obstruct.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


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 Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Unemployment Insurance-Inquiry why elderly worker with collective pension plan is penalized-Inquiry why there are two classes of elderly workers in Canada-Inquiry why certain category of elderly workers is penalized; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-High interest rates charged to credit card users-Intervention by Illinois State Treasurer; the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Bclsher)-Refugees- Reports of possible arrival of Tamils from Germany.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6, 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1 (a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.1 1 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of
which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the
payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the comments of my hon. friend with respect to the Senate are fascinating. Logically, I expect that there will be no further appointments to this devastating, undemocratic, difficult and unacceptable body in the future. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be deeply disappointed. I am sure that the Prime Minister's friends will be even more deeply disappointed. I am interested to hear this strong position put by the Hon. Member.
The question of the Senate is very much a red herring as we carry forward this debate. The reality is that the Senate has typically, throughout our parliamentary history, occasionally brought back amendments to the House of Commons for us to consider. We have accepted amendments in some cases, such as in the case of transport deregulation Bills earlier last week. Of course, the Government accepted those amendments from the Senate without any of these diatribes against the right of the Senate to operate within our present constitutional framework.
I say to the Government, as it starts to play with fire on this issue, that there is a serious possibility that it will get itself into constitutional problems from which it will be very difficult to extricate itself. It is the Government's choice to make this debate about a piece of legislation which is, itself, most
August 25, 1987

devastating for most Canadians, a debate about the constitutionality of the Senate. I believe it is playing with fire and will live to regret it.
With that as a prelude, as trade critic for our Party, I want to say a few words about the connection between this Bill and the free trade negotiations which are taking place. First, let me say that it is quite clear that the pressure which started from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada began well before the election of the Government. For instance, I have a copy of a detailed study on pressure groups and the federal Government, looking at the case of pharmaceutical lobbies and compulsory licensing. It is written by Mario Iacobacci. He makes it quite clear in this study that the previous Government faced a very strong lobby from the PMAC. That strong lobby has continued and we have seen more manifestations of it today.
It is interesting to note that the pressure being applied by the multinational drug companies not only took the form of pressure on Members of Parliament and cabinet Ministers through the PMAC, but took the form of pressure through the United States trade representative, William Brock at that time.
For instance, one source quoted in this study indicates:
Brock's influence on this issue has been fairly strong. When it was raised at the recent Brock-Kelleher meeting, it was named as the first of three items on the agenda in terms of importance.
Let me reiterate that this pressure started well before this Government came into office. There is a remarkable quotation from the present head lobbyist for the PMAC, Judy Erola, who at that time was a member of the Liberal Cabinet. She indicated the following:
When I came in it was a foregone conclusion that there would be changes to the Patent Act... If I had been in at the beginning I would not have had (compulsory licensing) reviewed. I would have looked at tax incentives ... If 1 had been Minister before, I would not have entertained any changes to the Patent Act, but the can of worms had already been opened.
As the author of the study goes on to say:
This exceptionally candid statement attests to the very important constraints that prevented at least this Minister, if not others, from dealing with the compulsory licensing issue in the way she deemed most appropriate.
It is important to recognize as well that this pressure from the United States to amend our drug patent laws has continued and has strengthened as the free trade negotiations have become part of the economic agenda of this country. For instance, if we look at the declaration from the Quebec summit of the Prime Minister and the President of the United States in March, 1985, there was agreement reached at that point on "co-operation to protect intellectual property rights from trade and counterfeit goods and other abuses of copyright and patent law".
In briefings which took place at that time, it was indicated that pharmaceuticals were one key part of what was being discussed in that particular item of the Quebec summit declaration.
Patent Act
Just as recently as this past weekend, we have had precisely the same kinds of indications in the press that make it quite clear that the United States is very interested in what happens to Bill C-22 and has tied that interest to what it is likely to do with respect to free trade negotiations. I quote from a story from The Globe and Mail which states: "Demonstrating resolve on C-22 will become important two months from now if the Canada-U.S. free trade negotiators come up with a tentative pact, which both Governments will then have to sell politically at home". The source for this article is then quoted as saying: "The White House isn't going to expend a lot of its political capital with Congress to sell a trade deal with Canada if we don't show we can pass a Bill like C-22 with our big majority". That very strongly suggests that what we have here in front of us is an example of quid pro quo.
We have a Government which prior to the fact is making commitments to the United States that it will carry out changes to our Patent Act in order to establish not what the recommendations of the detailed reports suggested but instead a 10-year monopoly on drug patents. In short, it will be 10 years in which drug companies, mainly from the United States but also from other countries as well-and I agree with the Hon. Member from Lachine on that point-will have the freedom to bring forward price changes which they can justify to a price review board. This will permit them to increase very, very significantly, I am certain, their profits and therefore the prices which Canadians have to pay, whether they pay them through taxes, medical care premiums or direct payments at the drugstore. That type of quid pro quo, that type of sell-out of our country, is simply not acceptable to this Party. It is something which we have fought throughout this debate from the moment it was introduced in the House until now. We will continue to fight it regardless of the fact that the amendments which happen to be the subject of discussion at the moment are from the Senate.
It is important to make several additional points in order to add to this sense of sell-out on the part of our Government. First, it is important to say that we have in front of us a Bill which does nothing to establish a monitoring agency which will see to it that the drug companies come through with the commitments which they have been announcing with such fanfare across the land. This includes companies which have made signed commitments, such as Firestone of the United States in the case of Hamilton, and which have backed off those commitments. What can we expect when we not only have nothing in the Bill in the way of commitments but we have nothing in it in the way of attempts to monitor the commitments which have supposedly been made?
Second, we have to look very hard at the question of jobs as suggested by the Minister and as suggested by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. In fact there have been detailed examinations of these jobs, the supposed 300,000 high-tech jobs which will be provided by this legislation. There

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
are indications that in fact only 1,148 of those jobs will be jobs in the professional category in the industry itself. Another 652 will be classified as technical. One would expect that these would be reasonable jobs, but they are not high-tech jobs. Finally, 620 jobs turn out to be cleaning jobs, jobs for animal keepers, statisticians, clerks, et cetera. So much for the 3,000 jobs which have been promised by the industry.
So we do not really have a commitment which holds any water in terms of providing any faith to be placed in these companies by the Government or by the Canadian people. This Bill which has been with us for a long time makes me think of the fact that prior to its introduction Canada existed as a country which was a leader in the industrialized world. It was not the only country taking such a lead. There are other countries, such as Italy, whose pharmaceutical patent laws are much looser than those of this country. We were taking a lead to see to it that in an industry dominated by multinational companies it would be possible to give a fair break to the consumer and the taxpayer. That lead was an important example to the rest of the world with respect to what could be done. It could still provide an important example to the rest of the world of what could be done if we permitted compulsory licensing to continue with the same freedom which we have permitted in the past.
Members forget that there were repeated attempts made to deal with drug prices before 1969. It proved impossible to bring those prices down. But with the legislation which was passed to provide for compulsory licensing it proved possible to bring prices down for the consumer and to give to Canadian producers a chance to enter the drug industry despite the patent conditions held by the multinational drug companies.
1 consider it a great shame that with this piece of legislation Canada is moving from being a leader, a leader attempting to obtain both research and lower prices for consumers, to being a follower, a follower of the United States. We are becoming followers of the United States in the context of an abject attempt to reach a free trade agreement, but also a follower in the sense of simply accepting what the United States has done in terms of patent legislation affecting drugs.
If it takes the Senate to force us to have another look at this Bill, this is the one occasion, and I hope it is the single occasion in my life, in which 1 have to offer praise to the Senate. I think that we have received a set of improvements from the Senate. Frankly, it is not a set of improvements which are exactly what I would like to see, but at least it is an approach which is better than the one taken by the Government.
I urge the Flouse to take the Bill to defeat what the Conservative Government is attempting to do, and to give back to Canada a sense of leadership, independence, and freedom from pressure from the United States.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, in fact, for the past few weeks, we have witnessed an attempt on the part of both Opposition Parties to send the message to the Canadian people that the Americans are forcing us to pass this bill.
1 think that Canadian women and men will not fall for it because they know better and they realize that promoting research and development in our country will only result in increased competition with R & D in the U.S. It is nonsense to believe that the Americans would be in favour of reducing research activities in this country. In my opinion, it is quite the opposite. The United States of America, as other nations, want to do research and development in their own country because it creates a great number of well-paid jobs. For instance, in my riding, there is a company called Pratt and Whitney where about a thousand people work on the assembly line while some 6,000 employees are involved in research and development.
Therefore, it is hard to believe that the U.S. would like us to do more research and development in Canada. And it is preposterous to try and sell that line to the Canadian people. Therefore I hope and I am convinced that Canadians will realize that the arguments put forward by the Official Opposition are utter nonsense and totally unfounded.
So, when we talk about price increases, let us remember that this bill provides for a board to review drug prices and to make sure that they will not increase faster than the cost of living. This is clearly provided for in this bill. It has been very well explained by the Minister and 1 cannot see why the Opposition still persists in misleading the Canadian people by predicting a 15 to 20 per cent price increase.
1 wish that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) would for once tell the truth and read the wording of this bill exactly as it is. Let him speak the truth and stop playing politics.
This bill is very important for job creation. Our Party wants to create jobs, but we are prevented from doing it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say two things. First, our Party is not against research and development. Our policy is to encourage research but we also want the people to get their drugs at a reasonable price. 1 must say that they are many ways and systems to do and support research. I think that about 60 per cent of that research, is supported by Canadians as taxpayers. It is not a matter of being for or against research and development. We are in favour of research but we think that it is possible to have it done mainly by Canadian companies.
Second, I wish to raise the question of prices. As I said, there is an agency that will control price changes. But the important issue is the original price set by the drug manufacturer. If this price is set very high, it is very hard on Canadian consumers.
August 25, 1987


Philip Derek Lewis: I am tempted to ask my usual question about the Senate, but I do not think that I will.
I note from the Canadian Parliamentary Guide that my hon. colleague has a Ph.D. Does he feel that a doctoral thesis should be protected by copyright, which is analogous to a patent? Does the Hon. Member believe that Ph.D. students should be allowed to use his research and quote extensively from his thesis without attribution or compensation?
If so, in what manner does my hon. friend distinguish from that proprietary right of a thesis, and the proprietary right of a patent?


Steven W. Langdon: I fear that this indicates that the Parliamentary Secretary does not have a Ph.D.
It is not at all the pattern that people attempt to protect their Ph.D. thesis. In fact, if the Hon. Member wanted to inquire into my Ph.D. thesis, he would find that it was quoted in a fair number of places.


Philip Derek Lewis: Without attribution?


Steven W. Langdon: Without any payment of royalty, or copyright coming to me.


Philip Derek Lewis: Without attribution?


Steven W. Langdon: The point is whether there is any attribution of funds taking place. In the case of Ph.D. theses, of books, and of virtually anything that is intellectual property, it is quite possible for this intellectual property to be used by somebody else. Yes, with attribution, but not with payment. This is where the drug companies have managed to sell a snow job to the Canadian people by suggesting that it is intellectual property that they are selling.


An Hon. Member:: To the Tories, not to the people.


Steven W. Langdon: Just to the Tories, I concede. Certainly, to the Tories.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is not intellectual property.


Steven W. Langdon: It is intellectual property.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is time for one short question from the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland).


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I see that my respected colleague for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is always very loyal to his Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist policy. However, I would appreciate it if he explained how come he, a great proponent of socialism, supports the Senate in its struggle to abolish the Review Board that would aim at controlling, for the first time in this country, 100 per cent of the value of generic drugs in
Patent Act
Canada and would be chaired by someone whom the Official Opposition has been harping on about since the beginning, Dr. Harry Eastman.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there was reference to socialism, Marxism, and now they refer to Marxism-Leninism. That is really something. But 1 can say, as a social democrat, as the representative of many people who want no price increase from this Government, as a Member of Parliament, I must state it is important to scrutinize all Bills that are introduced in this House. This Bill must be scrutinized if we are to protect our constituents. When I look at-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 am sorry, but the period for questions and comments is over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin).


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this most important debate. We are bringing to the forefront some of the most fundamental issues before the Government of Canada today. We are exposing some of the fundamental differences between our approach and that of the opposition Parties. We have before us a proposal by the Government to change the Patent Act with respect to the laws surrounding the production of pharmaceuticals. It has been passed by the House of Commons but blocked by the Senate which wishes to retain the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, you could get out of this House right now and see a crowd of people before Parliament-more than two thousand people. 1 never saw a larger crowd. They are here to support Bill C-22. They know this represents investment and jobs, jobs in Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, and across Canada. Those people are here to tell the Senate, those non-elected liberals, to stop obstructing the legislation. They want a pharmaceutical industry in this country, they want the research and development and the jobs this will create.
[English |
I support Bill C-22 because it will be good for the economy of Alberta. It will be good for Alberta universities and their research capabilities. It will be good for Alberta companies and for Alberta health care.
We have spoken in this House before about the importance of western diversification and the importance of introducing new industries in the West which will reduce our dependence on world prices of oil and grain. Bill C-22 is another piece of legislation which fits well into this Government's series of initiatives to encourage western research, development, marketing and industry.
My province has been making a concerted effort to diversify its economic base and to date has had limited success. Because Bill C-22 is so important to this diversification effort, it comes as no surprise that the Alberta provincial Government has

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
been an active supporter of the Bill. It has chosen to focus its attention and its diversification efforts in the fields of telecommunications, petrochemicals and biotechnology because these are areas in which Albertans have already proven their capabilities.
Fibreoptics and cancer research are only two of the areas in which we excel. The provincial Government showed its commitment to biomedical research with the establishment of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for a medical research endowment fund created by former Premier Peter Lougheed.
The province has committed itself to research as one aspect of diversification. We, the federal Government, have committed ourselves financially to the diversification of the West, and we are now given the chance to commit ourselves again. Alberta has a strong commitment to biotechnology but we have not seen the success we would like to see in the growth and development of pharmaceutical research. Why is that? Bio-technological research is in the grey zone of drug patent law, so it is not inhibited in the same way as pharmaceutical research. Bio-tech firms differ from pharmaceutical manufacturers in that they manipulate existing biological materials rather than synthesize man-made chemicals.
Because there has not been patent protection, it has been difficult to transform basic research into products that can be sold on the market. We cannot sell our drug research to larger companies because they are not protected if they decide to sell what they can develop from that research. We cannot secure the type of investment capital that is needed in research because we cannot sell the research results which are generated.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, Alberta drug research companies are caught in a vicious circle. They cannot sell the results. They cannot get money. If they cannot get money, they cannot continue research.
If our fledgling drug research industry is to grow, we need the patent protection this Bill offers. If the federal Government will provide the patent protection, Alberta research centres can thrive. We have the technology, the scientists and the potential. All we need is the patent amendments that this Bill proposes.
Alberta's economic development Minister, the Hon. Larry Shaben, commented in the Calgary Herald on January 8 that this Bill will allow Alberta to build a petrochemical based drug industry. He said:
We believe very strongly that there is a terrific potential which is close to
being realized of establishing jobs-highly skilled jobs, manufacturing
companies and capabilities in that area.
We are committed to those companies. There is an argument advanced by persons opposing this Bill that the Bill does not include safeguards, that it does not prescribe how companies must spend their research and development money, that it does not offer guarantees in legislation-


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I looked around the Chamber and I do not believe we have a quorum to enable us to proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Let me see.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There does not seem to be a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Members behind the curtain, are they in the House or out of the House?
There is no quorum so I ask that the bells be rung.
And the bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We shall resume debate as I see a quorum. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) has the floor.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate, and I will not take it personally, that certain Members of the House chose to rush for the lobby and out of sight a few moments ago. It is rather childish behaviour-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member, I would just like to say to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) that he should not reflect on the presence or absence of Members in the House.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, rightly so, you have reminded the Hon. Member that he is not to comment on that. We could easily comment too by saying that a Government that has 211 Members could certainly keep a quorum in the House, but I think the Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: Please allow me to finish. The Deputy House Leader may not have mentioned Hon. Members in particular but he surely did mention Parties and I think that is the equivalent of mentioning names.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having kindly and gently reminded the Hon. Member that he should proceed with his speech. The rules are there at our disposal to use in any way we see fit. I think the Hon. Member should continue and we will listen to him, but we will apply the rules as well.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is debate, it is not really a point of order, and I would like to hear the speech of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin). I do not think it is necessary to carry on with this. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West has the floor on debate.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker-
August 25, 1987


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would think it important when debating a Bill like Bill C-22 that the opposition Parties, both Liberal and NDP-


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's not a point of order.


Darryl L. Gray: -
understand that we want the Bill to go through and that they agree with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West has the floor on debate and I would like to hear the Hon. Member.


Murray Dorin: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, there has been an argument advanced by persons opposing this Bill that the Bill does not include sufficient safeguards, that it does not prescribe how companies should use research money or offer in the legislation guarantees for research and development.
The Minister has repeatedly outlined commitments of over $1 billion in research and development that will take place in Canada and that jobs will be created. People say that there is no guarantee that that will happen, but I say that we have more faith in Canadians and what Canadians will do than that.


Mr. McCurdy:: You have faith only in the Minister.


Murray Dorin: I also have a lot of faith in the Minister, if the Hon. Member would like to know. The Minister has been doing a very good job.
We heard those arguments back in the fall of 1984 and the spring of 1985 when we were proposing to deregulate the price of oil. The socialists said then that we should legislate conditions to go along with the elimination of the various penalties and taxes that they had helped to impose. The industry told us that those dollars would go into exploration, development and the creation of jobs, and we accepted that on good faith. The result was that in 1985, the oil patch had the largest year ever. Unfortunately, subsequent events were such that that could not continue.
We have learned a lesson from that experience which is relevant here. Again, there are commitments from Canadians wanting to do research and development, to build a pharmaceutical industry and to manufacture pharmaceuticals in Canada that they will go ahead with their plans and provide that investment and those jobs. We take them at their word, and we do not accept the arguments of the NDP that the Canadian industry and workers must be bound by legislation in order to see growth and prosperity. In fact, we believe the opposite is true. Given the appropriate environment and an amount of good faith from the Government, Canadians will respond in a creative and industrious fashion and we will see investment, research, development, jobs and, in this case, new drugs and new hope for the people of Canada.
Patent Act
We have seen that record referred to by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development which announced a week ago that Canada had the best job-creation record in the western world. It commented on the positive policies of the Government in that regard.
When we create a better climate for research companies, we encourage them to expand and to hire Canadian-trained researchers. We protect them when they want to market the products they have developed and we benefit from the economic and technological growth they create.
In summary, by helping these companies to grow, we are helping the western economy to grow. I cannot imagine why opposition Parties are opposed to growth in the economy and particularly in the western economy.
I mentioned that Bill C-22 is good for Alberta companies. I would like to talk about three Alberta-based companies and to outline benefits they will see if Bill C-22 is passed.
Biomira Inc. is an Edmonton company which spends $3 million per year on the research and development of a cancer vaccine. Its President, Gordon Politeski, knows that his company will benefit. If this Bill is passed, he plans to expand his research program, but if it is not passed, he is seriously considering relocating to the United States or another country which grants the patent protection which pharmaceutical research deserves.
Chembio-Med is 100 per cent-owned by the University of Alberta and has 50 employees. It is expected to grow quickly if the Bill is passed. Synphar Pharmaceuticals is a new company which has 20 employees. It hopes to grow to 250 by 1990. I mention these companies because they will be hiring at the scientist and researcher levels. These are levels where there were previously few opportunities. All three firms rely on the passage of Bill C-22 to expand.
There will be new companies as well. The Calgary Research and Development Authority, a group which is sponsored by the City of Calgary, the Chamber of Commerce and the University of Calgary, was formed to foster research and a research-based technology industry in that city. Mr. Croft, the President of that organization, explained to the legislative committee studying this Bill that biological and genetic research now being developed at the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary could provide the basis for a new high-tech sector. This could only occur after the system of allowing companies to copy new pharmaceuticals is changed.
I would like to refer to Mr. Croft again because one of his statements summarized the difficulties faced by Alberta companies. He argued that the inhibiting nature of compulsory licensing is demonstrated by the absence in Alberta of small pharmaceutical research firms, even though the province has become an emerging centre of other high-tech firms.
Bill C-22 is also good for Alberta universities. There is a commitment, dependent on this Bill, of $100 million to the University of Alberta and $32 million to the University of

August 25, 1987
Patent Act
Calgary. Alberta has the third-largest amount of research and development expansion after Ontario and Quebec. Approximately 30 per cent of the money the passage of this Bill will bring into the economy will go to Canadian universities.
The Calgary Herald explained that Alberta hospitals, universities and research centres stand to gain $100 million in private grants for drug research in the next 10 years if this Bill is passed. Those are private grants, not government money. That is a tenfold increase over what is now being spent.
We can see the effect in how well Alberta universities can compete. The University of Calgary's researchers have a proud list of pharmacological projects, including research into anticancer drugs such as Interferon and new anti-diabetic agents.
Passage of Bill C-22 will be good for Alberta health care as it will be good for health care across the country. All Members of this House know the Bill does not affect drugs currently on the market. It applies only to drugs which may be invented in the future. I therefore find it reprehensible that Members of this House who know better are attempting to use scare tactics on senior citizens and others by suggesting that somehow this Bill will increase the cost of drugs they use. That is totally false. Any suggestion like that is an attempt to mislead the public. This Bill seeks to create an environment where we can increase scientific research and development in drugs and health care and build an industry to produce and sell those drugs.
It is useful to compare the original Bill and the Senate version with respect to jobs and cost to consumers. I know the Consumers' Association of Canada has not supported this Bill. I spoke to the President of that association, one of my constituents, earlier today. However, I would like to point out that the original Bill will result in a $1.4 billion investment in new research and 3,000 jobs. The Senate's royalty scheme would produce a fund of between $140 million and $225 million. Similarly, over 10 years, according to the Eastman report, the cost to consumers would be in the neighbourhood of $700 million to $1.1 billion. The Senate proposal does not include a drug prices review board. We can only conclude that the Senate's proposals are far more detrimental to the consumer than the Government's legislation and they have nowhere near the economic benefits of the original Bill.
This Bill is not about drugs, it is about jobs. We can allow research and development to be done in the U.S., Japan and Europe and buy the products they produce, or we can develop our own industry. This Bill is also about democracy and whether or not an unelected institution can thwart the will of elected representatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Abolish it!


Murray Dorin: I would like to continue but I think I have come to the end of my time. I thank you for this opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member several questions. First, can he explain to Members of the House why in the years until 1969, when we did not have this legislation which supposedly stopped the drug companies from doing research-and if I am wrong I would like to hear from the drug companies-there was not a single important drug for serious illnesses developed by any Canadian company? The only important drug until 1969 was insulin developed at the University of Toronto medical college. If they did not do it before, why should we expect them to do more after we pass this legislation?
The Hon. Member also referred to his constituent who happens to be the President of the Consumers' Association of Canada. Does he not find it strange that that association, labour unions, seniors' organizations, farm groups like Keystone Agriculture in Manitoba, are all so gullible, ignorant and incompetent that they have been taken in by the biased misinformation they are getting from this side of the House? Or is it that perhaps they are right and the only people who are wrong are the Government and the industry?


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why our record in the development of drugs prior to 1969 was so bad. I can tell you one possible reason, however, and that is that a lot of Alberta universities and companies headed by aggressive entrepreneurs are ready to go as soon as this Bill passes, and we did not have that then. A lot of Albertans are poised to do that development if no one else wants to. Certainly we have opinions from other people. There is a wide variety of opinion. However, we must remember that they represent not necessarily the broader national interest of the country but their own particular interest. All these associations put forward a position reflecting the vested interests of their members.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs which is now studying tax reform. It is rare that I have to look beyond the cover of a brief to know what a given group is going to be saying and what position they are going to be taking. The Hon Member knows that. Those people are paid, appointed or elected to put forward the view from the perspective of their association. They are doing their job and I commend them for it. We in this House are elected to evaluate all those views and make a decision on what is best for the country in the broadest sense.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I joined with the rest of the House in dismay when my hon. colleague talked about the people of Alberta being industrious and my friend from Windsor- Walkerville, in the NDP, laughed.
I wanted to ask my colleague a question. He will know that the traditional NDP policy has been to abolish the Senate. Yet last week the NDP House Leader was quoted as saying: "We would assume the Senate would see the wisdom of stopping this Bill". He then went on to say: "But the fact is they do
August 25, 1987

some good work some of the time". What does my colleague think his constituents will feel about an appointed Senate, with the support of the NDP, stopping this Bill which has been passed by the duly elected representatives of the House of Commons?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) has 30 seconds.


Murray Dorin: I heard the rumour that they did good work over there. I suspect that when it happened I must have been out or in my riding. My province is at the forefront of calling for Senate reform, and any change from abolition on up would be a step forward.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
June 10, 1987-Second reading and reference to a legislative committee of
Bill C-258, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (war crimes and crimes
against humanity).
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) whose Bill has been called at this time, has a conflict. The conundrum is as follows: Bill C-258 which is now before the House deals with the same subject matter as Bill C-71 which, the House will recall, was given second reading on August 20, last Thursday. The legislative committee on Bill C-71 is meeting at this time and the Member cannot be in two places at one time. He thought it was his duty to attend the committee on the government Bill rather than pursue his own initiative, Bill C-258.
Therefore, I request that his Bill fall to the end of the order of precedence and that the House be adjourned.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this being Private Members' hour it would be presumptuous of me to say that I am responding on behalf of the Government. However, I think I can safely say on behalf of members of my Party that we agree that the Bill was put forward by my colleague from the Liberal Party in good faith. The government Bill, C-71, encompasses all of the things in this Bill and goes much further.
In the spirit of co-operation, since we are trying to do the country's work, I wonder if my hon. colleague would see fit-


Nelson Andrew Riis: No.
Adjournment Debate


Philip Derek Lewis: -to use this hour of House time to proceed with government business in order that legislation can be passed, or does he want to join my friend in the NDP and have a holiday for an hour?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it would be presumptuous of me to call for the unanimous consent which must be given in order for the Government to proceed with Orders of the Day. Therefore, I will wait to learn what the indications of other Members of the House are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is not present to move the motion for second reading of Bill C-258 for which notice has been given, the order will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Is there unanimous consent to carry on with Orders of the Day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the adjournment debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, after a debate which clearly showed once more the indifference and lack of concern of this Conservative Government for the Canadian people, I would like to come back to a question which I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) about the unemployment insurance benefits of older workers.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is important to remind the Members of this House and those Canadians who are now listening to us in their homes that, in the past, when an older worker lost his job, accepted early retirement to protect the jobs of younger workers and continued looking for work even though he received benefits from the pension plan to which he had contributed, he was also entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, in January 1985, this

August 25, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Conservative Government decided to put an end to this practice, and without informing those who had applied for unemployment insurance benefits after taking an early retirement, the Government cut off their benefits.
After a hard fight of 17 or 18 months and with the support of thousands of older workers in the regions of Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Abitibi, Rouyn-Noranda, the North Shore, Montreal, and especially the Montreal-Sainte-Marie constituency, we were able to make the Government go back on its decision and reverse its position, just as we had done in the case of the partial de-indexation of old age security pensions
As of now, 46,000 older workers in Canada have been reimbursed the unemployment insurance benefits to which they were entitled and received an average of $10,000 each.
Unfortunately, and in this case, I asked my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), because of the silence and indifference of the Conservative and New Democrat Members who have done nothing about this issue, we have to continue our representations because there are 2,500 other workers in Canada who lost their jobs before January 5, 1986, and had accepted to take early retirement under the rules which applied at the time.
But unfortunately these people were known to have left their employers on December 31, 1985. New Year's is a holiday and the offices of employment centres are closed, so the Government does not want to do them justice quite simply because the men and women who went to see the Canada Manpower Centre staff to apply for unemployment insurance benefits were told by the officials: No, you are not eligible right now. Come back in three weeks or a month because you just got your severance pay. So they did come back, but today the Government refuses to reimburse them.
This is what I would like to know from the Member or the Parliamentary Secretary who will be answering my question: On the basis of what social justice principle does this Conservative Government maintain two classes of older workers? We have an older worker who has set aside part of his wages and transferred that part to an employer pension plan, and we have another older worker in another company who has saved up part of his income to contribute to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. The result is that the latter is entitled to draw full unemployment insurance benefits, even if he is receiving $400 or $500 per week from his RRSP. Unfortunately for Canadians listening to us now who opted for early retirement, when they were hired, like our public servants and our military, they had to pay unemployment insurance benefits and contribute to an employer pension plan.
But when these people lose their jobs, and there are hundreds and thousands of people losing their jobs in the regions, they go to the Unemployment Insurance Office and they are told: No. The Mulroney Government will not give you your unemployment insurance benefits. The Conservative Government and Conservative Members say: No, we don't
trust your word, we don't believe you. Go get another job. If you do find another job and you lose it, then you will be eligible. That is outrageous! It is completely outrageous, Mr. Speaker, to treat a worker like this.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary would tell us why, on the basis of what kind of social justice, his Government is proceeding in this way. How can Conservative Members meet older workers and still talk to them without shame? And this decision does not apply just to today's older workers, it applies to all workers.
Today, Conservative Members were pulling out all the emotional stops to save jobs, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is time justice were done.
Mr. Speaker, you are telling me my time has expired. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has good news-not for me but for thousands of older workers who are awaiting the Government's decision. I hope he says his Government will reimburse all older workers and eliminate this discriminatory treatment of our workers.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the question raised by the Hon. Member on March 31 concerning unemployment insurance and pensions.
Pension agreements constitute an essential part of an employee's earning package. It is the Government's view that pension income is paid as compensation when regular earnings are no longer forthcoming and that persons who have retired from the labour market should not look to unemployment insurance as a supplementary source of income in retirement.
The unemployment insurance regulations regarding the treatment of pension income were introduced on January 5, 1986. However, as the Hon. Member will recall, on December 5, 1986, the Government announced its intention to amend the regulations. The Bill which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) recently introduced in the House will enable persons in receipt of pension income to requalify for full unemployment insurance benefits if they take a job after their retirement and they work long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
Furthermore, the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated to the House on March 18 that persons who had applied for unemployment insurance prior to January 5, 1986-those people who applied under the previous rules-will have their entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits determined under the previous rules. It should therefore be obvious that the Government has bent over backwards to ensure that persons taking early retirement are treated equitably and fairly.
August 25, 1987

The Eton. Member implies that there is no fundamental difference between an employer-sponsored pension plan and a regular Registered Retirement Savings Plan. However, this simply is not correct. Pension plans are a term and condition of employment generally requiring contributions by both employer and employee to finance future pensions. Thus, they take the form of deferred employment earnings.
A Retirement Savings Plan, on the other hand, is based predominantly on a voluntary, individual savings decision. It is only one among many ways that an individual may accumulate savings.
I want to conclude by affirming the Government's resolve to treat all persons, including older workers, equitably and fairly under the unemployment insurance system while, at the same time, reinforcing the fundamental role of unemployment insurance as a scheme for temporarily replacing lost employment income.


REFUGEES-REPORTS OF POSSIBLE ARRIVAL OF TAMILS FROM GERMANY
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10 I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) what the Government planned to do to prevent further abuse of our immigration and refugee policies. My question was in response to a large influx of Central Americans coming across our Canadian border from the United States and also because of rumours that possibly more Tamils would land on our shores.
The Minister replied that he would introduce legislation to clear up the problem and he followed through with his plan. Shortly after our interaction in this House, he announced a series of very responsible administrative changes to the refugee claims system. These revisions increased our ability to help genuine refugees while deterring system abuse.
At that time, the blanket policy on admissions and nondeportation which applied to certain countries was cancelled. As well, people coming from those countries whose citizens required visas to visit Canada were required to have transit visas if they were travelling through Canada en route to another destination. I was encouraged by these measures but continued to press for legislation to meet the increasing number of claimants.
As we all know, people claiming refugee status landed on our shores in July. The Immigration Act of 1976 stated that anyone in Canada, whether here legally or illegally, be given the right to a determination of their claim by the Minister, and a redetermination before the Immigration Appeal Board of any claim rejected by the Minister.
The Ministers of Immigration were bound by law to allow these people to stay in Canada. Cries of "Ship them back" were absolutely out of the question. Canada is a law-abiding country.
Adjournment Debate
Just two months before this, Bill C-55, amendments to the Immigration Act of 1976, had been introduced. The Opposition Parties strongly opposed the Bill, saying that it was too tough. I agree that it is tough, but it is fair. Even more important, it is necessary.
My constituency office in Fraser Valley East was inundated with calls and letters from Canadians who feel that those aboard the boat were jumping the queue, making it even more difficult for legitimate refugees to be processed through the legal channels. They asked me to pass on the message that Bill C-55 must be passed, and I did so gladly.
As a sovereign country, Canada must have the right to decide who comes into our country. Our laws must be strong enough to prevent further abuse. Too many people are now claiming entry who are not genuine refugees. I am satisfied that Bill C-55 and the recent legislation, Bill C-84, the deterrents and detention Bill, will make it clear to all people that Canada cannot and will not permit this abuse to continue. We will stop bogus refugees.
As a result of the request of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the Speaker of the House that Parliament be recalled, Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 have been read a second time and referred to legislative committees for examination. 1 trust that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House will recognize the importance of these two pieces of legislation and will not attempt tactics to slow down the process. We have to rationalize our law toward refugees as soon as possible.
Bill C-55 remains committed to genuine refugees in need of our protection by establishing an independent body, the Immigration and Refugee Board. Cases will not be referred to this board when claimants are returnable to a safe third country, or if they fail to establish a well founded fear of persecution by not providing sufficient support of their claim, or if there are significant doubts as to the credibility of the evidence supporting their claims for this status.
The deterrents and detention Bill introduced this summer will substantially increase the penalties for traffickers of human cargo to a 10-year jail sentence and $500,000 fines. It will also impose heavier fines and penalties on transportation companies that bring undocumented people to Canada. The vast majority of improperly documented persons do not come in by the boatload, but actually by Canadian ports of entry on scheduled carriers. This means that we will have one law and this law will apply to all groups who overstep the rules. We cannot have two sets of laws for one situation.
As we have often heard, many who arrive illegally do not have any documentation. The deterrents Bill will require claimants to remain in detention for up to 21 days rather than seven if they do not possess proper documentation. If necessary, additional detention can be required until identity is proven. Since many Canadians expressed serious concerns about the background of certain refugees, this Bill will give the Government the power to remove people who pose a criminal or security threat to Canada.

August 25, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I believe that these two pieces of legislation, Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, are absolutely essential and are supported by the majority of Canadians. It is imperative that we protect bona fide refugees. We must tell the world that Canada will continue to open her arms to real refugees but we will not allow our laws to be abused or thwarted, nor will we let our record of humanitarianism become a laughing matter.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) on February 10, 1987. I thank him for his comments on a subject that I know he holds very dear to his heart and on which he has worked very hard in our caucus.
In reply to the Hon. Member's question as to what we are doing to prevent further abuse of our immigration and refugee policies, I would draw the Member's attention to our recent efforts in this respect.
On February 20, 1987, this Government instituted control measures to stem the flow of illegal migrants posing as genuine refugees coming to Canada. These measures covered three primary areas. First, the cancellation of the existing blanket policy of admission or non-deportation of nationals of certain countries, which meant that all claimants, regardless of their country of origin, were treated in the same way. Second, the enforcement of existing provisions under the Immigration Act allowing us to better control the flow of refugee claimants from the United States. Pursuant to this measure, claimants remain temporarily in the United States until immigration hearings can take place. Third, the imposition of transit visas to stop illegal migrants from using the short stopover in Canada to claim refugee status.
These control measures, designed to discourage the arrival of economic migrants posing as genuine refugees, have been successful in that the number of arrivals has dropped dramatically. There were over 4,200 potential refugee claimants who appeared at Canada's ports of entry in February. This number was reduced to over 1,700 in March and stabilized at just over 1,600 in July, 1987.
The Government has also gone on to introduce two important pieces of legislation, Bills C-55 and C-84, which are presently in the committee stage, and to which the Hon. Member has alluded. His knowledge possibly exceeds mine in that area.
Bill C-55 establishes a new refugee determination system, indeed, a fair and efficient system which will result in the speedy resolution of refugee claims. This new Bill replaces the current eight-step process by a three-step system which will put an end to long delays and uncertainty for genuine refugees while speedily removing rejected claimants.
More recently the Government tabled Bill C-84 which embodies firmer deterrent measures designed to dovetail with Bill C-55 to provide immediate protection from abuse. The Bill strikes out the sources of the abuse by substantially increasing penalties for smugglers and strengthening security enforcement. Persons who arrive without proper documentation will be detained until their identities can be established; transportation companies carrying undocumented persons will be more heavily fined; and persons posing criminal and security threats will be swiftly removed.
With these measures we can better manage our borders, and deter abuse. We renew our abiding commitment that genuine refugees will continue to be welcomed in Canada.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS-HIGH INTEREST RATES CHARGED TO CREDIT CARD USERS-INTERVENTION BY ILLINOIS STATE TREASURER
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to try to get the Government to act on the rip-off which major banks, retail companies and energy companies are forcing on hundreds of thousands of Canadians, mostly, or almost all of whom are in low or middle-income brackets.
The interest rate on unpaid balances of credit card users charged by the banks which operate Mastercard and Visa, those who operate the major retail chains such as Eaton's, The Bay and Sears, and the gasoline companies, vary from 16.5 per cent to 28.8 per cent. On top of that many of these institutions have instituted a user-fee of $1 per month or a transaction fee of 25 cents per transaction.
These rates came into effect in the early 1980s when the prime rate set by the Bank of Canada was almost twice as high as it is today. At that time I suppose it was necessary for these companies issuing credit cards to set their rates in the 20 per cent or more range, which is what they did. The prime rate set by the Bank of Canada, the rates which banks charge and the rates which they pay to depositors have come down substantially. Yet the banks and the other organizations such as retail chains and energy companies have stubbornly refused to bring down their interest rates.
It took repeated speeches, repeated questions, an inquiry by the Finance Committee of the House of Commons, as well as a threat by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) before the banks which operate the major credit card groups such as Mastercard and Visa brought down their rates somewhat a few months ago. The retail chains and gasoline companies simply ignored the complaints and the advice of the parliamentary committee. They are ripping off the public.
There are other groups which have done a much better job than the ones I have already mentioned. For example, credit unions in Saskatchewan and Ontario are offering a Mastercard tied to the over-draft rate of 12.5 per cent. This is 6.1 per cent less than the other credit card companies charge, except Canada Trust which recently cut its rate. As well, they charge no other fee. The credit card companies touted out all manner
August 25, 1987

of excuses for not being able to cut rates. Eiowever, as I indicated, they did cut rates a fraction back in February. Just as soon as the bank rate went up a few weeks ago, the companies began to increase their rates.
The parliamentary committee which studied the question made a number of recommendations. I would like to refer to one, one to which the Minister of State for Finance should pay attention. This recommendation appears in the report of the parliamentary committee and is dated March, 1987. It is the committee's sixth recommendation. It states that although the committee recommends that ceilings on interest rates not be imposed at this time, present money market rates indicate that there should be a substantial downward movement in credit card interest rates and other related charges. In the event that major Schedule A banks do not take action, at least to the extent of the action taken by the Toronto-Dominion Bank, then the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) should investigate to determine if there is anticompetitive behaviour and take appropriate action.
I can tell the Minister what the action should be. The State Treasurer of the State of Illinois took action. He wrote to five or six of the major banks in his state, asking them to lower their interest rates. He told them that if they did not, he would move the state funds which the banks held to other banks. They complied and interest rates in February of this year in that state were at 13.8 per cent. Not only that, the Treasurer introduced a Bill into the State Legislature which provided for an amendment to an Act in relation to the rate of interest. It imposes a ceiling on credit card revolving credit interest rates at the amount of 3 per cent over the prime rate established by the largest bank in Illinois. It provides for such a rate to be adjusted every six months.
We could take the same action here. We could introduce legislation which would tie the interest rates charged to people who do not pay their unpaid balances when they receive their statements to a fixed percentage over the interest rate set by the Bank of Canada.
This is an important matter. Members of Parliament, people who are in the upper-income brackets who use credit cards, pay whatever balance they owe when they receive their statements. They are able to do that. But there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who find that they cannot do that, and they let it ride. They are being hit with charges of anywhere from 18 per cent to 28 per cent. That is reprehensible. It ought not to be permitted. If the companies involved will not take action voluntarily, then I call upon the Government to bring in legislation which will prevent them from doing this.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his intervention in this regard. I should point out that the Hon. Member has raised an issue that has been discussed many times in the House, namely, the spread between the Bank of Canada rate and the other lending rates in the market-place.
Adjournment Debate
As the Hon. Member knows, on May 26, 1986, the House of Commons issued an order to the Finance Committee to study the present interest rates charged by credit card companies. The Finance Committee tabled its report in March of this year. The Government welcomes the report. At this time, I would like to commend the committee members for their efforts in reviewing this important topic.
The report contains seven recommendations. For most readers the report's principal findings would probably be that there was some room for the level of credit card interest rates to be reduced. Based on the information that was provided by the credit card companies, the House Finance Committee estimated that credit card companies could lower their charges to consumers by about 3 per cent through a combination of lower interest rates, user fees, and longer grace periods.
In April, the major banks lowered their customer charges along the lines of the report's recommendations. Some, but not all banks have recently announced that they will be increasing their credit card rates by just over .5 per cent in October. I would note that since April the prime rate has increased by 125 bases points, from 8.75 per cent to 10 per cent.
While there is undoubtedly a linkage between the bank rate and other interest rates, such as the chartered banks' prime lending rate and credit card interest rates, I would note that it is not an exact or inflexible relationship. The committee's report found that there is not a direct one-to-one relationship between short-term interest rates like the Bank of Canada rate, and the credit card rates. The rates charged by credit card companies reflect a number of considerations and influences. A change in the bank rate does not automatically warrant a change in the credit card rate.
The recommendations of the report deserve careful study. Hon. Members should note that several of the recommendations require federal-provincial consultations. In this regard, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has established a working group with his provincial counterparts to review the whole issue of cost of credit card disclosure for all types of consumer lending, and the harmonization of federal and provincial requirements.
I believe that the House Finance Committee's report shows that credit cards perform a useful function, but that there is a need for more information so that consumers can take advantage of the existing competition in the market-place. 1 would remind the Hon. Member that the Government has already started the process of modernizing and strengthening our financial system.
On December 18, 1986, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) tabled the policy paper entitled "New Directions for the Financial Sector". The proposals will allow more players into the market-place, which will benefit not only borrowers but also savers who provide funds to financial intermediaries.
8418____________________________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________________August 25, 1987
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn The House adjourned at 5.33 p.m. 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).

Wednesday, August 26, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers