1987-04-01

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government legislation on prescription drug patent is a good example of the definition of Canada's Conservatives.
The only consequence this policy can have is higher drug prices. It is a policy which compromises the access to and availability of prescription drugs. It is a policy which helps the major American multinationals. It is a policy which flies in the face of the Canadian progressive health care system established by Liberal Governments. It is a policy which Canadians reject outright.
I urge the Government to stop forcing Canadians to pay higher drug prices, to withdraw the Bill, and to be sensitive and fair to Canadians who need these drugs. We must make every effort to improve their standard of living instead of debasing their integrity and their existence.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, a new but significant promise from the Kremlin to permit 11,000 Jewish refusniks to emigrate to Israel this year was reported yesterday. They are all on a long standing list of cases presented to the Soviets at the Reykjavik summit.
All of these people have been denied for a very long time the most basic human right, freedom to choose to leave the Soviet Union. We applaud Mr. Edward Bronfman and Mr. Abram of the United States for their efforts in negotiating this promise of the release of 11,000 people. I cannot applaud the U.S.S.R. for a promise, but we are encouraged. We will applaud the U.S.S.R. when they grant all the basic human rights to their citizens, including the right to pursue their religious convictions in the Soviet Union.
This latest promise is a perfect occasion to put the alleged policy of openness, or "glasnost", to the litmus test.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it has now been many weeks since the National Research Council submitted its report on the damage done to private property as the result of the Canadian National twin tracking project in Kamloops and Rayleigh, British Columbia. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) waited for the receipt of this report before taking action with CN with respect to compensating those whose homes and businesses have experienced structural damage, and before requiring CN to take corrective action to eliminate future damage.
The people of Kamloops and Rayleigh have been very patient. They have waited for months as studies have been conducted while watching cracks in their walls widen, foundations crumbling, and water lines break. CN has not been especially co-operative in recognizing the problem, and providing compensation or taking any corrective action.
Leadership by the Minister of Transport and the federal Government is now necessary. I urge the Minister to take action now to ensure that those who suffered, through no fault of their own, as a result of CN's twin tracking program through residential areas, are treated fairly by the railway which is itself the ultimate responsibility of the federal Government.

April 1, 1987


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO SMALL OIL PRODUCING COMPANIES-IMPACT ON ECONOMY OF ALBERTA
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa's $350 million a year offer to the oil industry might signal the beginning of annual investments of $1 billion in exploration for and development of untapped reserves in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The National Energy Program had seriously distorted the industry, and it was up to the Government to make sure that small companies, one of the most important elements of the industry, would survive.
As a matter of fact, small companies had not been on the receiving end of the NEP bonanza to the same extent as major concerns, and their efforts to develop traditional western reserves had even been thwarted. Such assistance to small oil producers will boost the Albertan economy at a time when future prospects do not look very promising. It is aimed at a sector from which Alberta's economy draws its strength and on which rests the future of the province.
The help offered by the Government of Ottawa to small producers will enable that industry to rally and survive while waiting for renewed wider scale exploration boosted by higher world prices.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) was right, and Ottawa makes it possible for Alberta to get through the doldrums and save the jobs of skilled workers.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, 300 political prisoners in Chile have been on a hunger strike since February 25, 1987, in protest against unfair trials and treatment. The hunger strike started in connection with two trials involving members of an armed opposition group who are accused of smuggling arms into the country, and persons accused of attempting to kill General Pinochet. In both of these cases prisoners were badly tortured, a fact which has been documented by America's Watch, an American human rights organization.
This organization has interviewed 17 people who are detained. The interviews include reports that rats were let loose on victims' faces. Prisoners also received the normal application of electric shock to the most sensitive parts of the body. Some of the prisoners were also submerged in water to
the point of losing consciousness, badly beaten, and sexually abused.
The hunger strikers are demanding the release of all political prisoners through an amnesty or else be allowed to exchange their sentence for exile, and the end to political appointments of special military prosecutors to deal with particular cases and the transfer of judicial proceedings from military to civilian courts.
Amnesty International has asked that urgent action be taken. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to condemn the Chilean Government for its gross indecent violation of human rights and to urge that Government to meet the requests of the political prisoners.


TOURISM
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, tourism is the fifth largest industry in Canada and is growing every year. Our Government has recently increased its tourism advertising by $5.5 million to attract more visitors from the United States. This will help Canada maintain its momentum of last year when a record number of Americans spent their vacations in Canada. The additional funding will be spent on expanded television and magazine advertising under the award winning theme of "Canada: The World Next Door".
The tourism industry is vital to Canada. It employs more than 600,000 Canadians and generates $20 billion in receipts. In Alberta tourism is the third largest industry and we are working hard to ensure that it continues its strong and healthy growth. It is a key factor in our desire to diversify our economy, and is an integral part of our future. Tourism is vital to our Government's economical renewal and we should all make an effort to ensure that Canada is indeed "the world next door".


INCOME TAX
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, seniors, single parents and other Canadians with low incomes are fuming at the Tory Government for the amount of personal income tax they are having to pay for 1986. I would like to read one of several letters from my constituents on this matter.
Dear, Mr. Parry:
My mother had a total income of $9,885.60 last year. I calculated her
income tax for her and she owes $236.20.
April 1, 1987

Mr. Parry, my mother is in her 70s, her only income is through pensions. It does not seem right that she should have to pay tax at all. Also, her taxes to the Town are due this month, she has no idea where to get the money from ... Why are the poor being penalized again?
I should cite the figures calculated by Mr. Murray Kelso of Fort Frances. Someone who paid no federal tax in 1985 on $1,430 of taxable income has to pay $99 in 1986; and on $3,000 someone who had to pay $254 of federal tax in 1985 has to pay $352 in 1986.
A single parent writes me:
Financially, I would have been better to have stayed home with my children; between saving child care expenses and having a larger income return. My situation is not uncommon.
Indeed, these impositions on low-income Canadians cry out for a remedy.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Government and the Government of Quebec decided to invest $220 million, that is $110 million each, in the General Motors factory at Sainte-Therese. At stake are 5,500 jobs in Quebec and 5,400 jobs in Ontario, especially in Oshawa. The Leader of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), did nothing in this respect to help his constituents. He was and still is against helping the private sector.
Although the Leader of the NDP accepts source deductions from Canadian workers and also benefits from our job creating activities, as the Member for Oshawa he has remained silent and very negative about an issue that involves Quebec and his own riding. Workers in Oshawa know this and will not forget! When will the Leader of the NDP show his true colours, Mr. Speaker?


MAPLE SYRUP INDUSTRY
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, not long ago, the President of the UPA wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in which he said, and I quote: Our maples, the symbol of Canada, are dying.
Mr. Speaker, the UPA wanted to make the leader of this Government aware of the fact that one of the worst disasters in the history of Canadian agriculture may compromise the growth and survival of the maple syrup industry. The deterioration of our maple trees has been increasing and spreading
ever since the first cases were identified in 1979-80. According to the findings of recent studies carried out by the Quebec Department of Energy and Resources, 85 per cent of Quebec maple stands are now showing signs of deterioration, varying from slight to very serious.
It is imperative that the Canadian Government put pressure on the Americans to agree to a definite program, so that we can stop the deterioration process, stop pollution and get rid of the sources of pollution.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, tonight Canadians of Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian origin, as well as their friends and supporters, will gather on Parliament Hill to celebrate the fifteenth annual Baltic Evening. Baltic Canadians have a special understanding and appreciation of the good fortune Canadians enjoy living in a free and democratic nation. Baltic independence was lost when the Soviet Union forcibly occupied the Baltic States. This occasion serves as a reminder of the need to protect and encourage the spirit of freedom wherever it is found.
The Baltic culture has flourished in Canada, and Canadians of Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian heritage have proudly contributed their strengths and perseverance to Canada, and the cause of freedom. I call on all Members of the House to join Canada's Baltic community in celebrating this special occasion, and by their participation and presence to recognize the tremendous contribution the Baltic communities have made to the growth and development of Canada, and to demonstrate that Canada does not and will not accept the forcible and illegal occupation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union.


FINANCE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, an 11-year-old constituent of mine wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last week as follows:
We, the students of Claude E. Garton School, Thunder Bay, Ontario, feel that charging taxes on popsicles, ice cream and other snacks is unfair to the children. We work hard selling newspapers, babysitting, shovelling snow, household chores, etc. This money pays for snacks, fads and fashions, etc. that we want, but if you take more money from us there will be no reason to work since you will be taking money from our pockets too.
We appeal to you to kindly change this law.

April 1, 1987
This letter was supported by several hundred of her classmates and friends.
This letter, Mr. Speaker, makes a very important point about the effect that excessive taxation has on Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada made a further point about high taxation last week when it pointed out that the economy is slowing down because the federal Government is taking too much in taxes. Disposable income is stagnating, rather than rising.
I join, Mr. Speaker, with the children of Claude E. Garton School in calling on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) not to tax the snacks that the children want to enjoy.


CHILD CARE
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to an editorial in today's Ottawa Citizen regarding the report of the Special Committee on Child Care. In that editorial the statement is made, and I quote:
A good day-care centre can cost $10,000 a year or more for each child.
We have all heard the claim, Mr. Speaker, that day care workers are underpaid and that wages account for 80 per cent of child care costs.
I have been informed that the accepted care-giver to child ratio for preschool children-and by that I mean children ages three to five-is one care-giver to eight children.
Using simple arithmetic, if the cost per child is $10,000 a year and 80 per cent of that $10,000 goes to wages, as is claimed, the care-givers should each be receiving $64,000 a year in wages.
Today is April Fool's Day, Mr. Speaker, but in the important matter of dealing with the future of our children I believe we should stop fooling around and start providing the Canadian people with the facts, the facts that add up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian shipyards especially in Quebec are in a
major crisis situation. When I saw the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) rising a while ago, I thought that he was going to stand up and fight for the workers in his riding, more specifically the 2,300 Levis shipyard workers who were counting on him for help.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, when I was in the Quebec area I took pictures of the shipyard to show just how idle and empty it is. There is not a single ship nor a single worker in the shipyard. On three different occasions, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) did promise to build the Caribou there. Well, once again he has misled the Levis people, the Quebec people, for the Caribou venture has been delayed.
I dare hope that the next time the Hon. Member for Levis rises in the House, it will be to stand up for his constituents.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, once again I stand before this House to speak out on behalf of victims of religious repression by Soviet authorities, and specifically the continued harassment and imprisonment of individuals seeking to keep alive the spirit of Christianity in Ukraine.
In 1975 Vasyl Kobryn was dismissed from his job for refusing to work on Easter Sunday, which had been declared a workday in order to harass Christian believers working at the factory. Kobryn lodged complaints and signed statements regarding his treatment, eventually becoming an active member of the Group for the Defence of Believer's Rights and the Rights of the Church in Ukraine, rising to the position of chairman in 1983.
As a result of his activities Kobryn was arrested as a criminal, tried and convicted of spreading so-called lies against the Soviet system.
The Soviet Government continues to take direct action against individuals whose faith and belief in Christianity have led them to take a stand against those forces who would deny them the basic right to practise their religious beliefs openly.
Once more I must urge the Canadian Government to seek effective means to impress upon the Soviet Government our strong and united opposition to this continued persecution.
April 1, 1987



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in his report tabled yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages criticized the Government for its inertia and made it abundantly clear that in this area as in so many others, the Conservative Government is serving up a lot of promises and hollow phrases but very little action.
We all know that bilingualism is one of the vital elements that distinguishes Canadians from Americans. Could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance he will protect our linguistic duality in his free trade negotiations with the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Commissioner commented favourably on several federal initiatives with respect to bilingualism. For all of us it is the cornerstone of our life as a nation and as a people, and there will be new projects that will provide even more support for this Canadian reality.
As far as linguistic duality is concerned, I think I mentioned the subject in my speech on September 25, 1985, here in the House, and during the debate where we said quite clearly that this language dimension was not only enriching but indispensable for Canada's future and that our cultural and linguistic life was not on the table in negotiations that were strictly concerned with trade.


COMMISSIONER'S REFERENCE TO CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Prime Minister has not been specific enough in his indications to Canadians because the Official Languages Commissioner, right at the beginning of his report, under the heading "Megatrends in Bilingualism", expresses concern that we are going to sell out our two official languages in our negotiations with the United States on free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: That appears right at the beginning of his report, so I say-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members would allow the question to be put.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if it were only my words that were disturbing Hon. Members opposite, I might understand, but this is an officer of Parliament, the Official Languages Commissioner, who is blaming the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What concrete steps is the Prime Minister taking in supervising our negotiations with the United States on free trade to ensure that our bilingualism and our policy of multiculturalism are not being endangered by the style of those negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I noted-and I will wait for the "blues"-that the Leader of the Opposition says that in this report the Commissioner of Official Languages expresses concern that we are going "to sell out our two official languages" in free trade negotiations. I am going to read the report again very carefully, because that strikes me as being a very grave distortion of what the Commissioner for Official Languages said. I will read it carefully, and I urge the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to do the same.
The Commissioner expresses concerns to which he is entitled. It is his job to protect official languages in the country, and we give him every support and every encouragement in that endeavour. However, I think I made very clear on behalf of the Government on September 25 at the University of Chicago, in a major speech on behalf of the Government of Canada, and here in the House of Commons during the debate on free trade, that culture and language were very much cornerstones of our national identity, that they were not at any time or in any circumstance in jeopardy or part of the negotiation process. That has been accepted by all sides. That has been accepted by the Americans. That has been accepted by all reasonable Canadians, and I hope eventually to persuade the Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: I think the Prime Minister ought to begin by attempting to persuade the Commissioner of Official Languages.


PRIVATIZATION OF CROWN CORPORATIONS-BILINGUAL SAFEGUARDS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the Minister of State (Privatization).
In his report, the Commissioner of Official Languages says, and I quote, that "the privatization of federal agencies should be carefully scrutinised from the language angle to forestall any slippage in bilingual performance. As this subject is becoming more and more topical, we badly need a legal guideline to protect service to the public."

April 1, 1987
Oral Questions
Could the Minister inform the House today what steps she has taken to guarantee that in selling our Crown corporations, we are not selling out bilingualism?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear privately, as has the Prime Minister publicly, to all Crown corporations whether or not they are being privatized that the Government has a very strong commitment to bilingualism. In the Teleglobe case, the headquarters of the company will remain in Montreal. In all our companies which are under review, this is an issue we are addressing very carefully.


PUBLIC SERVICE-COMPLIANCE WITH LINGUISTIC REQUIREMENTS BY DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, last October 23 the President of the Treasury Board stated in this House:
There has been no Government decision which could weaken the efforts of this
Government as concerns official languages.
In light of this assurance, can the Minister confirm a report carried by the Official Language Commissioner's report yesterday, which is in The Globe and Mail this morning, that a recent government decision has made it easier for Deputy Ministers and senior managers to avoid complying with the linguistic requirements for their positions?
[ Translation]


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: In response to my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier, Mr. Speaker, I can say that the Government is as committed as ever in its pursuit of linguistic duality in Canada, as it has always been. Mr. Speaker, I can also say that ours is the Government which, under the leadership of our Prime Minister of course, has formally promised to introduce the first and greatly overdue amendments to a statute which has been on the books for 16 or 17 years already. These amendments will be introduced in the House in the next few weeks or months so that the legislation be more attuned to the current needs of the Canadian people.


POLICY ENUNCIATION-EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this Minister issued the guidelines I have here-I can send him a copy if he does not have one-to reduce the linguistic requirements for appointments of deputy ministers in the national capital regional and to the EX management group bilingual positions in a bilingual region.
Knowing the impact and influence which a unilingual superior may have on employees, on his own staff, when it comes to the language of work, how can the Minister explain that these policy statements which originate from his Department, such retrograde statements of management policy
coming from him and his officials, indicate obvious and terribly retrograde laxity with respect to leadership within the Public Service of Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the languages of work, the only laxity to which we can indeed point a finger is the laxity of the former Government. The new Government has taken and is taking steps to review the legislation and regulations as a whole to make sure that the public is getting better services in both official languages, and that the language of work is improved in both official languages. This is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.


CHILD CARE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the area of child care, the greatest need now, all experts agree, is for increased services. But in the Minister's Budget, $300 million have not yet been allocated. Why does not the Minister use this money to increase these services right away?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been answered before, namely, when the Minister of Finance came forward with his Budget in February. A direct decision was taken that decisions such as child care would be made and announced by the Government as an individual policy item. The Minister of Finance also indicated in his Budget that there were designated figures in it. Perhaps the Hon. Member could read them. As I pointed out before, that was the approach we took. Nothing has changed from when I gave him the answer the last time.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what has changed is that we have had a report brought in by a committee of this House supported only by a majority of Conservative Members on the problem of day care. Recommendations have been made that are absolutely disastrous in terms of meeting the need for services. The Government of Prince Edward Island joined this morning with the Government of the Province of Ontario, the Government of Nova Scotia, the Government of Manitoba, all other experts in the field and church leaders in saying that the priority recommendations of the Conservative committee were wrong. As well, they have called for an immediate increase in services in terms of daycare places for the children of Canada. Will the Minister now make a decision, change those priorities and use the $300 million to provide the badly needed services for children?
April 1, 1987


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. It is not supported by a vast number of parents in Canada today. The vast majority of parents want to have a choice. The Government has clearly said that that will happen in child care. We have also said that there will be additional services.
The Hon. Member has said that this is only supported by the Conservative majority. I would point out that there happens to be a majority of Conservatives in the House who received a very strong mandate back in September, 1984, and that should be considered by the Hon. Member. Additionally, I find it rather strange that the member of his Party on the committee mentioned native care yesterday when it is a recommendation which she herself supported in the committee. Then she came here to the House and put a different face on it.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN SERVICES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if he decides to be frank with the House some time, the Minister will know why our member of the committee took the position she did. She, along with other Members of the House and members of my Party, has called consistently for increased services for the native people of Canada. It is wrong for the Minister to suggest the contrary.
The Minister has talked about choice. As far as I understand it, one thing all Parties agree on is that there should be a great choice for families in day-care services. Considering that some 75 per cent of Canadians say that the immediate priority is to have an increase in services, why does the Government not do something about that and allocate money that would increase services for the children of Canada who need them?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Leader of the NDP has finally started to come around. Up until now, he has always said that it should be one way only and that is universal day care-


John Edward Broadbent: That's a lie; that's a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the NDP position has been one way only. It has been for universal publicly-funded day care and everyone is supposed to fit the pattern. Today he says the family is important.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's a lie and you know it. Liar.


John Edward Broadbent: Go back to church, Jake, and learn the truth.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Tell the truth for once.
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: So I am saying-


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that this has gotten into debate. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Government's apparent lack of commitment to bilingualism. As the Prime Minister knows, there is a proposal before the Treasury Board which would reduce Francophone participation objectives in the RCMP. The Official Languages Commissioner was extremely critical of this action, stating that it would dangerously compromise the force's ability to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Prime Minister is as committed as he says he is to bilingualism in Canada, will he instruct the RCMP that this Parliament will not tolerate reductions in Francophone participation levels in the RCMP?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member and the House that the Government is committed to bilingualism. We are committed to it in the RCMP and there is an amended Article now before the Treasury Board with respect to this matter. I have had a number of discussions with the Commissioner and I am satisfied that a resolution satisfactory to all parties and to the country will be forthcoming very shortly.


REQUEST THAT CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS ON LINGUISTIC DUALITY BE GIVEN TO NEW RCMP COMMISSIONER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. He is well aware that in its recruiting process and its language policies, the RCMP is undermining the Official Languages Act. Could the Prime Minister assure us that he will give the new RCMP Commissioner clear instructions emphasizing that Parliament expects him to strongly promote the linguistic duality within our national police force? Will he do that?

Will he do that?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is well aware that the new Commissioner-designate is fluently bilingual. I had the opportunity to be with him for 10 days during an inspection trip in Europe and I had an excellent opportunity to discuss these problems and matters with him. I can assure the Hon. Member that he is committed to bilingualism. Frankly, I look forward to working with a man who has already devoted 30

April 1, 1987
Oral Questions
years of service to the RCMP. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the retiring Commissioner who has done an excellent job for this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Francophones both in and outside Quebec have a right to obtain government services in their own language. This Government has now shown its "outrage" towards the basic principles of the Official Languages Act. Considering that the Official Languages Commissioner has often reiterated in the past his criticism of the Government, when will the Government finally abide by and enhance the Official Languages Act?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about. Explicit mention was made at times in the House of the fact that the Government of Canada would amend the Official Languages Act.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: For the past two and a half years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberal Whip says: For the past two years. The fact is that this Act, which has been in the books for the past 17 years, has never been amended; at last, a Government is going to do it, a Conservative Government which is correcting the mistakes and blunders of the Liberal Government.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE-LACK OF RESPECT FOR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Government had already promised these amendments two years ago, and we are still waiting for this legislation to be duly enforced.
My supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Mr. Speaker, is he aware that some 1,800 grievances have been made against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for its failure to comply with this legislation. When is he going to insist that they abide by the basic principles of the Official Languages Act. When is it going to show consideration for Francophones in this Service?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to answer the Hon. Member's specific complaint about the 1,700 telexes
sent to the Quebec region in English only in the first 10 months. The Commissioner of Official Languages has said that "very firm directives and stricter controls were subsequently introduced by CSIS and the number of such incidents declined considerably". As well, he said that "the service began to improve considerably in the closing months of 1986".


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Finance. Following the unanimous report of this House on credit cards that was tabled in this House, the Minister of State said that if rates did not come down, Parliament would act.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister also stated that the Government policy would be to have credit card interest rates that would not be higher than 5 per cent over prime. My question to the Minister of State for Finance is this: Is it still this Government's policy to have credit card interest rates that are no higher than 5 per cent over prime?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question. It allows me to clarify two important mistakes made in his question. First, I made it very clear that, in my mind, interest rates are too high. The way to bring those rates down is to have the market-place do it. Parliament's action in this realm does not necessarily have to be action on rates. It can be on disclosure. It can be on all sorts of dimensions of the problem, perhaps including rates.
Second, the committee report and the research that went into it mentioned the 4 per cent or 5 per cent above prime rate profit margin. I have said that I am looking at that as perhaps a guideline. Whether that is the proper profit or not would depend on the type of card and the type of enterprise.


Raymond Garneau: In a press conference the Minister suggested that card issuers should charge 4 per cent or 5 per cent above the prime rate. I was just quoting his own words.
[ Translation]


CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES-INQUIRY WHY DIRECTIVE NOT OBSERVED
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the report has been tabled 13 days ago. I checked this morning, there are one, two, three, four, five, six banks whose interest rates on credit cards are higher than the 5 per cent above prime suggested by the Minister. I would ask the
April 1, 1987

Minister of State for Finance when he intends to move in? Has he already taken action? Why has his directive not been followed?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West has been on top of this problem for two years. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides has suddenly woken up to the problem. The Government's response to the report was almost instantaneous, and that is on the record.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Minister of the Environment what he thought of the idea of this House unanimously passing a resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to enact acid rain abatement legislation. The Minister did not close off that possibility. He indicated he was open to something like that. Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to think about it and will he indicate on behalf of the Government whether or not there is a willingness to sit down with Members from all sides and craft a resolution which could be passed quickly and unanimously to indicate to the U.S. public, Congress, and indeed the President, just how seriously Canadians take the issue of acid rain?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend, who has a very significant interest in this matter, that I have, as has the Secretary of State for External Affairs, conveyed the firm and I think unanimous view of this House regarding acid rain. We have made the point repeatedly, and I was pleased to note that the Leader of the NDP indicated a few days ago he had noticed progress on the acid rain issue as a result of persistence by the Government of Canada. It is encouraging for us to realize that other Parties recognize this improvement.
I have conveyed many times the view of the Hon. Member, and I shall be doing it again because his view is shared by all Members of this House. I thank him for his enthusiasm and ardent support of the Government on this initiative and assure him that I will be reporting back to the House, and to him specifically.


NEED FOR ACID RAIN ABATEMENT LEGISLATION IN UNITED STATES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought not to interpret my suggestion as casting any doubt on the forcefulness with which he has put Canada's case. That is not in question. What is in question is the value of a unanimous resolution of this House. I know it is possible if
Oral Questions
there is the political will, and I cannot see what could possibly be wrong with the House expressing in this symbolic and highly political way the unanimity with which Canadians regard the urgent need for acid rain abatement legislation in the U.S. Would the Government be prepared to sit down with Members from all sides and see what we can come up with?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is normally a matter to be discussed among House Leaders. I would be happy to ensure that the Government House Leader is available for discussions on this matter.
May I tell my hon. friend, with respect to parliamentary expression and going back to an exchange just a few days ago, a Democratic Congressman came up here and delivered himself of an opinion as to what the Government of Canada should do and how we should conduct ourselves. I noticed yesterday that his distinguished Leader in the U.S. Senate issued a statement which would have the effect of diminishing the impact of what President Reagan has been trying to do.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is why we need the resolution.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know the American administration and President Reagan in particular have come in for some strong denunciation by some Members of the House. In point of fact he has moved very substantially and I will need the Hon. Member's help in getting Congress to move, including those members of it who take the liberty of coming up here and lecturing us but who should be persuading their own leadership to act, because without congressional action a solution is impossible.


IMPORT QUOTAS-MEETING OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS MEMBERS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. I have in hand a copy of a memo sent yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister advising PC caucus members of a meeting to be held yesterday to discuss the redistribution of import quotas on chicken, cheese, and footwear. Can the Prime Minister tell us if the Government called this meeting to inform Tory MPs of a new patronage tool for the distribution of import quotas, or is it simply an attempt to tone down dissent in a Tory caucus upset with the potential loss of import quotas in the free trade negotiations? Which is it?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as usual with regard to the Hon. Member's questions, neither.

April 1, 1987
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing funny for people in farming and elsewhere to lose quotas. I am saying this to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


REQUEST THAT MINUTES BE TABLED
Don Boudria: Since that meeting was sponsored by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown, in his Government capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, is the Prime Minister prepared to table in this House the minutes of that meeting if the Government has nothing to hide, and to consult the Opposition in matters of such significance? Is he prepared to do that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member becomes more and more ludicrous in his-


An Hon. Member:: Ravings.


Charles Joseph Clark: -in his assertions in this House. Thank you. I had to look to one of my colleagues for a calm enough word to describe the Hon. Member's activities.
What occurred here was a discussion between a Parliamentary Secretary and interested members of the government caucus. That normally happens. It happened when the other Party was in office. What is absolutely unforgivable is for the Hon. Member to use his position in this House to try to create false fears among Canadians, as he regularly does.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the Hon. Member for Carleton- Charlotte, who has been at the front and centre on this critical issue, I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It has been reported that Star-Kist Limited announced today it is prepared to accept the Government's proposed new quality testing techniques and that, as a result, it plans to reopen its Bayside, Charlotte County, New Brunswick plant within the very near future. Can the Minister confirm if he has received such a statement from Star-Kist?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I received a letter of proposal late this morning from the principals of Star-Kist Incorporated. This is the result of many weeks and months of negotiations and a number of fairly generous offers this Government made with a view to securing the reopening of that tuna processing plant in New Brunswick. If I might just read two sentences from this letter: "With the implementation of this scientific
testing as outlined by your experts ... we intend to begin making improvements to our plant as indicated in the Morrison report. We estimate these improvements will take approximately 120 days to accomplish. We then intend to reopen the plant."
This is not only good news to all Members of this House, if all the necessary conditions can be met, but it will be particularly good news to the unfortunate workers in St. Andrews and St. Stephen, New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Minister is well aware of the special program to increase employment in the Public Service for members of the visible minority communities, which began in the past fiscal year. Will he confirm that only six of the 50 positions promised for the first year of this three-year program have been filled during this year?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have been making every possible effort to improve the access to employment in the Public Service by visible minorities, as we have with the disabled, Francophones, and women. We have consultative committees that are set up and meet regularly to make recommendations which are being followed up by the Treasury Board on a very regular basis to ensure that the greatest access possible is available.
I will have to defer to the Hon. Member as to the exact number. I will be happy to give him the numbers, but I can assure the Hon. Member that we are making every effort possible to give all these groups the greatest access possible to Public Service employment.


REQUEST THAT ALLOTTED POSITIONS BE FILLED
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is well aware that action is wanted and consultation is the merest beginning for it. Will the Minister assure us that the 44 positions that 1 understand have not been filled will be rolled over into the present fiscal year and not simply cancelled, thereby breaking a promise from the Government to members of the visible minority communities to see some real advance during this three-year period?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we will not break any promises. We made a formal promise that we would help these groups that were underprivileged in seeking employment in the Public Service of
April 1, 1987

this country. We are acting on that promise. Those positions will not be cancelled. We will uphold those promises for those to whom they are directed.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday the Council of Maritime Premiers issued a statement calling upon the federal Government to provide financial assistance to the beleaguered shipbuilding industry in order that a contract for the construction of seven fishing trawlers be carried out in Canada and not lost to subsidized yards such as are in Argentina. Will the Prime Minister undertake to the House and Atlantic Canadians to promise financial assistance to those shipbuilding yards to ensure that Canadian ships will be built in Canada, thereby increasing employment opportunities for Canadians?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has received a request from Prince Edward Island concerning the said program. We are now assessing that request and as it has been done everywhere else in the country, our decision will be aimed specifically at strengthening the shipbuilding industry in the Atlantic provinces.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Canadians, particularly Atlantic Canadians in Pictou, Nova Scotia, and Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, have been waiting since 1984 for the Government to introduce a shipbuilding policy. Will the Prime Minister not now take positive action such as providing concessionary financing to domestic shipbuilding yards in order to provide jobs here in Canada? Why are you selling out our shipbuilding workers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Hon. Member can thus describe the federal policy on the shipbuilding industry. Such were not the conditions elsewhere in the country and such they will not be in the Atlantic provinces. Steps taken or to be taken by the Governement in the Atlantic provinces are specifically aimed at strengthening that industry and we will be continuing in this direction.
Oral Questions


FILM INDUSTRY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the decision not to allow Telefilm Canada to keep $18.5 million and let it be rolled over into the next fiscal year from the past year's funding. It effectively means a loss of that amount of money to independent film producers for this year. Will the Minister show some sensitivity to independent film producers and an understanding that the organization of funding for films takes a long time? The rule that money not spent immediately within the funding period is simply lost to the industry is very strict. Should there not be some sensitivity to make the rules suit the needs of the film production community?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is exactly the kind of policy we are pursuing. If the Hon. Member had cared to look at the record she would have seen that initially Telefilm Canada was funded under a long-term program which was converted to meet the actual annual cash flow needs of Telefilm Canada. There is no reduction of any kind in that budget. There is no cash need. There are no producers in this country who are not able at the moment to access the funds that are available. As a matter of fact, the budget was set at a level that will allow Telefilm Canada not only to continue its very worthwhile work but to have an assured base of support financially for years and years to come.


Lynn McDonald: I think the picture is not quite as rosy as the Minister would have us believe.


FUNDING PROVIDED BY TREASURY BOARD
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister consider whether Telefilm Canada should be funded on a revolving fund basis like the Canada Council? This is what Telefilm has asked for, what independent producers are seeking and what the community says it needs. Of course, anyone who knows the film industry is aware that the funding takes time to organize and the rules should be made to suit the needs of the community. It should not be some arbitrary rule of the Treasury Board.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the member said a number of times that I know certain things. One thing I do know is that in the years of operation so far Telefilm Canada, while meeting all the needs of the community, has not been able to spend the money that was at its disposal. We are meeting all the needs that are presented to us and we have put the funding of that organization on a sound basis for years to come. The Treasury Board is very responsive to that community and will continue to be responsive. The Government is committed to that community and will continue to be committed.

April 1, 1987
Oral Questions


CHILD CARE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Mrs. Stella Guay, President of the Quebec Bureau of Day Care Services and Mrs. Gagnon-Tremblay, Quebec Minister for the Status of Women, said it was unfortunate the Parliamentary Committee failed to consider Quebec's recommendations for more flexible funding criteria for day care programs. The federal Government does not recognize day care centres located in schools, and it is a fact that in 1986-87, the Quebec Government lost $15 million in this way. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to make some changes in day care funding to ensure that day care centres in schools, and there are 528 in Quebec, be considered on a par with other day care centres and thus entitled to full refund of costs?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, obviously at the last meeting of the Social Affairs Ministers we looked at the child care issue and some of the conditions that had to be considered. We also looked at the Canada Assistance Plan. We mentioned at that time that the federal Government's exposure was about $105 million annually and that it could be higher if the provinces in fact triggered the expenditure. The Hon. Member may know that the money is there if it is triggered by the provinces, and 50 per cent is then returned from the federal Government. I have no doubt that as we go through the child care reports, make recommendations, and have discussions with the provinces, some of these questions about what new flexibility should be arranged with respect to any child care financing will arise.


QUALITY OF SERVICES-NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, everyone admits, and the experts agree, that we need to improve the quality of the service provided by day care centres. The Minister will recall that in 1985, the Conservative Government robbed Canadian families of $1.2 billion by deindexing family allowances. You deceived our families. To correct this injustice, is the Minister, and now the Prime Minister, prepared to commit these $1.2 billion as funding for day care centres so that we can have quality day care in this country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member has mixed up two things again, as he does so often. He said that there was a partial deindexation of family allowance so that families have less. Let me repeat what I have said so many times. If he considers low-income families and examines the Canada Assistance Plan and the increase in the Child Tax Credit for those families, he will see
that they are getting more than the reduction if the full indexing had been there.


FINANCE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to other questions on credit cards, I have been informed that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has just announced it is lowering the rate on its Visa card from 18.6 per cent to 15.9 per cent. The bank is quoted as saying the impact of the parliamentary committee was a factor in the decision. Is the Minister of State for Finance prepared to monitor the other banks along the same lines?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear this news. I am very pleased that the Bank of Commerce made it clear that the House of Commons committee report was a factor in its decision. I commend that bank and those banks which have already lowered their interest rates. They are responding not simply to the House of Commons committee report but, of course, to the market. I would hope that retail stores and other financial institutions will look to their rates as well.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-DAIRY PRODUCTS INQUIRY
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The other day in the House the Minister of Agriculture made the statement, with regard to free trade negotiations, that the Government will negotiate the import of supply managed farm products in the same way production levels were agreed to in the Auto Pact. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree with the Minister of Agriculture that Canada should allow the Americans a say in how many dairy products, poultry, and other supply managed products Canadian farmers will be allowed to produce?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Agriculture nor I agree with that unusual NDP position.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has only to read the record to find
April 1, 1987

out exactly what the Minister of Agriculture said. Would he agree that allowing the Americans to have an input into Canadian supply management decisions would diminish our farmers' role in Canadian agricultural decisions and that this would be bad for agriculture in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for some time now the Government has made it clear that we were discussing neither supply management nor the Auto Pact. The NDP and the Liberal Party apparently want us to discuss the Auto Pact, but we are not going to. The NDP has suggested in this House of Commons that we should be giving away the Canadian Wheat Board. That was its suggestion the other day. Now it is suggesting we should allow the United States to discuss our supply management programs. That might be the position of the New Democratic Party; it is not ours.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister met with his provincial counterparts to discuss the Forget Report and reform of the unemployment insurance system. Considering the known views of several provinces, is the Minister now ready to reject clearly Forget's annualization proposal which would substantially reduce unemployment insurance benefits?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of yesterday's meeting with the provincial Ministers of Employment was to seek their proposals concerning the unemployment insurance reform. As a matter of fact, the provinces did suggest that the annualization principle be rejected. It had been agreed before the propositions were heard that I would not make an announcement at the time. I think it would not be proper to make one today. The answer will be given around May 15.


EARLY RETIREES' ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, considering the Minister's meeting with the provinces yesterday, will the Minister now abandon his unfair proposal that early retired Canadians must be laid off from a second job before they can collect unemployment insurance? Will he not recognize that that proposal is unworkable and inequitable?
Privilege-Mr. Epp
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, that is entirely out of the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that the Baltic Federation of Canada has for some 15 years been urging the federal Government to list honorary Baltic consuls in the External Affairs directory of diplomatic, consular and other representatives in Canada.
The Minister will also know that Canada does not recognize "de jure" the illegal annexation of the Baltic States to the Soviet Union. Will the Minister reaffirm his commitment to this policy by undertaking to list the Baltic consuls in the next edition of the External Affairs directory?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that that question is under review in my Department.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members if they are leaving the Chamber not to interfere with the proceedings.


PRIVILEGE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Today there was an exchange between myself and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, with an interjection by the House Leader for the NDP, regarding child care. We can disagree in terms of what is best with respect to child care. However, what we cannot accept in the House is the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his House Leader calling an Hon. Member a liar. That is unparliamentary. The Leader of the New Democratic Party called me a liar today. I ask him to withdraw it. The House Leader of the NDP did the same thing. If they are honourable Members, I would ask both of them to withdraw that word.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, and I think the record will indicate, that that word was actually recorded.

April 1, 1987
Tabling of Documents


Some Hon. Members:: It was used.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, we all heard it because I did call the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) a liar. There is no question about that. I did it, in fact, on a number of occasions during the interchange because what he did say was untrue. However, because our position has always been consistent-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When it comes to day care, we have always supported a variety of programs. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that was not the case then I did call him a liar.


Robert René de Cotret: Withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Nelson Andrew Riis: However, being a parliamentarian, 1 will withdraw the use of-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Andre:: You are out of order and you know it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just relax, Harvie.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind Hon. Members that it is the Chair's duty to decide on these matters, and that the Chair is helped in that not always easy task by the respect which Hon. Members ought to pay to each other and to this place. I would ask that Hon. Members keep their comments to themselves.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentarian, I certainly will withdraw the accusation I levied at the Minister for National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Hees:: What about you, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, too, join the House Leader of my Party in withdrawing any term which is deemed by all Members of this House to be unacceptable. I will not comment at length about the reality which lay behind it.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is an indication to Hon. Members that there are many ways of viewing the same set of facts. I want to thank both the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member from Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent) for their withdrawals.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of
Standing Order 99(2), I am pleased to respond to the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations tabled in the House of Commons on March 23, 1987, and would do so by tabling these letters, in both official languages, to the Chairman of the Committee.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Marcel Danis (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to table the Fifth Report of the International Association of French Speaking Parliamentarians, in both official languages.


CRIMINAL CODE AND CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, I have the honour to present the Bill to the House, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition signed by a number of Canadians who are concerned about the Government's intentions to proceed with changes to the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which they believe will increase drug prices for average consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They believe that the proposed changes by the Government represents simply another example of the Government's concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations. They call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw this legislation which will be considered by the House later today.
April 1, 1987


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to table three petitions from residents of the Province of Ontario. They wish to exercise their right to submit their petitions to the House. They state that the proposed changes to the Patent Act will directly affect all Canadians who are not protected by private or government medicare programs; that the federal Government's proposal will raise the costs, which are already high, of provincial health care programs; and that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and prices and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They state that the proposed changes to the Patent Act represents another example of Canadian government concessions, in the free trade negotiations with the United States, at the expense of everyday Canadians. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this proposal to increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure indeed for me to present a petition on behalf of 337 residents of Grande Prairie, Alberta, who unanimously believe in the right to life of the child in its mother's womb and who vigorously oppose the killing of such innocent human life. Therefore they call upon the Government and Parliament to take the necessary steps to legally recognize the child in the womb as a human being with the same rights and privileges under the law as other human beings.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House petitions from over 130 people in the Chilliwack-Sardis area of British Columbia. By the way, Mr. Speaker, that is in Fraser Valley East. These concerned people call upon Parliament to support Motion M-37 and allow unborn babies the protection of the Charter of Rights.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 2,300 constituents of Lethbridge-Foothills. The petition, organized by a volunteer of the Lethbridge and District Pro-life Association Resource Centre, protests the killing of thousands of unborn Canadian babies each year for reasons of convenience. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Motion M-37 and allow unborn babies the protection of the Charter of Rights.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadians from White Rock, and Vancouver, B.C., Brampton, Ontario, and New Carlisle,
Petitions
Bonaventure, and Gaspe in the Province of Quebec. The petitioners protest the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies which will prevent competition from generic companies and which will result in an increase in drug costs and prices and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They state that the proposed changes to the Patent Act represent another example of Canadian government concessions in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of ordinary Canadians.
I also have another petition from people in British Columbia and Caplan, Quebec. They also ask that this legislation be withdrawn and that the proposed changes to the Patent Act be dropped. They say that they will directly affect Canadians who are not protected by private or governmental medicare programs and that they will raise the costs which are already high of provincial health care programs.
I humbly present these petitions on the behalf of these petitioners.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present two petitions. One is from residents of Clearwater and Dauphin, Manitoba. The other is from residents of Winnipeg. The petitioners have asked me to present their petitions with regard to Bill C-22. They say, in part, that the proposed measures will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis; and that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which I would like to present which is signed by residents of Clearwater, Manitoba. In part, they say that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year; and that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the proposed Non-Smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present a petition signed by many residents of Levack, North Bay, Powassan, Sturgeon Falls, Dowling, Skead, Copper Cliff, Sudbury, Lively, Chelmsford, and Azilda. These citizens point out that the Government's changes to the Patent Act will increase drug prices for

April 1, 1987
Petitions
Canadian consumers, will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs and that they will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They say that, in fact, these changes will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans and, furthermore, that they are just another example of the Canadian Government knuckling under to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in its mad dash to reach a free trade agreement. Therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will only increase prescription drug prices to Canadians.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many residents of Toronto who point out that troubles in many parts of the world are causing people to seek safety in Canada. They point out that, in fact, a standing committee of Parliament has proposed new procedures for refugee determination which are quicker and fairer than the ones which are now in force. They also point out that the proposals of the standing committee have the support of all Parties, as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Jewish Congress, other groups and individuals. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission; universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada; and a fair chance for claimants to arrive in Canada to present their claims.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a different petition signed by many residents of the Toronto area. These particular petitioners point out that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year. They also point out that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year. The petitioners point out that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco, guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers. They therefore call upon Parliament to enact, speedily, the Non-Smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the privilege of presenting to the House a petition signed by hundreds of petitioners, from places like Brampton, Toronto, Fort Erie, Kingston, Azilda; as well as White Rock, British Columbia; Strathcona, Manitoba; Port Coquitlam, British Columbia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; and numerous other communities across the country.
These Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are petitioning Parliament to rescind the efforts by the Government, in Bill C-22, to increase the cost of prescription drugs to Canadians. These petitioners feel that the elderly and the young will be particularly hurt by this legislation. They are hoping, Mr. Speaker, that their names on these petitions, as well as the names of thousands of others of their fellow Canadians, will somehow convince this Government and the Members of Parliament belonging to the government Party to heed their call and not proceed with this legislation.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a number of petitions to present, on a number of subjects. All of these petitions have been certified correct as to form and content.
The first petition 1 wish to present, Mr. Speaker, is one signed by a number of residents of the great Province of New Brunswick, who not only signed the petition but personally presented it to me when I visited New Brunswick last month. These petitioners state that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act as it relates to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They also feel that this measure will hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They also express concern about the higher costs to provincial government drug plans. They call upon Parliament to reject these proposals, proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from residents of such places as Edmonton, Alberta and Calgary, Alberta. In this case, the petitioners state that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year, and that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year. As Bill C-204, the NonSmokers' Health Act, seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers, the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact the Bill.


Neil Young: The next petition I have, Mr. Speaker, on a different subject, has also been certified correct as to form and content. It is a petition from residents of my own City of Toronto.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Could you just elaborate further on where that is?
April 1, 1987


Neil Young: The petitioners are from the east end of Toronto, which is a city south of here. The petitioners point out that troubles in many parts of the world are causing people to seek safety in Canada, and it goes on to point out that while Canada has established good standards insofar as refugee status determination is concerned, the procedures have broken down under the unexpected strains placed upon them. The petition goes on to point out that the standing committee of Parliament has proposed a procedure for refugee determination, a procedure which is quicker and indeed fairer than those now in force, and that those proposals are supported by the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and other groups and individuals. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission; universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada; and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present their claim.
Those are all of the petitions I have to present today, Mr. Speaker.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have eight petitions that I wish to present to the House today.
The first petition is signed by residents from Saskatchewan to Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, to such places as Ottawa, Nepean and Vanier in the Province of Ontario. These petitioners state that the monopoly granted to the innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and thus result in an increase in drug costs, severely restricting the ability of the average Canadian to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners, Mr. Speaker, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the proposals contained in Bill C-22.
The second petition is signed by residents of the Province of Quebec, La Belle Province. They, too, are opposed to the amendments to the Patent Act. They call upon the Government to withdraw this particular piece of legislation, for they, too, believe it will negatively affect the average Canadian, and particularly the disabled and senior citizens, insofar as the cost of prescription drugs is concerned. They, too, wish to have Bill C-22 withdrawn.
The third petition is signed by residents who hail from the great constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, from places like Judique, Nova Scotia; Dunvegan, Mabou, Creign-ish, Inverness-and other such distinguished communities of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
The petition states that whereas the monopoly granted to the innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and prices, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, we
Petitions
hereby call upon our Member of Parliament to ensure that Bill C-22 is defeated, if not withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know the subject matter of the remaining five petitions the member has, but if they are on the same topic, I would ask the Hon. Member to summarize the topic for all of the petitions. Certainly, the Chair will not object to his naming the place of residence of the petitioners. So, if the remaining petitions are on the same subject matter, I would ask the Hon. Member to summarize the purpose of the petitions.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to comply with your wishes in respect of the assertion you have just made. If you wish me to name all of the various places, I will try to do so in summary fashion; but I have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that my speed reading is not up to par, with the result that it may take me some time to list all of the place names set out on the petitions.


An Hon. Member:: Just give us some examples.


David Charles Dingwall: Well, I have Sussex Drive here; I have Maple Street; I have Russell, Ontario.


An Hon. Member:: Give us the provinces.


David Charles Dingwall: The provinces. All right, Mr. Speaker. I shall gladly do that. We have residents of the Province of Ontario who have signed a petition; we have residents of Russell, Ontario. They state in their petition that whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and prices and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, we hereby request that Bill C-22 be withdrawn.
We have another petition, Mr. Speaker, from a great constituency, a constituency which has seen fit, on two occasions, to re-elect their Member of Parliament, the constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond. They call upon the Government to withdraw Bill C-22 which will have negative effects for some four million Canadians including those not covered by drug programs, the disabled, senior citizens, and the poor. They, too, wish to have Bill C-22 withdrawn.
I also have another petition signed by individuals in the City of Ottawa which is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the city in which the Chamber is located at the present time. I am not sure whether it will change after the next Government is elected. However, these petitioners are opposed to Bill C-22. They hope that the Government will withdraw this very regressive piece of legislation which will have negative effects upon the people of that particular area.
I have another petition signed by residents of the Province of New Brunswick. In fact, these individuals from Saint John,

April 1, 1987
Petitions
New Brunswick are opposed to this particular piece of legislation which they believe will grant an extended monopoly to multinational corporations. They call upon the Government to withdraw Bill C-22, which they believe will have negative effects.
I have a final petition which I should like to present to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Name them.


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps, with the consent of the House, I could name all the streets and communities if they so wish.


An Hon. Member:: Go ahead.


David Charles Dingwall: Since there is a consensus, there are several names from Sturgeon Falls, Ontario and from Whitehorse Bay. Like the previous petitioners, they call upon the Government to withdraw Bill C-22 and the amendments thereto which will have negative effects upon senior citizens, the disabled, the poor, and other Canadians. They hope that the Government of the day will see its way clear to withdrawing Bill C-22 in order to protect the system in place which has served Canadians very well.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. As you can see, a great number of Canadians are opposed to Bill C-22. As a result, they have written to me with various petitions and have asked me to present them to the House. Again I thank you for your co-operation. In the future I will try to summarize, as briefly as possible, the names, the places, and the provinces, so that I will not have to take up the time of the House dealing with petitions opposing a very important piece of legislation.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is signed by people from various locations on Cape Breton Island-Sydney, North Sydney, New Waterford, and Louisbourg. They all state their disapproval and concern about the proposed changes to the Patent Act, which they feel will give rise to additional costs for drugs. They also feel that the Government is putting through these changes to try to buy, through the back door, a free trade agreement with the United States at the expense of the people of Canada. The people in my area of Cape Breton-The Sydneys and in other areas ask the Government to withdraw the proposed legislation in the interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present from Canadians who are availing themselves of their right to petition Parliament.
The first one relates to the situation faced by refugees. It points out that trouble spots in many parts of the world cause people to seek safety from persecution in Canada, and that Canada has established standards of refugee determination which have broken down under strain. They also point out that
the standing committee on Parliament proposed a new procedure which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force. It has not yet been put in place, even though it has support from a wide cross-section of Canadian organizations. The procedures which have been put in place turn away refugee status claimants from ports of entry before their claims are examined, which puts real refugees at risk. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to changes to the Patent Act which will affect prescription drugs. It points out that the changes will increase drug prices and restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary drugs. It also points out that this will have an adverse effect upon provincial prescription drug plans and is another example of Canada caving in to the United States. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the third petition points out that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 deaths each year, as well as 500 involuntary deaths from secondary smoke. It points out that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers. It calls upon Parliament to enact Bill C-204, the Non-smokers' Health Act.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, from Canadian residents in Calgary, Vancouver, Lions Bay, and many other points in the West, and from New Brunswick residents in Casey Cape, Grande Digue, Cocagne, Shediac Bridge, and such places in that province. The petition points out that cigarette smoke has been the cause of the death of 35,000 Canadians each year and that even secondary smoke is involved in the deaths of 500 Canadians who did not want to smoke. It also points out that Bill C-204 would protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and by guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers. Therefore, it requests Parliament to enact Bill C-204, respecting the Non-smokers' Health Act and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
April 1, 1987


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of Canadians living in Toronto, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; Minnedosa, Manitoba; Wingard, Saskatchewan; Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan; Brockville, Ontario; Lakefield, Peterborough, Maidstone, Biggar and Rosetown; and in other parts of Ontario. The petitioners are concerned that many are driven by troubles in the world to seek safety in Canada where we have had good refugee status determination procedures and standards which have broken down under unexpected strains. Therefore, the standing committee on Parliament proposed a new procedure which would be quicker and fairer than the present one. It has support from all Parties and from major groups within the Canadian public. Present procedures are unsatisfactory because they turn away refugee status claimants from ports of entry before their claims are examined which puts real refugees at risk. They call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board which is independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim. As in duty bound, your petitioners will every pray.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition which is one of many thousands from people across Canada who are petitioning Parliament in support of my Private Member's Bill, Bill C-204. These petitioners in particular are from the Toronto area; some from Scarborough. They point out that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and by guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers. Therefore, they petition Parliament to enact Bill C-204, the Non-smokers' Health Act.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is signed by a large number of Canadians from a variety of locations. They point out that Canada has established good standards of refugee status determination but that procedures have broken down under unexpected strains. They point out that the standing committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination that is quicker and faster than the present one in force. Whereas this proposal has support from all Parties as well as from the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals; and whereas recent regulations turning away refugee status claimants from ports of entry before claims are examined puts real refugees at risk, therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will
Petitions
embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the immigration commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant to Canada and a fair chance to arrive in order to present this claim.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the third petition I have the honour to present again represents the views of a sizable number of Canadians mainly from the Toronto area. These petitioners point out that low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at Canadian Forces base in Goose Bay, Labrador, disrupts the way of life of many of the native people there and that hunting, fishing, tourism and mining can provide more stable, healthy and peaceful employment than the Goose Bay Canadian Forces base. Whereas the training of pilots at Goose Bay to fly under radar into eastern Europe is a provocative and an aggressive action that tends to endanger world peace, these petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiation with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions concerning the plans of the Government to privatize the rural post offices and to close other ones and provide superboxes. Most of these representations come from the towns of Echo Bay, Bruce Mines, Desbarats, Ophir, Richards Landing, Batchawana, Sault Ste. Marie, literally hundreds of names from Nairn Centre, Garden River, Wawa, Montreal River and Iron Bridge. In my constituency we have some 42 rural post offices so it is natural that these communities and the people living there are petitioning the Government not to implement this program to close rural post offices.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have some six or seven petitions, concerning plans to change the Patent Act which would increase the price of drugs to Canadians, especially older Canadians, those who do not have proper drug plans and those who are sick and weak. Those petitions come from the communities of Webbwood, Bruce Mines, Thessalon, Spanish, Killarney, Iron Bridge and especially a poignant one from the residents of Algoma Manor in Thessalon, Ontario. It is my pleasure to present these and I hope the Government will respond in a positive way to these representations.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House a petition on behalf of residents of Parkdale-High Park. The petition states their opposition to the Exodus Link parole privatization contract

April 1, 1987
Petitions
which would locate dangerous ex-convicts in Parkdale-High Park. The petition calls on the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelle-her) to terminate funding immediately to Exodus Link until an alternative location outside the boundaries of Parkdale-High Park has been found, and I want to add my full and complete support to this petition.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition also from the residents of Parkdale- High Park who have requested that I present this petition to the House of Commons on their behalf calling for the return of the mail postal boxes which were arbitrarily removed from the streets of Toronto without consultation. These signatures represent residents of Springhurst and Tyndall Avenues who have been greatly inconvenienced by the decision. I am pleased to add my strong support to their demand that Canada Post restore the mail boxes and ensure the level of efficient and convenient postal service that Canadians have every right to expect.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and responsibility of presenting to this House of Commons and to the Government a number of petitions collected from across the country, including Sydney, Nova Scotia, Westmount, Montreal, and from other parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They all concern themselves with Bill C-22. The petitioners petition the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, to pull back a piece of legislation that will undermine the health care system that we have worked so long and hard to preserve.
{Translation]
Mr. Speaker, these people believe that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act will have a direct impact on all Canadians not covered by public or private health insurance plans. The Government's proposals will increase the already high costs of provincial health insurance plans.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians across Canada.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, one of the pleasures of being a Member of Parliament is to have the privilege of submitting petitions on behalf of citizens of Canada through which citizens avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present grievances which are common to the petitioners in the certain assurance that this honourable House will provide a remedy. Once more, I have an opportunity to present a petition which has been properly certified under Standing Order 106.
The first petition I would like to table is one which deals with troubling situations in many parts of the world causing people to seek safety in Canada from persecution. They recognize that while Canada has established standards for refugee status determination, these existing procedures have broken down under unexpected strains. While the standing Committee on Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination, which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force and which has gained the support among all Parties in Parliament as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals, procedures have been recently adopted that turn away refugee status claimants from ports of entry before the claims are examined and thereby put real refugees at risk. Therefore, the undersigned, and the undersigned are a large number of citizens of Ontario, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament will enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board which is independent of the Immigration Commission, with universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and an adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim, and as in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a second set of petitions which I can assure you have been found in conformity with Standing Order 106. These are additional signatures added to the thousands already entered on the record protesting the Patent Act changes. They petition as follows. They object to the Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They note that the proposed measure will not only hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis by virtue of the increased costs that will result from this legislation, but they note as well that higher costs will be incurred by provincial government drug plans as well. They note with regret, sorrow and indeed embarrassment that this legislation is the result, not of priority being given to the needs of Canadians but of pressure imposed on the Government by the United States. The undersigned, our petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, today I shall try to be slightly more rapid than my colleague, if that is possible. I too have a petition to present which has been certified correct under Standing Order 106. It is a petition which, like so many thousands, came to the House from those who are concerned with changes to the Patent Act which are
April 1, 1987

being debated by the House. This particular set of petitions comes from Halifax, Dartmouth, South Hampton and Bedford in Nova Scotia. It indicates very strongly the opposition of the petitioners to the Patent Act changes which, they feel, will definitely increase drug prices to Canadian consumers and will restrict the ability of average Canadians to purchase drugs. They feel as well that it reflects not the priorities of this country but very much an attempt on the part of the Government to satisfy the United States in order to initiate free trade arrangements with that country. I present this petition with my full support and in the hope that the Government will finally begin to listen to the many Canadians who are petitioning it.


Benoît Bouchard: for leave to introduce Bill C-50, an Act respecting the treatment of pension payments in determining certain unemployment insurance benefit entitlements and to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?
.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the Questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Patent Act


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 31, consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Dingwall, p. 4745).
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was shouted down by members of the New Democratic Party as I tried to put some facts on record regarding how Canadians feel about Bill C-22 and its intent and purpose which is to restore patent protection for creators of new drugs and to promote research and development in Canada along with better health care.
A public opinion survey was undertaken and the following statement was put to the people of Canada for response: "If I have to choose between lower prices for today's drugs or higher prices with more research money spent to speed up the development of new treatments, I would rather pay higher prices". In other words, people were asked if they would rather pay higher prices in order to have more research and development. It was a very loaded question. The choice is higher prices or lower prices but with higher prices there will be research and development and a search for new treatments. Twenty-eight per cent of the respondents disagreed with that statement. They said that they did not want higher prices, they wanted lower prices.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Amazing on such a loaded question.


Harvie Andre: A loaded question? We are asking people if they want higher prices and the Hon. Member is asking if that is a loaded question in favour of the NDP argument. Sixty-four per cent of Canadians who responded to the survey agree with that position. They agree that what we are doing is right. Sixty-four per cent agree that research and development is the most important question.
Another statement made by the survey for response was: "I would support the Bill if the Government put in place a way of

April 1, 1987
Patent Act
making sure that drug price increases would not be higher than the rate of inflation". That is precisely what is contained in the Bill. Increases in drug prices will not be higher than the rate of inflation. What did Canadians think of that statement? Eighty-two per cent of them agreed with that provision in this Bill. Six per cent said that it would depend, and those must be the Liberals. Twelve per cent disagreed, and those must be the New Democrats.
For days on end we have heard petitions and claims of outrage around the country about the provisions of Bill C-22. We can see now from these questions asked of Canadians that in fact all of those charges and claims are nonsense. If the opposition Parties believe, as they seem to believe because of statements they have made, that the will of the people is what should drive us, they should support this Bill. If they believe that more research and development in this important area is important, they should support it. If they believe that the inventor who has created something of value deserves patent protection, just as any creator, they should support it. If they think Canada has a responsibility in the world to do its share of research and development in the search for cures for Alzheimer's, for cancer, for multiple sclerosis and for other afflictions, and if they think Canada should be a first-rate country participating in this important area as a first-rate country, they should support this legislation. If they believe that they have a responsibility to do what is best for Canada, they should support this legislation.
It is only small minds and narrow partisan purposes that keep opposition Members resorting to cheap parliamentary devices to delay even a discussion in the House of this legislation. It is a pathetic Opposition. I hope they will soon come to their senses. I hope we can pass this Bill so that Canadian scientists and university graduates will know that they will have an opportunity to work in Canada in the search for cures for these diseases and will not have to continue to go to the United States or Europe to pursue their careers. I think the public has spoken, and it is about time the House listened and acted.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the poll the Minister had conducted is very interesting. To say it is slanted would be putting it mildly. I cannot imagine any poll with results like that unless the test group were known supporters of the legislation. Even 20 per cent of those initially in favour of the legislation would have changed their mind by the time they were called. The poll runs directly contrary to one published in the Reid report of January 1, 1987. It said that 58 per cent of Canadians oppose the Bill and only 30 per cent support it. Some 12 per cent are unsure. There is a significant level of opposition among Canadians from all walks of life. It is not just one particular group.
Information released with the poll states that most Canadians expect the proposed legislation will result in increased profits for the drug companies rather than more research and
development activity in Canada. It says that perception is very widespread across various population groupings, including current federal Conservative supporters. Even the Government's own supporters are opposed to the legislation. We have stated in this House that all Canadians are opposed to this legislation and accentuated the opposition of the young, the sick and the elderly. However, the poll indicates all Canadians oppose the legislation.
The information supplied with the poll goes on to say most consumers expect drug prices will increase as a result of the legislation. Even supporters of the initiative expect it to result in increased prices. Who is left? I suggest it is the Minister and maybe two or three members of his caucus who may really believe this legislation will do some good.
It is incredible that we are even debating legislation which is so harmful to the people of this country. It is incredible that the Government has not woken up to the fact that Canadians are opposed to the Bill. Everyone knows the Government has been solicited by the U.S. drug lobby. They have gone to members of the Government and people in our embassy in the U.S. They have used every possible trick in the book. They have used influential lobbyists with connections to the Government. It is rank, to say the least, that the people who elected the Government with an overwhelming majority now find that support thrown back in their face. Their feelings concerning drug prices are being completely ignored.
I want to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), for the job he has done in putting forward the position of this Party on the legislation. Having done that, I would like to deal particularly with the proposed amendment which relates to inserting in the legislation a definition of research.
We have been told that if this Bill is passed the drug companies will invest $1.4 billion in research and development in Canada. The Minister has gone across the country telling everyone that they are in line for research and development money. He has been like a Tory Johnny Appleseed going from region to region telling people that their ship has come in. Those areas are experiencing regional disparity, they need industry, and he has held out the hope to them that he has the answer. All they have to do is have faith in the legislation and they will be the beneficiaries of a brand new industry employing numerous people. That is a fallacy, to put it mildly. It has built up the hopes of a great many people, but the people are not taken in. They do not believe for one minute that this legislation will mean additional jobs. The Government says that 3,000 good high-paying jobs will be created. The facts tell us differently.
Before 1969, when the former Liberal Government brought in legislation to reduce the rampant rip-off of consumers by the major drug companies, there was no investment in research and development in Canada. In fact, there has been considerable investment since that time and it has nothing to do with this legislation. Where in the legislation are we shown what will happen if the drug companies do not give us the research
April 1, 1987

and development they say they will? What are we going to do? We have a parliamentary review but there is no linkage. Who in the heck do we expect will believe what the Government is saying? It is incredible. Not only will it increase drug prices but it insults the intelligence of Canadians.
The legislation would require the multinationals to make or buy their basic ingredients in Canada if they want full patent protection. The new legislation removes that requirement. We are regressing. There is nothing here for the people to believe in. When the Government, through its own ineptitude, was unable to introduce the Bill in June, instead of apologizing or feeling embarrassed it punished Canadians by making the Bill even more ridiculous than it was then.
The Government says that over the next 10 years we are going to get $1.4 billion in research and development. That is absolutely incredible. Multinationals will have their profits rise by $3.5 billion over the next five years. The problem is that even if they did invest $1.4 billion in R and D, that is considerably less than the $4 billion to $5 billion it will cost Canadians through increased drug prices. There is no way the people of this country can win. The question really comes down to what will be the most damaging medicine to Canadians, and excuse the pun. We know that regardless of what happens it will not be in the interests of the people of this country.
I hope, I think in vain, that the Government will withdraw this Draconian legislation. The rest of the western countries look upon what Canada has done concerning competition in the distribution of drugs as a model. We are now going in reverse by throwing this model legislation and an enviable position away, and with it the price stability of drugs in Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in the debate on this amendment to Bill C-22. The Opposition is asking the Government to include a definition of research and development in its legislation because we do not trust the multinational drug companies, we do not trust the Government, and we do not trust the Minister.
This legislation will result in a substantial increase in price for new drugs. It is estimated that Canadians saved over $200 million in 1983 because of the existing restriction in the amount of time the multinationals could have a monopoly in marketing their drugs. The Government has told us that this legislation is necessary in order to encourage more research and development in this country. In fact, the Minister stated that it will create over 3,000 new high-tech research jobs in Canada. Documents obtained through access to information show that the Minister's Department has other figures. While the Minister claims that 3,000 new high-quality research jobs will be created, his departmental document shows that in the best case scenario there will only be 1,148 new jobs. The document also shows that another 652 jobs are classified as technical, meaning lab technician jobs which could be filled by those with an undergraduate or community college standing.
Patent Act
According to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, another 620 jobs would be for managers, cleaners, animal keepers, statisticians and clerks.
Instead of the 3,000 high-quality research jobs for Canadian scientists and biochemists in the next 10 years, as the Minister has claimed, his Department shows in its study that there will only be 1,148 jobs. That is why we do not trust the Government, the Minister and certainly not the multinational corporations. We are asking for a definition of research in the legislation to which the drug companies would have to adhere. Why is the Government opposed to including such a definition in the legislation? Why does it want the Cabinet and the bureaucrats to decide what research means? It is not even willing to include the definition of research as it is found in the Income Tax Act. The broad term of research can include many things.
When the committee of the House was dealing with this legislation it heard testimony that the type of research that occurs in this country is often low-grade research, done to ensure that the product the multinational is developing in this country meets the standards of the Department of Health and Welfare. It is also research conducted to develop variations of existing drugs due to the high profit margin on these drugs; the drug companies are attempting to develop variations of those drugs.
For example, Doctor Lexchin, who is a leading authority in this country on the economics of the drug industry and the type of research it does, has stated:
So the pattern of drug company reinvestment in research and development worldwide tends to be that they go for the bucks; they do not go for the health needs.
Later in his comments he stated:
Without specifying what kind of research the government wants these multinationals to engage in, it is our feeling that the pattern of investment here in Canada, whatever new money we get, will be the same as the pattern of investment worldwide. In other words, most of the products that are researched here will have no major therapeutic value.
Yet the Minister stood in the House recently to insinuate that without this type of legislation we will not see the cures for Alzheimer's disease or cancer or other diseases for which men and women throughout the world are trying to find cures. The Minister is suggesting that this Bill is necessary because the drug companies need the money to develop cures that we all hope will be found. However, we do not know that this Bill will be of any assistance in developing cures to these ailments because there is no guarantee that the billions of dollars the multinational companies will derive as a result of the Bill will be spent in developing cures for such diseases as Alzheimer's and cancer. We do not trust the Government. That is why we ask that it include a definition of research in the legislation.
During his remarks this afternoon the Minister commented on the poll results. 1 have the results of two independent polls that were conducted by Angus Reid and Gallup. Both polls show that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are opposed to this legislation. The drug industry, ever mindful of its image

April 1, 1987
Patent Act
and always having the resources to work on it, bought its own poll. It is not surprising that the results seem to show that the majority of Canadians are behind the Government's legislation in Bill C-22. It is very interesting that two independent polls- Gallup and Reid-show one thing while the one commissioned by the multinational drug companies seems to show something else. I will leave it to the Canadian people to determine which of these polls they should believe.
The Government, the drug industry, and the Minister in particular have a credibility problem. They are not believed by the people of this country. The people of this country do not believe that that Minister is acting in the interests of the Canadian people. They believe, and I support them in their belief, that the Minister and the Government are acting in the interests of the multinational corporations. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is a branch plant manager and that is all he is. He is attempting to run this country as a branch plant. I think the Canadian people feel enough is enough and are just hoping for an election which will turf this Government out so we can have a Government by Canadians and for Canadians.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill C-22 which is before the House today is, I think, completely agreeable to the Government. The Government has not bothered to have the Minister in the House for the debate, but since the Minister is basing his reason for this legislation on the fact that he is going to gain a lot of extra research and development-he talks about $1.4 billion of research and development-he would want to identify what "research" means. The motion before us defines research in the following way:
""research is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways. New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the re-evaluation of existing observations;".
That is not something the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) dreamed up on his own, although he is certainly capable of developing a definition, having a legal mind and an excellent legal background. He has taken this definition directly from Regulation 2900 of the Income Tax Act, which defines research and development. Therefore, I think this is a valid description.
The Government does not want to say it is bringing in this legislation to pay billions of dollars back to the multinational corporations in the United States because the President of the United States twisted the Prime Minister's arm. But there has to be some reason for the Government bringing forward this legislation, and that is, we will gain research and development and $1.4 billion of investment.
It is well documented that for every $1 billion of R and D the Government gains, Canadians will have to pay $3 billion $4 billion in additional drug costs. So who wins? The multinationals win. Canadians will not win because they must pay.
Members of the House of Commons will not pay because they have a drug plan. It is not 100 per cent but it covers most of their drugs. It will not be the people in executive positions or civil servants who will pay. It will be the four million or five million Canadians who do not have drug plans, those who are self-employed and those generally in lower income brackets. Instead of paying $2 for a prescription drug, they will pay perhaps $10 or $12. Of course that has been well documented by CBC and other groups.
I do not agree with the legislation. I think if the Government had come forward with the kind of legislation the Eastman report recommended, it would have received a lot of support. I am not sure the New Democratic Party would have supported it, but the Government certainly would have received support from our caucus.
The Eastman report stayed on middle ground. It costs about $100 million to create a new pharmaceutical drug. There is a reasonable argument for, say, a four year exclusive patent right and perhaps a special fund for R and D. If the Government had brought forward that kind of legislation, we would have supported it. However, this is just a locked in patent legislation. There is certainly no evidence that the R and D commitment will be kept. Over a 17 year period of exclusive patent rights, the benefits to Canadians compared to the costs are simply not there.
I hope the Government will support this amendment which simply gives a definition of "research" under the Act. I mentioned the importance of the excellent Eastman report which looked at the whole industry. As I indicated, the report stayed in the middle in providing adequate benefit to the drug companies if they actually do original research which creates new drugs which are beneficial to Canadians.
The Minister spent a considerable time justifying his legislation by quoting a poll, which I suppose his caucus paid for and therefore received the answers they wanted. I would point out to Hon. Members of the House the results of the Reid poll taken in January 1987. It asked the question:
As you may know, the Government recently presented legislation which will give drug companies exclusive patent rights to manufacture and sell the drugs they invented for a longer period of time than they have now. Other companies will not be allowed to produce or sell less expensive copies of most drugs for 10 years. Do you yourself support or oppose this proposed legislation?
This survey was conducted on a 1666 sample base across the country. Only 30 per cent supported the position of the Government. 58 per cent opposed it. Twelve per cent were unsure. In Ontario, 54 per cent were opposed and 32 per cent were in favour. In Quebec, 35 per cent supported the legislation and 54 per cent were opposed. However, across the entire country, there was an almost two to one opposition to the legislation.
The amendment put forward by the Hon. Member Cape Breton-East Richmond is important. We are trying to pin down exactly what it is the Government requires in this legislation, so it can provide some written commitment.
April 1, 1987

This legislation does not even mention R and D. This amendment attempts to identify what R and D is, using an existing definition. If we are going to give this exclusive right for 10 or 17 years, and Canadians are going to have to pay $3 or $4 billion in return for only $1.4 billion in R and D, surely we should have a definition included in the legislation so we know where we are going, what the trade off is, and what the benefit is. At least, in our amendment, we have identified exactly what "research and development" is.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-22, and more specifically on the amending motion presented by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr. Dingwall).
Mr. Speaker, your decision to let the House debate this motion separately is an indication of its importance. You could have decided to regroup the motion with others as you did for a number of other amendments, but I believe your decision was the right one. I shall, if I may, read the amendment presented by the Liberals, motion No. 2, dated March 5, 1987. The definition of "research"is as follows:
""research" is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic
basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways.
New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into
existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the reevaluation of existing observations."
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? How discoveries are made has always been a subject of'debate within the scientific community. Pemac told us that clinical research produces new pharmaceutical products. That is true. However, we must make a distinction between research on changing the colour of pills and research on a new drug that might, for instance, cure AIDS.
In our amendment, "research" is defined partly as "exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge and new ways". If that definition is not clearly indicated in the Act, the multinationals are going to set up their own. And I can guarantee they will not benefit Canadians or job creation in the high technology sector.
Blinded by the promises of the U.S. multinationals, the Minister told us the Bill would create 3,000 jobs. To hear the Minister, one would think all these jobs would be created in the research sector. I suggest we look at the straight facts. As we all know, to do research, scientists first have to do their experiments and testing on animals. That means people to clean the cages, people to take care of the animals at night and adminstrators to run the offices. Do people in the scientific communauty want to do that kind of work? Of course not. Do young graduates fresh out of university want to do that work? Certainly not! What we finally have is not 3,000 jobs in the research sector. If 3,000 jobs are created, nearly a third of
Patent Act
those jobs, 600 or more, will be cage cleaner, janitor and administrator jobs.
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise the multinational corporations did not convince this Conservative Government to insert into the Act the definition of the term "research". The reason is that those corporations did not want one. It was in their interest not to leave one. Because they succeeded in having the legislation amended between June, 1986 and November, 1986. After failing to have a Bill passed in 1986, the Government came back in November 1986 with a much weaker legislation. Clearly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) bowed to pressures from President Reagan, the American Congress and the multinational corporations. One of the amendments made to the legislation between June and November dealt with manufacturing of basic ingredients. The June bill would have forced multinationals to manufacture basic ingredients in Canada, or else they were to lose their licenses. The November Bill has completely left out that clause, which means multinationals can go on, and I repeat go on importing ingredients from Puerto Rico or any other Third World nation. Worse still, they will be able to go on overstating the costs of their imports in order to avoid paying taxes.
I sincerely believe that if the term "research" is not defined in the Bill, the multinationals will have a free hand. As an example, some people say that discoveries happen by chance. Others in the scientific community believe that new discoveries stem from clinical manipulation, and others still, because of structured methods.
For all those reasons, the multinationals will have a free hand not to do any scientific research. They could for instance decide to have their significant research done in Switzerland, France, Belgium, England or, worse still, the United States, next door. And those same multinationals could make it a game of changing the colour of their pills in Canada. All this may happen in Canada if the bill includes no definition of the term "research".
I have two reasons to believe that very little research will be done in Canada. First, when the Government dropped the requirement for multinationals to manufacture basic ingredients in Canada, it thereby gave them an opportunity to paralyse all scientific development in that area. Why for example should generic drug manufacturers have to manufacture basic ingredients in Canada if the multinationals can go and buy their stocks in Puerto Rico?
As you see, Mr. Speaker, if the multinationals had been required to manufacture in Canada, we could have developed that side of research and I am convinced that the generic companies would have been more willing to invest.
But the problem is this: Why should generic companies bother investing in and developing a new basic ingredient research industry even if they could reduce by as many as three years the 10 year protection period to the patentee, when major multinationals will continue buying abroad their ingredients? Even if they decided to develop a basic ingredient

April 1, 1987
Message from the Senate
research industry, generic companies would find the market closed, because they would be the only users of their own products.
The other reason that leads me to believe that very little medical research will be carried out in Canada stems from the high priority the Americans are giving defence research. My rationale is this. In May and June 1985, I sat on the Liberal Committee which dealt with Star Wars. We travelled everywhere in Canada. We received and heard several briefs. Several scientists and academics explained to us that it is often quite by accident if discoveries made by NASA and other branches of the US Defence Department end up in medical research sections. When asked if they could estimate the cost for defence research and for medical research, they could not give us a clear answer.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, how can anyone imagine that the Americans are going to transfer their medical research to Canada, when we know how closely connected it is to Defence Department research? As I said, they will come to Canada only to change the colour and shape of their pills.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we, as Liberals, are not against the ten year protection, when the research is fully carried out in Canada with funds such as those from the Terry Fox and Steve Fonyo Foundations. The Ottawa-Carleton Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society also share this view.
In other words, we are prepared to accept changes, but not at any cost. If the Government were serious, it would accept our amendment.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
[Stage Direction]
General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 1st day of April, 1987, at 5.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to a Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Dingwall, p.4745).
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this time it is not, I must say, a pleasure to take part in this debate. It is unfortunate, it is sad, it is a commentary on the unwillingness of the Progressive Conservative Government to listen to the people of Canada that we are still faced with this Bill, despite the thousands of petitions, the many public protests, and the widespread public opposition that has manifested itself in respect of the proposed changes to the Patent Act over the months since this Bill was first introduced in this House.


An Hon. Member:: You are exaggerating.


Steven W. Langdon: I very much hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill would have been withdrawn by this point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the Honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
1 April 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Judge Puisne of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor


Steven W. Langdon: Frankly, I can think of no more appropriate welcome for the President of the United States than the withdrawal of this Bill. The President of the United States should be led to recognize that this country is an independent self-directing country, a country which will take its own course with respect to the pharmaceutical industry, with respect to patent legislation, and not be put into the position where it has to accept certain demands from the United States, as has clearly happened in this case, in order to get some kind of free trade arrangement with that country.
Despite my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, I wish to talk this afternoon about the amendment that is before us, an amendment which attempts to do what is surely very basic to any effort to pass legislation of this kind, that amendment being to define "research".
If, as the Minister suggests, there is going to be this tremendous increase, this upsurge of research that will take place in Canada with respect to pharmaceuticals, surely it is possible, in the Bill which is going to make this happen, to define what "research" will be, thus enabling us to measure it
April 1, 1987

and to assess whether the Minister, in his claims, turns out to be correct or incorrect.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about research. I wish to quote from a book entitled The Economics of Industrial Innovation some of the lessons which that book should have brought to this Government in its thinking about patents and in its thinking about research in pharmaceuticals.
Certainly, pharmaceuticals, as this book points out, represent a research-intensive part of the industrial structure. The figures from the United Kingdom, for instance, indicate that pharmaceuticals, in that country, contribute something in the order of 7 per cent of the net output of firms to research. That compares to a figure of 1.3 per cent for the iron and steel industry, a figure of only 2.1 per cent for machine tools, and a figure of 2.3 per cent for general mechanical engineering.
So certainly we are talking about a research-intensive industry. But the question which must face us is: Is this an industry which this Bill is going to make research-intensive here in Canada?
In the past in Canada, it has not had that reputation. If we take, for instance, the assessment of Dr. Joel Lexchin, a Toronto doctor who has investigated what research has actually been undertaken by the Canadian drug industry, he makes the following point: The little research money that is spent in Canada is divided into three areas. Only 8 per cent goes to basic research, which seeks to discover new concepts of drug therapy or totally new drug products; 36 per cent is used for applied research, which consists of testing potential drugs; and 56 per cent is applied to product development, which effectively is the small changes in dosage or in the reformulation of drugs, creams, or solutions.
So in the past we have not had a drug industry in this country which has given us the kind of research-intensive industry on which we could build exports, jobs, and growth.
Bill C-22 has fallen into the myth of accepting that the research which will give us that new approach, that new thrust toward innovation, will be research which will come from foreign companies being given their way here in our country.
I wish government Members had looked carefully at this book before drafting this legislation. Had they done so, they would have seen the results of Project Sappho in the United Kingdom, a project which attempted to investigate, scientifically, what it was that encouraged success in industry, success in firms with respect to innovation. They would have become aware of the conclusion that there is no systematic evidence that indicates that larger or smaller firms are more or less successful in research and development.
The myth that suggests that it is the large foreign firm that is going to give us our research success is simply not backed up by the research which has been undertaken. In fact, if one goes on from what was not a factor in shaping success or failure to what was a factor, the key points made in this Project Sappho study indicate clearly that what makes for success is direct
Patent Act
knowledge of the market and an understanding of user requirements.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are going to get, not from the foreign pharmaceutical multinationals, which simply transfer their drugs to this country, but from building up in this country itself, on the basis of the generic industry, an indigenous powerful and successful Canadian drug industry, an industry which would know the market, which would know user requirements, and which, therefore, would be successful in research and development.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are in favour of; that is why we are so strongly opposed to this Bill which has been brought before us.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to say a few words on the proposed legislation and, in particular, on the amendment which is before the House.
I listened very carefully to what the Government has said over the last several months in defence of the legislation to amend Canada's Patent Act insofar as pharmaceutical products are concerned. I think I am fairly accurate in saying that its major defence seems to be, first, the creation of jobs in Canada and, second, the creation of Canadian based research and development on new pharmaceutical products.
In response to statements by the Government, some multinational corporations indicated publicly that they were prepared to make a fairly substantial commitment to research and development in Canada if the legislation were indeed passed.
A couple of things must be said about the legislation. There is nothing in it which requires multinational corporations to follow through with their commitment to increase research and development in Canada. Also, I find it extremely confusing to hear the Government talk about the need to increase research and development expenditures when in fact it has been cutting back on funding for research activity across the country.
Let us look at what multinational corporations have been talking about. The press releases indicate that they are not really talking about increasing expenditures for research and development. They are talking about perhaps putting more money into clinical research in Canada. Anyone who has looked carefully at the difference between the two knows that there is a significant difference. In the research and development activity money is used to develop and find new drugs, whereas clinical research is simply the process of looking at drugs coming on the market as they go through the approval process at the Department of National Health and Welfare.
For example, when Parke-Davis announced increased funding in a press release, it indicated that the money would be used for plant expansion, development of pharmaceutical firms, and the basic study of new drugs. It did not talk about research and development; it talked about clinical research.

April 1, 1987
Patent Act
When the Upjohn company made its announcement of new investment, it spoke about phase two clinical research, establishing a quality control laboratory, expanded office space, and manufacturing facilities.
Before the Minister or any other person in the House starts jumping on the bandwagon and talking about how there will be increased research in Canada, we should start looking closely at what the corporations are talking about. What they are talking about is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians on these promises.
A few months ago I was in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia when an announcement was made about a new commitment from multinational companies in respect of additional funds for research and development on Cape Breton Island. The Minister of Health for Nova Scotia had an interesting response to the announcement. He asked, even if the money were made available-and he doubted it very much-under the most charitable circumstances, and even if the legislation went through the House of Commons and the investment was actually made on Cape Breton Island, what would it mean for the people in Cape Breton? It would mean very little, because what they would propose to do is to educate students on Cape Breton Island in certain research and development skills. However, after they had received those skills, they could not apply them in Cape Breton because there are no manufacturing facilities for pharmaceutical products in Cape Breton or in Nova Scotia.
That Minister pointed out quite correctly that the kids would have to leave their communities, families, friends, and close associates and move to either Quebec or Ontario in order to obtain employment in the industry. He said that if the Government were interested in creating jobs in the Atlantic provinces, it should get those companies to invest dollars in creating direct jobs in Nova Scotia where they are badly needed. He did not say that idly.
Professor Eastman, in my view and in the view of many others, has probably conducted the most extensive examination of how multinational corporations work in the pharmaceutical industry, not only in Canada but world-wide. I should like to quote what Professor Eastman said on page 423 of his report:
Canada does not now possess either the scientific manpower or the physical infrastructure that would make it a major world centre for basic pharmaceutical research. Nor in the opinion of the Commission would it be wise for Governments to seek to create such an environment in competition with heavily supported, long established centres in other countries.
That was Professor Eastman's conclusion. What have we heard from generic manufacturers in Canada, those companies which have become quite sophisticated in copying brand name drugs over the years? They have now become so sophisticated that they are at the point where they can now begin their own research and development activity in Canada. However, the legislation will put the brakes on that because it will make it extremely difficult for those wholly owned Canadian companies, which provide jobs for Canadians, to reinvest any profits back into the Canadian economy or to expand job creation in
Canada. Also the legislation will make it very difficult for them to continue to operate in the Canadian interest. Frankly, I find the legislation to be peculiar, to say the least.
The Conservative Government was elected on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. However, in the case of an industry which is doing its best in the Canadian corporate sector to create jobs, the Government is introducing legislation which will put that industry's back to the wall. It just does not make sense, any way one looks at it.
Canada's legislation, as it was passed in 1969 and as it has been reviewed by no less than seven commissions, including an all-party House of Commons committee, Professor Eastman, and internal studies by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has been a good policy for Canadians. As we all know, Professor Eastman pointed out that in 1983 alone Canadian consumers saved something in the area of $211 million as a result of that policy. It is a "made-in-Canada" policy. It is good for Canada and good for Canadians. Quite frankly, the only reason it is being changed is that President Ronald Reagan in the United States does not like it and is demanding on behalf of the multinational industry that it be changed.
I see that my time is up. Thank you very much.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can continue for a few moments where the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) left off. He made the point that the Bill presently before this Chamber was requested by the President of the United States. The Hon. Member was absolutely correct. The President of the United States did request the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to bring in this Bill. It was in all of the newspapers, it was on television and on the radio. There was no mistake at all. The President of the United States made a special request to the Prime Minister of Canada, and that was followed up by various negotiations. Another element was involved, apart from the President of the United States. Action was taken directly by the multinational drug companies, which stand to gain millions upon millions upon millions of dollars from this move, to hire various lobbying firms in the United States and in Canada. In fact, they hired the most influential lobbyists in the United States-


John R. Rodriguez: And in Canada.


George Baker: -to convince the U.S. Government through the President to ask the Prime Minister of Canada-somebody is at the door, Mr. Speaker. You do not have to let him in. I will not be able to finish my remarks. Are you saying I just have a moment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member wishes, he can certainly continue his remarks after we come back from the other place. I thank the Hon. Member for his courtesy.
April 1, 1987



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the Elouse went up to the Senate Chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the Elouse that when the House did attend Elis Elonour the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada-Chapter No. 12.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Dingwall, p. 4745).
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the reason this Bill exists is that the multinational drug companies wanted it. They lobbied the Governments in the United States and lobbying firms in Canada lobbied the Canadian federal Government. Then the President of the United States, as he admitted publicly, asked the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to make sure that the Bill was brought into the House.
When the Prime Minister of Canada is lobbied by the President of the United States and that is admitted on television, on radio and in the newspapers, then we know that something will happen. Lo and behold, something happened. The Bill was brought into this Chamber by the Government. One can then say that the reason the Bill is before us is that the President of the United States asked the Prime Minister of Canada for the Bill backed by the lobbying firms in the United States and here in Canada.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Can't hear you.
Patent Act


George Baker: The hon. gentleman says that he cannot hear me. He will hear me in a moment when I get to the point of my argument. I have a point to make and I will get right to it.
There are in Canada today several groups composed of people who can just barely make ends meet. These people are the elderly, people who have just recently married and have a family and people who live close to or under the poverty line. These people think twice about sending their children to get tested for glasses. Why is this? It is because they do not know if they can afford to buy glasses for their children.
In Canada today, there are thousands upon thousands of parents who think twice about sending their children to the dentist or to the optometrist because they cannot afford to pay the bill. The situation varies from province to province depending on what type of programs exist. Once upon a time a few short years ago, some provinces had programs that allowed children to go to the dentist up to age 11. However, generally speaking, right across Canada, there are thousands upon thousands of parents who think twice about sending their children to the dentist and the optometrist.
Then there is another group composed of people who hesitate to go to the doctor because they cannot afford the pills the doctor would prescribe. That is the reality in Canada today right from British Columbia to Newfoundland. It is also the reality that even under federal jurisdiction, there are institutions like senior citizens' homes which are government-built and government-subsidized, and the senior citizens who live in these homes receive only a certain amount from their cheques every month. Perhaps they receive $100 per month in some provinces or $ 120 or $ 150 per month in other provinces to pay for all their personal expenses.
Let me be perfectly clear that there are in our society massive numbers of. people who can just barely make ends meet. On the lower end of the scale, there are those people who at times qualify for welfare because their expenses are so high. Because of the Bill that is before the House today, the prices of drugs in Canada may rise to the level at which they are in the United States. Several groups of people will then qualify for welfare. One might say that that is a fine thing. If they qualify for welfare, then they can live. A person on minimum wage making $400 a month may have to pay up to $250 a month for his pills. Some Hon. Members on the government side may scoff at that and say that people do not have bills for pills amounting to $250 a month, but of course they do.
You are saying that I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I believe you agreed to give me a full 10 minutes after we came back from the Senate.
This is what it boils down to: in some provinces, people who make the minimum wage will be left with a choice. If they buy the pills the doctor advises them to buy, they will have to do without everything else. The only guarantee that people from coast to coast have is the guarantee of social assistance. The means test is $74 a month in Newfoundland for single people between the ages of 18 and 50. In Ontario, it is about $120.

April 1, 1987
Business of the House
The point is that that is all people will be guaranteed. Any action by a Government to take away the disposable income of large numbers of people will be frowned upon by Canadians.
If the reason for this Bill is research, then let us have the Government of Canada define research and put up the money for it. Some people say that if this Bill passes, we will find cures for this, that and the other thing. Cures have not been found to this time in the United States or in any other nation with a system like the one required by this Bill. There is no logic to that argument.
The reason for the Bill is that the President of the United States asked the Prime Minister of Canada to present it, and the reason he did that is that the lobbying firms in the United States paid by the multinational drugs companies lobbied the President and the Prime Minister of Canada. That is why this Bill is before the Chamber today. This is not a good Bill for the majority of Canadians. Therefore, speaking on their behalf, the Official Opposition will vote against the Bill.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties and 1 think you will find there is agreement to the following motion:
[ Translation]
1 move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the House adjourns on Friday, April 3, 1987, it shall stand adjourned until 11.00 o'clock a.m., on Tuesday, April 7, 1987;
That the Address of Mr. Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, to be delivered in the House Chamber on Monday, April 6, 1987, at 2.30 o'clock p.m., before Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of Tuesday, April 7, 1987, and form part of the records of this House; and
That media recording and transmission of such Address, introductory and related remarks be authorized pursuant to guidelines for this occasion issued by the Speaker of this House pursuant to consultation with the parties' House leaders, dated March 31, 1987.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier on the same point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I must commend the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) for his very enlightening reading and tell him that indeed we were consulted. We agree with the arrangements he has just proposed to the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that the negotiations have taken place and we concur and give unanimous consent to changing the Standing Orders for Monday. I would like to add that this is the kind of thorough and complete consultation we ought to have on a continuing basis, not simply at these rather unique moments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy 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.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Dingwall, p.4745).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) rises on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as you know the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) is one of the finest orators, if not the finest, in the House of Commons. I am certain, in view of the fact that his submission was cut off in midstream, that if you canvass the House you will find unanimous consent to have the Hon. Member continue with his comments.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I heard someone say no.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I feel moved to participate in this extremely historical debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Just don't wave your hands around too much, okay?


John R. Rodriguez: Why do I say it is a historical debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad you asked. It is because this move to free up the Patent Act in this country began with the
April 1, 1987

Liberals and is now seeing its conclusion with the Conservatives. I want to tell you that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is responsible for this Bill. I want to ask these Members around me, as impartial observers, if they would say this Bill strikes them as really protecting the interests of consumers. Does it do so?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


John R. Rodriguez: Absolutely not. The Minister is not the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he is the Minister of Corporate Affairs. Do you know who held that portfolio in the previous Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Who?


John R. Rodriguez: She was a very powerful Minister in the Liberal Government. The former Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Ms. Jewett:: Where is she now?


John R. Rodriguez: Where is she now?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Working for the multinational drug companies?


John R. Rodriguez: You got it! That is where she is. She has now been embraced by PMAC.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Like a true Liberal.


John R. Rodriguez: Just a minute! She is not the only one in the embrace of PMAC.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There are others?


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, yes. You know who they have? Frankie Moores.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, Sir.


Simon Leendert de Jong: He is a Conservative.


John R. Rodriguez: You know who Doucet is?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He is in the PMO.


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, we have to be careful. He has a brother in the PMO. These lobbyists for the multinational companies, they have connections. Do you remember Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman? He says:"He's got connections". Well, these drug companies have got connections. They reach right into the highest councils of the land. For $100,000 the former Liberal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now lobbying for the drug companies. She has joined Frankie Moores. The odd couple! When a Liberal and a Tory get together-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Don't describe it, it's too awful.
Patent Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't forget Ian Deans.


John R. Rodriguez: We are talking about a drug Bill that affects millions of ordinary Canadians. This Bill affects millions of ordinary, average Canadians.
One of the glaring omissions in this Bill has to do with the question of research and development. What does the Bill say about research and development? It says-


Some Hon. Members:: Nothing!


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, yes, it does.


Mr. Mayer:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice the Hon. Member is spending a lot of time with his back to the cameras. I want him to know I think that is a definite improvement in his speaking style.


Mr. Nystrom:: That is a backhanded compliment, John.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to turn my back to the Government.
This is a very important point. The Bill has a glaring omission. In fact, it deliberately says that R and D will be defined by Cabinet.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The fix again!


John R. Rodriguez: How many times in legislation in this country have we had examples of that? Leave it to the boys in the Cabinet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And the girls.


John R. Rodriguez: Who has the greatest influence with the gang in the Cabinet?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Charlie Mayer.


John R. Rodriguez: We know how the Cabinet lets the Government down. After all, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said last weekend that the reason the Tories are so low in the polls is not because of government back-benchers, but because of the Cabinet. He says the Cabinet has let him down. He is asking the people of Canada to put their trust in a Cabinet that has let their own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) down. How is this possible?
I do not believe that the people of Canada trust the Cabinet and the Government as far as they can throw them. We will find out how far they can throw them in the next election. Having no definition of research in the legislation is a glaring omission. The lobbyists will have a heyday with the Government as they had with the previous Government. John Sawatsky and Harvey Cashore in an article in This Magazine entitled "Inside Dope" talked about the fact that the former health critic for the Liberal Party got together with the prior Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs behind the

April 1, 1987
Patent Act
Speaker's chair and agreed that the Liberals and the Conservatives would let the Bill go. As a matter of fact, the quote is that: "Only the NDP will bitch". The Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) said that. He said: "That is all right, it is only the NDP who will bitch".
Let me suggest that not only the NDP will do that, but the Canadian people will do so as well.
Canadians know that the lobbyists have a friendly ear in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He said that we should not worry because the definition of research and development will be the same as that which appears in the Income Tax Act. Why does the Minister not simply put that definition in this Bill? All those watching this debate will suggest the same thing to the Minister, but he only listens to one group in this country. It is the group that is friendly to the Conservative Party.


An Hon. Member:: Which group is that?


John R. Rodriguez: Frank Moores and company is the group.
Why is the Government bringing in this Bill? Prior to 1969 we probably had the highest prescription drug prices in the world, second only to the United States. The present Act was proclaimed in 1969 and we now enjoy probably the lowest prescription drug prices in the industrialized world. However, the friends of the Government, the multinational corporations from whom the Tories raise the contributions for their election campaigns, have influenced the Government.
The fix was in because President Reagan probably persuaded the Government that it should change the Act so that the multinationals could have a heyday with Canadians. As a result of the Bill which the Minister and the Government is ramming through the House, the multinationals will pick the pockets of every Canadian. You can be sure that they are shaking hands in our pockets.
The New Democratic party has been fighting this Bill and we will continue to fight it with all the strength we have because we believe it is unfair. I only hope that the Liberal Party will find the courage to stand with us to fight this Bill to the bitter end.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this Bill which happens to be the best example of what makes the three Canadian federal Parties so different. First the position of the Conservative Party Members who are on all fours, yielding to the ransom demands of the multinationals: that is one extreme position where the rich have the upper hand. Then the other opposite extreme position of the NDP, as set forth by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Finally, the realistic, honest, central and logical position of the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Claude Malépart: We have just heard . . . First I must say I am sad because I used to hold the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt in high esteem. But his speech has just shown that he is afraid of the former member who defeated him, and afraid of being defeated again by the former member and Minister. A courageous man does not refer to somebody he has defeated in the past. It just proved how insecure he is about his own views.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain the consequences. I would like to ask my colleagues . . . The position of the NDP proves that they know precious little about Quebecers, that they are not prepared to defend them. That is proof positive of the hypocrisy of that Party and their leader who came to Montreal and his Member from Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) . .. Mr. Speaker, I was at the economic summit in Montreal where there were people from the Civic Party, people from the MCM, the new administration in Montreal, people from the Parti Quebecois, people from the Liberal Party, people from the three labour unions-QFL, CNTU and CEQ-the Federation de Page d'or du Quebec, people from all political parties. And unlike Shirley Carr and the NDP, these people were unanimous in seeking, in the best interests of Quebecers and Canadians, a form of protection for patents and research because Quebecers would be likely to benefit. The position of the NDP and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is a clear indication that all this flirting with Quebec is nothing but hypocrisy.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, there is only one man in this House. . . We have the hypocrisy of the Leader of the NDP. We have the obsequious attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and then we have the Leader of the Liberal Opposition who, when the time came to abolish protective measures, did so to safeguard the interests of Canadians. Now that the situation has changed and that we should continue to protect people and their health and research and ensure-not just so companies can make a profit-that for certain products, products that are expensive and are used to cure people, the multinationals, the generic companies . . . We are not here to defend either one but to defend the interests . . . And the only man who had the courage to propose amendments was the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). He was the only one, with the Liberal Party.
Unfortunately, we now have the Conservatives who are afraid of their own shadow. We have seen the NDP hypocrites, but when I see people in the Conservative Party caving in to the blackmail of the multinationals, who said: If you give us a full monopoly for seven or eight years, we will invest so much. If you do not provide that protection, we will withdraw the funds. The Liberal leader, all the members of the Liberal caucus said: "No way!" We will never give in to blackmail, neither in this House nor to that of multinationals.


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: And we will not give in to the blackmail of a union.
I should like to say to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt that I am still an active member of the QFL. The National Council of the Canadian Labour Congress collects part of my dues to uphold the interests of Canadians. Part of that money is used to finance the NDP. Unfortunately, as a Quebecer, I should ask Ti-Louis Laberge that we should withdraw from the Canadian Labour Congress because the interests of Quebecers are poorly upheld within that Federation.
Mr. Speaker, what is the position of the Liberal Party-it is true that some protection is needed-but on what is based our position? It is based on the advice of an expert. And the Eastman Report, the people who made investigations proved that a minimum of protection is needed. And the minimum of protection is negotiable, and this is what my colleague will propose in committee, and it is my hope that Conservative Members-as far as New Democrats are concerned, they are hopeless-that those people will be realistic and say: We will grant a minimum of protection, a five or four-year minimum, as recommended by the experts, but we will protect the cost of drugs. We will allow research people in Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes, Western Canada to go on working in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. As opposed to the stupidity of the NPD Party, who rejects any change, we Liberals are not afraid of reforms, we are not afraid of improving quality.
I appreciate that New Democratic Party Members are not used to facing criticism. I appreciate they are small-time actors in their own world, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is, the time has come for the Canadian people to know it. We have the extreme on the left, the New Democratic Members who oppose any change, even though the whole population, the whole Quebec people has requested protection at the Quebec National Assembly under a PQ Government, through a unanimous vote. And after there was a change of Government, under a Liberal administration, another Assembly made that same unanimous request. But then the NDP comes down from out West, and they want to impose upon Quebecers: Come to us, we are interested, we are open. Open my foot! People will vote Liberal!
Mr. Speaker, the 57 Conservative Members,-or is it 58, we are not sure how many are left-it is my hope they will listen to the call of logic, they will not yield to the multinationals, they will not yield to the American President who will come and tell us here: Listen, if you want to have such or such a thing! Remember your leader-he got the job of President of Iron Ore in order to shut the company down. After that, he had no job any more. He came here, but we will not let him shut Canada down and sell it to the Americans.
So there you have the best proof with that legislation. Listen, take the logical position, the sensible position put forward by the Liberal Party. And remember-when John Turner decided to pass an Act, he did it in order to improve the situation. Years have gone by, the needs are different.
Patent Act
Once more, the Liberal Party, in a spirit of reform, implemented that.
Mr. Speaker, who will be affected? There are four million people in Canada, Canadian men and women who are protected by no health insurance plan, who have neither the protection of provincial public insurance plans nor collective agreements, because unfortunately it sometimes happens in Canada-even though I am a union member, I am not a union militant-that large labour groups are not interested in members in small communities where there is not enough people, not enough money there. So those people are not protected. Those who are protected are people with good labour agreements, they are numerous. So the four million people who are not protected, it is important that we in this House, of whatever political persuasion, ensure that those people be protected, and we have a responsability to do so.
And this is why the recommendation and the amendment put forward by my colleague is an amendment that we should unanimously accept. But we must totally reject-Mr. Speaker, I see I have two minutes left-the ridiculous idea of the NDP and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt of rejecting the Bill off hand, because this is contrary to the interest of Quebecers.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have just heard two great speeches, one from the New Democratic Party and one from the Liberal Party. I thought, in keeping with the principles of fairness and objectivity, perhaps some Hon. Member opposite would dare stand in his or her place and offer a rebuttal to some of the great arguments which have been presented.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is quite an afternoon for debate. I must confess there are some tough acts to follow.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 have just returned from committee. I thought it has been a long practice in the House that we alternate. If my memory serves me well, the New Democratic Party had the floor, then the Liberal Party. I would imagine that it is now the Government's turn, unless I am proven wrong.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, these endeavours to draw the Government into the debate clearly fail because the Government has no desire to debate the questions on this Bill before us. Government Members are quite content to be taken in by the eyewash which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) working for the multinational corporations, served up. The last thing they want to do is to have to defend him or criticize the Opposition.

April 1, 1987
Patent Act
I found the observations made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) rather curious, given that we are both working to improve the Bill. We are both concerned about definitions for "research". What is this attack on my good friend, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the sort of divisiveness in the Opposition, when we are both involved in improving a lousy piece of legislation? It seems very curious. When one has to attack another Party, usually in an electoral context, one indulges in such attacks only on those who are ahead of one. Why bother with those who are behind us? After all, they are back there in the dust and that is where they ought to stay. But when someone ahead of you is threatening to seize the prize, that is the moment in which to attempt to trip him up. Those are the moments to attack and try to weaken him. I suggest to those who have their eyes focused on the leader in the race, that there is something wrong. That was the kind of attack the Hon. Member made, which I quite enjoyed hearing.
I know the realities in Quebec. The public opinion polls across the country have marvelous details these days. In the rest of Canada we are number two and trying harder, and the people of Canada realize that. In the Province of Quebec, of course, there are some additional realities. In that Province we are neck and neck. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie knows something the rest of us have not yet heard. Perhaps in his area we are actually number one. If we are number one, then now is the time to attack us, and that is the kind of speech he served up.
The Hon. Member asked who understands Quebec. Do we really understand Quebec? Well, I wonder, given the tone of this debate, whether he has any right to ask that question. Surely, we understand perfectly well what the people of Quebec want. Surely, we understand perfectly well that, like the people in the rest of Canada, the people of Quebec want medicines available to them at reasonable prices. The people of Quebec, like other Canadians, want pharmaceutical medicines not to be increased in price. The people of Quebec have the same concerns about economy in health care as do other Canadians. Those are the convictions of the people of Quebec, and we know perfectly well that the New Democratic Party speaks for those convictions in Quebec and across the country. We wonder whether our colleagues in the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, which is falling into second place in the Province of Quebec, really understand those things.
I found myself wondering whether perhaps the reason the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie spoke as he did is that at the back of his mind is a readiness to accept the Bill from the Government as it stands. Perhaps the Hon. Member, or someone from Montreal, where promises for returns from this Bill have been held out, is actually content with the Bill as it is and is attacking those who are trying to improve it. Does that make any kind of sense?
Is there any real prospect that this legislation is going to bring us the returns the Government has suggested? There has been talk about 3,000 jobs out of the research which will
follow. I realize that that is an attractive prospect. There have been some letters to my office and other offices about the possibilities of research jobs. But are we really going to get them? That is the question. Will we really find the type of research being done which we want to see done if there is an extension in the period of protection for medicines in Canada such as is proposed in the Bill? All the authorities in this area question that position. I can cite a number of them who point to the type of research presently being done in Canada. For example, Dr. Lexchin appeared before the committee and observed that the little research money that is spent in Canada now is divided into three areas: 8 per cent goes to basic research, which seeks to discover new concepts of drug therapy or totally new drug products; 36 per cent is used for applied research, which consists of testing potential drugs on animals and humans; and a full 56 per cent is applied to product development, which encompasses areas such as developing new dosage forms, or different forms of a drug, such as pills, tablets, creams or solutions.
Much of that research is a matter of tailoring the pharmaceuticals to the market. Much of it is a matter of either some further clinical testing or a matter of market research and response to it. That does not involve the type of jobs or the type of research that is attractive to people. To hold out the possibility that this will be high quality employment is misleading the Canadian people.
It was surely an indication of what would happen under this Bill to have the Department's own research staff indicate, as was reported in December, that jobs with respect to tending animals and cleaning laboratories, rather menial work, were going to be included in the 3,000 jobs. In fact, it became clear from the Government's own study that no more than 57 per cent of the 3,000 jobs will be jobs in professional categories involving the training that produces the PhD that would represent the type of employment for which Canadians are looking. Even to hold out the prospect of 3,000 jobs is to suggest that there will be an increase in activity in this country which the authorities in the drug industry internationally find almost impossible to expect. They look at the way in which pharmaceutical research is carried out now, centred primarily at or near the head offices of the companies in the United States and other companies. They note that a country such as Switzerland, which is easy to cite as one that is small and important in research, managed to get into the industry in the 19th century. The companies have been long established in that country. On that basis they are able to carry on research in that small country.
The possibility that a slight change in the legislation would bring the companies in is exercising an act of faith that we have come to expect from members of the Conservative Party when they talk about what multinational corporations will do. We have come to expect the Government to forget what the consequences will be for individual Canadians, the higher costs that will result, and what the people of Canada want. The
April 1, 1987

Government wants to serve only the interests of the multinationals.
It is of course much more distressing to see something like this come from the Liberal Party which likes to pride itself on speaking to the needs of Canadians. It says that it understands the needs of Quebec. Surely, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) does not want to tell us that the people of Quebec are easily fooled by the Government, or that they are prepared to be taken in by this propaganda about 3,000 jobs when so much of it is going to be menial employment in laboratories, if it even occurs. Surely, he will not tell us that the people of Quebec are easily fooled politically. I do not think he wants to say that. I will certainly not assert that. The evidence these days which the public opinion polls make quite clear is that the people of Quebec understand perfectly well what their needs are. They understand perfectly well who is speaking to those needs. They understand perfectly well that the New Democratic Party understands what ordinary Canadians need. They understand that the New Democratic Party is working for average Canadians. They are turning to support us vigorously these days. We look forward to more and more of them supporting us as we move toward the next election.
[ Translation]


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this ... In the past few minutes mention was made that Quebec would profit from it but when one considers that by 1995, the pharmaceutical industry will have invested $3 billion in Quebec and the rest of Canada the 65 member Association, will wait before implementing for good their development program until Bill C-22 has been passed by the House of Commons. The new legislation will emphasize the creation of new drugs rather than the mere production of old ones.
As I read in this week's issue of the Journal des affaires which has been circulated from coast to coast, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is truly fantastic, and no matter what the NDP may say we, as Quebec Members of the Conservative Party, are all for it.
When we consider the total volume of the promised investments, we can look forward to a 60/40 sharing between Ontario and Quebec. And this investment distribution will reflect the research and development manpower within the industry, as represented in the two major Canadian provinces. About 43 companies in Ontario and Quebec are members of the Association, with nearly 600 researchers in Quebec and 40 in Ontario. Although the number of employees may differ today, the proportion remains the same. And even if in 1983, 8,600 employees were recorded in Ontario, compared to 6,300 in Quebec, out of a total 15,500 employees for the whole of Canada. The investment in research and development will
Patent Act
reflect the distribution of researchers, which will favour Quebec, because this is where the greatest concentration is.
On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, the Journal des affaires, which is deservedly famous throughout the world, but especially in Quebec and the rest of Canada, is contemplating that approximately 40 per cent of all investments will be made in Quebec, 40 per cent in Ontario, 40 per cent in the western provinces, and 4 per cent in the Atlantic provinces. I read on. It says that it will create directly 3,000 new jobs in the industry. That is quite good for Quebec, Mr. Speaker. But there is one thing I should like to warn the House about, and it is the cost of medicine. Several people in my region of Abitibi have told me that the NDP constantly infer that the costs will increase. They keep saying that promises are always fine, but that they are quickly forgotten. To make sure that the companies will fulfill their promises and will not pass on their research costs to consumers through unjustified increases in the price of medicine, the Bill provides for a control mechanism. I mean, there will be a monitoring agency.
Mr. Speaker, that is truly what our party, our Government is doing for Quebec and the rest of Canada. We are going to monitor the prices right away. That will be a very good Bill and senior citizens . . . Well, the prices on these drugs will not increase anyway.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, since it is nearly six o'clock, perhaps you could call it six o'clock, and I could start my speech tomorrow. Or perhaps I could start with the preliminaries.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. In the few minutes or few seconds remaining, I would like to pay special tribute to the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who finally set the record straight on the whole NDP situation-these radical leftwingers who are so terribly pleased with themselves and who claim they represent the people of Quebec and French Canadians in general. Today, we see just what kind of representation they are giving them. Their insincerity is flagrant. As for the Conservatives opposite, Mr. Speaker, they are the people who introduced this Bill. They did what they usually do: they caved in to the multinationals and they got down on their knees before President Reagan, which was predictable of the Conservative Party. I would like to say more, and I could go on until tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, because I see the New Democrats and the-


Some Hon. Members:: Six o'clock!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers