1987-08-24

Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has the honour of tabling its Eighth Report.

Your committee has considered the Order in Council nominations of Louis R. Sherman to the post of full-time member and vice-chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission and Beverley J. Oda to the post of full-time member of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. They were referred to the committee on June 26, 1987 and August 13, 1987, respectively.
Your committee has examined the qualifications of these persons and finds them to be competent to perform the duties of their posts.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, today it is again my duty to present a petition concerning the Government's plan to tax food, and I am delighted to hear that the Conservative Caucus also objects to this tax on food and has joined us in trying to persuade the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to change his mind and drop this regressive concept. The petition reads as follows:
Whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
And whereas food constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, youths and students;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present two petitions signed by residents of northern Manitoba. In their petition, the undersigned citizens of Canada avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a petition. In the opinion of the petitioners the new system of tax deductions for northern residents has been unfairly applied leaving out many northern communities such as Thompson and Mabowden, and that the taxing of northern benefits is heavy-handed and complicated, taxing away benefits intended to compensate employees for loss of other amenities.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to direct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to reconsider the system of tax measures when studying tax reform as promised in the Budget.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions. The first petition deals with the Post Office and indicates that the federal Government's proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1988 for Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs, deterioration of service of the Post Office and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadians. It goes on to outline this in more detail.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of the Canada Post Corporation and to abandon its policy of closing rural post offices and cancelling rural postal routes.
I have petitions which measure approximately two inches in height, petitions which are printed on legal-sized paper. I wish to make note of the fact that we have received at least 15,000 petitions from the Province of British Columbia, as well as

August 24, 1987
Order Paper Questions
other petitions from the rest of Canada. The petitions are still coming in. 1 hope that the Government is listening.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with a more local matter. It is from Winnipeg. It indicates that Canada Post Corporation plans to cut delivery of mail to businesses in downtown Winnipeg to once a day instead of maintaining the present practice of twice daily delivery. The volume of mail delivered to these businesses is on the increase. Twice daily mail delivery is needed to ensure efficient operation of the businesses in downtown Winnipeg. It is unacceptable that postal service be reduced at a time when postal rates have been increased.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to insist that Canada Post Corporation continue to provide twice daily mail delivery to businesses in downtown Winnipeg.


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 be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Friday, August 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6, 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister intervened with remarks regarding the amendments put forward by the Upper Chamber. I want to take a few moments today to share with you, Mr. Speaker, some of my thoughts with regard to the Minister's expressed statements, as well as his sentiments, with regard to the acceptance or lack of acceptance by Canadians concerning the formulation of Bill C-22.
It is somewhat ironic that the Minister's statements on that particular day for whatever reasons, intentional or otherwise, did not focus on the fact that six provincial Legislatures were against Bill C-22 and in favour of the amendments put forward by the Upper House. The Minister went on at length to explain that in his view countless Canadians from coast to coast were in support of Bill C-22. What the Minister failed to
August 24, 1987

do was to give a great deal of specifics to that point, and I make one example. He made reference to the fact that Dalhousie University is in support of Bill C-22. Contrary to what the Minister has told the House, we had a very reputable and distinguished Canadian from that university appear before our committee who clearly spelled out his objections to the Bill. I believe it is on the record of the committee. He made some very sincere recommendations on how to improve the Bill, how it ought to be changed. Nevertheless, the distinct impression was left by the Minister of corporate affairs that that particular university was in complete harmony with Bill C-22.
Early on in the debate, particularly at committee stage, Canadians were told by the present Minister of corporate interests that the benefits to Canadians with regard to research and development would be overwhelming, indeed. 1 am trying to paraphrase the words the Minister used but I think the gist of his thesis at that time was that all provinces and territories would benefit substantially from the promises-and I would like to underline the word "promises"-from the multinational corporations as they relate to research and development. Unfortunately, if one were to accept in a hypothetical sense their promises as being guarantees and then look at the abstract as to where the moneys would go or not go, I think Hon. Members would readily agree that the economic benefits, if those were to occur, would certainly not be spread in an equal way across the country.
I was waiting for the Minister to stand in his place as the Minister of corporate interests and tell us the number of new jobs and the amount of research that would take place in the Province of Newfoundland. 1 thought he might have a comment or two with regard to how those alleged economic benefits would help the community of Corner Brook, Newfoundland. 1 thought he might stand in his place and talk about the number of new jobs that would be created in Stephenville, Newfoundland. I thought that perhaps he might have been a little bit more explicit in telling us the plans that his friends in the multinational corporations have for erecting new companies in Goose Bay, Labrador, or in St. John's, Newfoundland. But, for whatever reasons, whether it be with respect to time or his refusal to acknowledge that no benefits, or very few, will accrue to that province, the Minister of corporate interests decided not to share with us where those benefits would go in the Province of Newfoundland.
Even better, I was hoping that the Minister, who has said many, many times that economic benefits would accrue across the country, would tell the good people of Lunenburg County, Cumberland Country, Cape Breton County, Guysborough, Halifax and Pictou Counties in Nova Scotia about those benefits and the new jobs, and how many would be created in their province. When we consider New Brunswick 1 was waiting with bated breath to hear about the number of jobs that would be created in that province. We know that because of the day of reckoning-election day-which is so imminent in the Province of New Brunswick, the Minister would want to
Patent Act
do something for his colleagues in that province and tell us where the research and development dollars will go, the amount of dollars and the number of jobs that will be created.
We were wondering how many jobs would be created in Westmorland-Kent and in Moncton, how many would be created around that very distinguished and prestigious university, Mount Allison University, and how many would be created in Saint John, New Brunswick and other communities throughout the province. But, again, the Minister of corporate interests was not able, or shall we say not willing, to share with the House where this new grandiose sum of money would be invested in the Province of New Brunswick.
With three elected Members of Parliament in Prince Edward Island out of a total of four we were hoping that the Minister would avail himself of the opportunity to say to the people of Atlantic Canada that there might not be much in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, but perhaps there would be a tremendous number of economic benefits in Prince Edward Island. I checked the press releases that had gone out and I did not find that the Hon. Member from Charlottetown, or the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), or the other Member of Parliament from P.E.I., had made any announcements to their constituents in terms of the benefits of research and development, jobs, and economic spin-off. Perhaps some will yet come. The Minister has previously changed his mind on certain benefits of Bill C-22, perhaps he will change it again. The Minister will not guarantee, but he will promise that perhaps something may occur.
I thought that the Minister would have availed himself of the opportunity to spell out to the people of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba where the benefits would accrue in those provinces.
There is a great university in Brandon, Manitoba. Mr. Stanley Knowles, is the Chancellor of that university, a distinguished honourary Member of the House, and former member of the New Democratic Party. I thought that the Government would have spelled out the opportunities for their colleagues and friends in Manitoba and where the benefits would accrue in that province. There are very few, if any, benefits if one assumes that the promises would be realized, or that the promises would eventually become guarantees.
We have heard a great deal in terms of new jobs in Ontario and Quebec. I do not think that any Member begrudges those two provinces the new jobs, new wealth, and economic spinoffs that may accrue. What is disturbing is that it is a mere promise, there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees on the level of expenditure for research and development, with regard to the number of jobs or with regard to the types of jobs that may be created. We are asking the Government to put in some guarantees to legitimize some of its more grandiose sentiments, and to convince the Canadian public that what it is

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
doing for the multinational corporations will bring some economic benefits to Canadians.
The Government is giving one element of the pharmaceutical industry an extended monopoly provision for approximately 10 years. The fact is that from 1969 to 1983 the pharmaceutical industry in Canada was the most profitable of any manufacturing sector in our economy. During that period the growth in employment of the manufacturing sector was approximately 4 per cent. In the pharmaceutical industry it was 29 per cent. The pharmaceutical sector in Canada had astronomical profits in the 300 to 400 percentage range. That was operating under the old law. Now the Government wants to give the pharmaceutical sector a further 10-year period of monopoly.
There is something wrong when all that is given away, and in return Canadians only get promises of additional research and development, additional jobs, and that prices will not rise. We also get a promise from the Minister that benefits will be distributed equitably throughout the country. We also get a promise from the Minister that as a result there will be more research and development in Canada. But where are the guarantees? Are Canadians to give up a good system in return for mere promises? Surely the Minister must realize, notwithstanding his desire, tenacity, and enthusiasm to satisfy the interests of his friends in the multinational corporations, that he has a further, if not greater obligation to consumers and the public that he must have a better deal, a better package for Canadians.
This morning I raised my concern about the fact that six provincial governments are opposing and want further changes to Bill C-22. 1 had hoped that the Minister would have taken their concerns very seriously. The Minister has made repeated reference to the Province of Quebec. The Minister states that there is a resolution from the Quebec Legislature which asks that we pass Bill C-22 quickly, because it believes much research and development, and jobs will be created in that province. I have no desire to enter into a confrontation with my colleagues from Quebec, regardless of what side of the House they are on. But I say to them, through you, Sir, and to members of the Government, that we on this side of the House want to see research and development, and jobs in the Province of Quebec, but we also want to see guarantees and undertakings by those corporations that things will be done as promised, and that Canadians will not have to pay higher drug prices in return for that mere promise. That is our substantive argument with regard to Bill C-22 and how it affects the Province of Quebec.
Surely as Canadian politicians and legislators we want to ensure that Canada has the best public policy affecting pharmaceuticals. Perhaps I am wrong and there are some Members who do not want that. Perhaps Members from British Columbia do not want to have research and development in their province; perhaps they do not want to have more jobs. I do not know, but 1 do not think that. The fact remains that all of us have to be concerned with the entire national
picture. 1 would hope that our colleagues in Ontario would not expect the Province of Newfoundland, and the taxpayers of that province to pay higher drug prices for their families, their children, their senior citizens, and a variety of citizens on the mere promise and whim that at some future time in the 10-year period there may be more research and development, and jobs created elsewhere.
I think it is evident that as it now stands, the Conservative Government's public policy is shady and does not serve the best interests of Canadians. When we examine the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about reconciliation and better federal-provincial relations, what better judge of the success of those goals than having six provincial Governments saying that the Government's public policy does not serve the best interests of Canadians? We must consider those representations by the provinces seriously.
Furthermore, we should consider what we heard from the Province of Saskatchewan. Initially, Saskatchewan was publicly opposed to Bill C-22. There followed a provincial election and the awarding of $1 billion for agriculture programs to that province. Then mystically, Saskatchewan came onside to support Bill C-22. I do not know what brought about that change and I am not saying that $1 billion from the federal treasury convinced Saskatchewan to support Bill C-22. Others have suggested precisely that, but I am not. However, we witnessed a totally different phenomenon at the committee hearings when we were greeted by a senior deputy minister from the Province of Saskatchewan who placed so many qualifications on Bill C-22 for it to be improved in various ways that any logical person could see that Saskatchewan was reverting back to its original position of opposing Bill C-22. Quite rightly, of course, the astute deputy minister had to announce that government policy was to support Bill C-22 but with some 11 pre-conditions in terms of changing the legislation.
Let us consider Nova Scotia. I do not use that province as one of those opposing the Bill but let us consider what happened in that case. The Minister of Health for the province stated that it would cost Nova Scotians some additional $25 million.


Mr. Robichaud:: It is not supposed to cost anything.


David Charles Dingwall: The Member is absolutely right. The Minister of corporate interests told us the other day that it would not cost Canadians anything. But that is not what we were told by the Tory province in Nova Scotia.
However, at approximately the same time there was talk about funding for Sysco modernization. Let me make it perfectly clear that it is not my suggestion but that of some others in Nova Scotia who say that once the Sysco modernization funds were announced there seemed to be a change of heart in the Nova Scotia Government with respect to Bill C-
August 24, 1987

22. The media had a difficult time finding people to substantiate their claim of an additional cost of $25 million. As well, the Minister of corporate interests vowed to stay away from any comments about the situation in Nova Scotia. At the same time, there was a litany of announcements ranging from money for Pictou industries to funding for a variety of programs in Halifax. 1 suggest it is quite obvious to most Canadians that a major power play was underway.
It is my belief that the new Government in British Columbia, being interested in jobs and more money for research and development, would have seen through the major omissions in Bill C-22 as did six other provinces, and perhaps Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. I thought it would want to correct those omissions in order to reap some of the benefits for its province. However, there were only a few opposition MPs, including the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, who repeatedly raised the major omissions in this Bill. Government Members of Parliament from that province sat on their hands and agreed that the most profitable sector in pharmaceutical manufacturing needed another 10-year period of monopoly.
The Minister stands in his place to talk about the overwhelming support for the Bill. If he were here in the chamber I would tell him to be more candid and specify the areas of support and the rationale for that support. I think it is clearly evident that provincial Governments definitely do not support higher drug prices.
What did the Minister do? The Minister stated from the outset, through the committee stage and during the discussions in the Upper Chamber, that the Government would provide $100 million to lessen the impact if, in fact, there were higher drug prices. Either the price of drugs will rise or they will not, but the Minister tells us that he will provide $100 million. When I asked the Minister how he arrived at that figure of $100 million, he did not have any substantive answer but simply said that it is a cushion that the Government will provide to assist the provinces if prices increase. The Minister stated that consistently from January through to the early part of August. Now the Minister of corporate interests tells us a different story. The Government will no loner provide $100 million to assist provinces vis-a-vis price increases.
The Minister echoed the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister who condemned the Upper Chamber as a bunch of political unelected hacks. I take strong exception to that statement. Lowell Murray happens to come from my constituency in Nova Scotia and I do not think he is a political hack. I am at odds with the Right Hon. Prime Minister when he calls a native Nova Scotian like Findlay MacDonald a unelected political hack. I think it is pretty degrading for the Right Hon. Prime Minister to say that about individuals in the Upper Chamber, particularly when he does not have the intestinal fortitude to do something about this unelected Chamber other than to talk rhetoric with some of his followers during his political gatherings across the country. He does not
Patent Act
have the intestinal fortitude to change a situation that can only be changed by a Prime Minister.
Do you know what the Minister of corporate interests did, Mr. Speaker? Imagine this. He accepted recommendations made by a bunch of unelected political hacks in the Upper Chamber. After saying that they were so terrible, he has now accepted some of those recommendations.
Is he going to give $100 million to the provinces for the purposes of increasing the prices of pharmaceutical drugs? No, he is not going to do that. The Minister is so confident that the multinational corporations will do research and development that he will give $100 million to the provinces, not for the purpose of price increases but for the purpose of providing additional research and development. If there has ever been hypocrisy practised in the House of Commons by any Minister of the Crown, it has been by the Minister of corporate interests whose total concerns are escalating and enhancing the profits of multinational corporations at the expense of every-day Canadians.
It is one thing to say to the provinces, "The hell with you". That is what Bill C-22 is saying. It is another thing to say to Parliament, "We believe prices will rise, therefore we will give the provinces some money," and then turn around and do the exact opposite with that money. It is another thing to refer to the Upper Chamber, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of corporate interests have, as a bunch of political hacks but to do nothing but denounce it on national television and at every political gathering they can muster. They have said to Canadians from coast to coast that they will accept no amendments, no changes, they are in it to the end, but the Minister of corporate interests came into the House and swallowed himself completely by accepting amendments. I find that behaviour to be absolutely against the best interests of generating good public policy in Canada.
How can we believe the Minister when he says now that the multinational corporations will give x millions of dollars when in the space of six months, the Minister flip-flopped not once but twice on two major, substantive issues concerning Bill C-22 and the Upper Chamber. I am absolutely astounded that the Minister could walk into the House and still feel that he could assume his responsibilities as Minister protecting Canadian consumers. It is absolutely unbelievable.
The provinces, by and large, are against this Bill. Some are against it for different reasons, but they are against it. The Minister of corporate interests has changed the legislation substantively and is hoping that Canadians will now believe him. I do not think they will.
If there is any indication that Canadians do not believe the Minister of corporate interests, we should go back to the polls for a moment since it was the Minister, not I or my colleagues to the left, who brought up the polls. This is unfortunate because I do not think that national political Parties should be

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
overly concerned with what the polls are saying on a day-today basis. However, it was the Minister of corporate interests who brought them up. He ought to look at what Decima is telling him about the trust in both his Leader and his Party. He should find out where Gallup says that particular Party is when it comes to general acceptance by the population. Of course, other pollsters have said the same thing.
It was the Minister of corporate interests who raised the issue of polls. Canadians from coast to coast know that this Government is not a Government to be trusted, particularly with regard to Bill C-22 and how changes to the Bill will affect consumers.
Since I have already talked about the provinces, let me talk for a few moments if I may about the organizations other than Dalhousie University to which the Minister alluded as being in support of Bill C-22. The Minister said that these organizations are supportive of Bill C-22. In part, the Minister of corporate interests is correct. However, when I or my colleagues to the left asked questions of these organizations at committee stage, it became very clear to many observers that amendments ought to be sought in order to strengthen the Bill and achieve the objectives about which all three political Parties were talking, namely, jobs, research and development and protection for Canadian consumers.
I remember a distinguished group of representatives from western Canada who had indicated to the committee that they were supportive of Bill C-22. When it was brought to their attention that the Bill did not contain a definition of research, they were quite surprised. I asked them, "Did you read the Bill?" They said, "Well, yes, you know, we are not lawyers but we have examined the contents of the Bill and we think it is okay". I said, "Did you see any provisions in that Bill to guarantee that research and development by those multinational firms will take place?" They said, "No, we didn't, it wasn't there". I said, "That's right, there are no guarantees". I said, "Did you see any guarantees about the number of jobs that will be created?" They said, "No, we didn't see any of those either". I said, "What guarantees did you see in the Bill for protecting consumers and the prices they will have to pay?" They said, "Well, we really don't know what its powers are, but there is such a thing as the Patent Medicines Review Board. Is that not supposed to keep prices down?"
Many groups came before the committee with good intentions, accepting the word of the Minister of corporate interests, not consumer interests, that these objectives were contained in the Bill. Those objectives were jobs, research and development expenditures, and a pricing mechanism. Once they became aware of the major omissions, they wrote to the Minister of corporate interests saying they agree its objectives are laudable but he has an obligation to put something in the Act to guarantee Canadians that this will be done. That has never taken place.
In 1984 the Tories said they were going to do away with some boards and regulations. Now they are adding another board and putting more regulations into play. Say one thing and do the opposite. We have come to accept that sort of conduct by the governing Party.
At best the constitutionality of the price review board is in serious question. It would be interesting to send a copy of that Bill to the Canadian Bar Association meeting at the Congress Centre this week. I am sure they would come to the same conclusion I have, that it is unconstitutional. I challenged the Minister. I said if he believed it to be just and appropriate, table the legal opinion to verify it. He will not do it. You would think if someone had a strong case he would want the Canadian people and, in particular, opposition Members to see what judicial interpretation the Department of Justice and his Department are giving to that legislation.
As I said to the Minister and his legal counsel in committee, at the first opportune moment, when this board attempts to exercise its authority against the multinational corporation, it will end up in Federal Court where it will remain for months and months if not a year or two before the court renders a decision nullifying any effect this board might have.
First, it is unconstitutional. Second, the board is not in a position to act, it can only react. You know, Mr. Speaker, because you are a distinguished parliamentarian, that there is quite a distinction between acting and reacting. This board can only react after it has received complaints, or provincial Governments interfere, and then it has the responsibility to investigate. What can it investigate? It is not allowed to go outside the boarders of Canada to obtain information or evidence regarding a particular company. If your corporate head offices are in New Jersey or Switzerland all you have to do is mail your file there and the Canadian Government cannot investigate whether you are transfer pricing or whether you have given the appropriate information regarding the initial cost of a particular drug. It is an absolute and utter joke. We are not looking at days, weeks or even months, we could be looking at years in dealing with a price problem.
What has happened here is very sad. The Minister has said no to committee members; he has said no to countless witnesses; he has said no to consumer advocate groups; he has said no to provincial Governments, and he has said no to legal experts-no changes will be made. Let there be no mistake about it. He is the Minister of corporate interests. He is going to embellish and enhance multinational corporations. That is what his portfolio is all about. He told the committee one thing, to which my friend from Windsor-Walkerville will probably refer, but he tells the House something different. I want it to be known through you, sir, that I am not suggesting for one moment that he is intentionally misleading the House. What I am suggesting is that in the Minister's pronouncements he has conveniently forgotten certain specifics.
August 24, 1987

I should say at this point that a number of groups who are against Bill C-22 have also said they could live with it if certain amendments were made. I want to make it perfectly clear that the amendments put forward in committee, on the floor of this House, and in the Upper Chamber have been consistent. Given the economic framework within which the multinationals operate, we do not believe Bill C-22 as put forward by the Government should pass. We cannot support the Bill with a 10-year price protection without guarantees for research and development and quality jobs across this country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this has been an exhausting and, at times, acrimonious debate on Bill C-22. Upon reflection, perhaps I have contributed to that acrimony. However, in all good conscience I make no apologies. Someone somewhere has to stand up for those Canadians who cannot now afford the cost of prescription drugs.
In his own testimony before the committee and in his speech in introducing this legislation the Minister said that 85 per cent of Canadians are covered by drug programs. He failed to say that those drug programs are paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. He also failed to say that over one million Canadians have no drug plan whatsoever.
Notwithstanding the tenacity of Members opposite who tried to intimidate a number of witnesses in committee, we heard a number of witnesses who came before the committee say that they are welfare recipients and that some of their drugs are paid for by the municipality which pays their welfare, but that there are a good number of drugs for which they must pay themselves.
Someone must stand up for those individuals. Someone must stand up for Canadians who do not have lobbyists, as do the banks and pharmaceutical companies. Someone must say that this law is unjust. It flies in the face of providing good public policy for Canadians, whether for the senior citizen in Nova Scotia, the person on compensation in New Brunswick or Newfoundland, or the widow or welfare recipient in Prince Edward Island, Ontario or Quebec. Regardless of who those individuals are, the Government is doing a major injustice to them all.
The Government is telling the Government of Alberta and the Government of Manitoba that it does not care, that it does not give a damn what they say, that it is going to go ahead with its plan for higher drug prices with no guarantees of research and development jobs. It is responding to the conditional approval which the Government of Saskatchewan has given to this Bill by saying that it is not going to accommodate the request of the Government of Saskatchewan. It is saying to the people of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec that there are no guarantees of jobs or research and development, that it will go on a whim and prayer that sometime in the next ten years there will be some new jobs in research and development.
Patent Act
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize for standing up for those people. They are just as important as the lawyers, doctors, and other organizations which have paid lobbyists to act on their behalf. I want to thank you, Sir, for your cooperation and the courtesy that you have, displayed to me while you have been in the Chair. I think you know deep down that I feel very strongly about the substance of this Bill. I believe very strongly that the Government of Canada has abdicated its responsibilities to the people of Canada. More important, Mr. Speaker, I believe that on judgment day, which is not all that far away, the Canadian people will give the Government its due, and I can assure you that it will not be a vote of confidence, but will be a vote in opposition to the governing party and particularly the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of corporate interests.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? Under Standing Order 55(1) the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond had unlimited time with no provision for questions or comments. Speeches from now on will be limited to a maximum of 20 minutes with provision for a question and comment period.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Waikerville):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I have only 20 minutes during which to express my Party's opposition to Bill C-22. It is perhaps appropriate that we allow the Official Opposition unlimited time to develop its thoughts. It is quite evident that such a length of time is required. The previous speaker is somewhat like Beethoven attempting to finish a symphony. We never know when it is going to end.
The New Democratic Party has not found it necessary to engage in the verbal athletics, as has the Official Opposition, in order to express and manifest its support for those in the country who oppose this legislation. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, Members of the New Democratic Party tabled petition after petition from the people of this country in opposition to Bill C-22. Therefore, we do not need two days in which to indicate to the Canadian people our opposition to this legislation and the reason for our opposition to it.
Quite basically we are opposed to this legislation because it is wrong. We are opposed to it because it is unnecessary. We are opposed to it because it does not recognize the various needs which must be addressed, not only those of the multinationals but those of the old, the poor, the taxpayer, and the health system of the country.
This Bill proposes to change an arrangement which originated in 1969 and introduced compulsory licensing. At that time brand name drugs had to face competition from generic drugs which have the same pharmaceutical properties. That change in Canadian patent regime resulted in considerable savings to Canadians. Let us remind ourselves that at that time Canada had among the highest drug prices in the world. Several commissions studied the matter and reached the conclusion that the only appropriate way of dealing with the problem was

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
the compulsory licensing arrangement which we have had since then.
Let us also remind ourselves that since that time the multinational drug companies operating in this country have had the highest profits of any manufacturing sector in the country. During that time employment in the pharmaceutical industry increased by 29 per cent more than employment in that sector in the United States where there was complete patent protection. During all of that time and before 1969, in spite of obscene profits, the multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers did not a whit of basic research in this country. We are expected to believe that by returning to the pre-1969 situation, and by virtue of a promise, they are going to keep prices down, do research in this country, and create jobs. Anyone who believes that believes in the tooth fairy. Much more, such a one probably believes that the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be kept. We know that that would be a peculiar set of beliefs.
I listened with great interest to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who talked at great length about what a significant impact this legislation will have on scientific research. We heard him say as well that all scientists would back this legislation because it will produce increased research opportunities and innovations. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as a practising scientist up until the day 1 was elected to this place, I have never heard such an nonsensical view of the real situation in this country with respect to science.
It is certainly true that government after government-and this Government is no exception-has refused to make the kind of commitment to basic research that is necessary for this country to thrive. To suggest that Bill C-22 will change that situation indicates nothing but a complete misapprehension of the real world or a deliberate attempt to mislead. The Government is trying to defend the indefensible to a country in which the vast majority of people who have addressed themselves to the issue of Bill C-22 have spoken in opposition to it.
The Minister recited a long list of those who are supposed to be unequivocally in support of Bill C-22. Let us just take a couple of examples of those the Government purports are in favour of Bill C-22. The Minister tells us that Dr. Stuart Smith of the Science Council supports the Bill, and that must be interpreted to mean that Bill C-22 is seen by Dr. Smith as the only possible approach to securing research investment in the pharmaceutical industry. But what in fact did Dr. Smith say? He said, "To summarize, Science Council members agree some research is better than none''. That is a clear reference to the fact that these companies, who have given the Minister their promise, have not been doing research to any significant degree and any improvement in that situation by whatever mechanism, whether the Eastman mechanism or the Bill C-22 mechanism, would be welcome in that context.
Dr. Smith goes on to say, "We commend the Government that intellectual property will be better protected". But there are any number of approaches to improving the protection afforded to intellectual property. One way of protecting intellectual property is to see that the originator is paid royalties. The issue then becomes, how much in royalties? One could also protect to an appropriate degree-that is, in balance to all the other demands which have to be met on behalf of the people-by affording four years of exclusivity as well as some other regime of royalty payments, as Dr. Eastman has suggested.
As Dr. Smith observes, there are some deficiencies with respect to this Bill in social costs. He states:
We have some concerns about social costs. Mostly we worry that Bill C-22 does not by itself, or with any other policy, really bring about a change and improvement in Canada's pharmaceutical industry or its international balance of payments.
Does that sound like an unequivocal endorsation of Bill C-22, Mr. Speaker? Of course, it does not. It was not Dr. Smith's intention that the Minister stand here and say that the head of the Science Council is four-square in favour of Bill C-22.
The Minister also said that the University of Manitoba supports this Bill. My colleague telephoned the University of Manitoba and, as one might expect, because there should be common sense involved in the notion that a university would support this legislation, that university did not endorse this legislation.
We could go through the entire list of those associations the Minister says support this legislation and we would find the same degree of equivocation among most of them, with the exception of the Pharmaceutical Association of Canada. Of course, it supports anything that would get these people, that is the multinational pharmaceutical industry, mostly American owned, to put more money into this country for research.
Having made reference to the long list of so-called supporters referred to by the Minister, 1 have to say that the Minister has said a great deal about the inappropriateness of the Senate's attempt to significantly amend this legislation. The position of my Party is clear. It has always been clear. The Senate, as it is presently constituted, deserves abolition. If the Government feels that the Senate should be abolished, the Prime Minister has the support of my Leader and, presumable, if they can work it out, the support of the Liberal Party. So let us get on with that. But let us not call into question what is obviously true. There is a constitutional power of the Senate to deal with this issue.
Having referred so constantly to the undemocratic nature of the other place, it has to be said that the other place accorded more opportunity for those who are opposed to this Bill to speak than did the Government. It was a shameful performance on the part of the majority members of the committee who held hearings on this legislation that witnesses who expressed themselves in opposition were badgered. Their time was limited. The Hon. Member from Burlington, in his
August 24, 1987

remarks to those who expressed themselves in opposition to this Bill, could only be regarded as a poor reflection on this House, and manifestly undemocratic in his behaviour with respect to the process. Therefore, in my opinion, we have the silly situation that we, who regard this House as the place where democracy has a voice, are in the position that it is the Senate which provides those in opposition to the bill the greatest opportunity to express themselves.
What came about was a recommendation by the Senate to amend this Bill along the lines of those recommended by the Eastman Commission. The Eastman Commission carried out the most thorough study of drug legislation in the history of this country. It is a study which is respected around the world. The Eastman Commission said there should be some change in the present arrangements, that there should be four years of exclusivity, not 10 years, and there should be a specific mechanism for ensuring that research would be done, not a namby-pamby promise on the part of an industry which, in making the promise, knows that it has joined with the Government in misleading the Canadian people about what really is afoot.
When we consider tax concessions for research, the new arrangements for matching funds between industry and NSRC for funding university research, the increasing average age of the population and therefore the increased demand for pharmaceuticals, and when we look at the projections of the increases in rates of expenditures for research over the last five or ten years, what we must conclude is that by 1995 there will be an additional $1.3 billion more spent on research, so-called, in any case, whether or not this legislation is passed. In addition to that sum there would be something in the order of $2 billion spent on additional capital expenditures. This translates into an empty promise in the sense that that promise was based on a set of facts that would have existed whether or not Bill C-22 is passed.
Let us consider the type of research that will be done. Is this investment of the kind that will establish the concerted centres of excellence in the country that will pursue basic research? My colleague, the Minister, talks a great deal about basic research. He knows nothing about basic research if he thinks that what the drug companies will do is basic research. If he wants basic research, then he should put some more money into the universities to keep the promise made by the Prime Minister that the rate of investment in research would reach 2.5 per cent of the GNP. That is how basic research is increased. There are very few companies, certainly not American, Swiss, British or German ones, with their centres in their home countries which will disperse their research efforts in Canada. It is an unreasonable proposition to make. Thus we have a mixture of complete misunderstanding of what basic research is all about, and an attempt to use what was already there as justification for what should not be.
Patent Act
I talked about the role of the Senate in at least allowing the Canadian people to speak. I omitted to mention that the Government was far more anxious to listen to those from outside the country than to those within it. We had the President of the United States, the Vice-President of the United States, who is a former Chairman of Pfizer, we had Pratt, the Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Trade, who is also a big wheel in a drug company, we had American after American come up here and say, "Look, better pass this Bill or there will be no free trade deal". In short, it was one of those concessions that one might have made, I suppose, during the course of bargaining to gain something from the Americans. But we gave it away.
As I said before, the President said, "Look, you will have to do something about drug prices up there in Canada. You will have to stop providing cheap drugs to sick people." The Prime Minister said, "Yes, sir". But when Bill Haddad wanted an opportunity to express the point of view of the generics from the United States, his input was rejected. When Ralph Nader said, "Look, my God, don't allow to happen in Canada what has happened in the United States," that was rejected. When Henry Waxman, a distinguished Congressman, made a similar warning it was also ignored.
This is a Government with selective ears. It is a Government that refuses to listen. It is a Government that could have had a well thought out proposition for protecting consumers, for stimulating a measure of research, not on the basis of a promise, but on the basis of a mechanism that would make that promise come true. But, no, it wanted to play a fast one on the Canadian people.
This is a Government that is characterized by the vast majority of Canadians as being fundamentally dishonest, lacking in credibility, in a hurry to do but slow to listen, a Government that has sold its credibility because of its own failings. It has an opportunity through a reconsideration of Bill C-22 to bring what it does into closer agreement with the will of the people.
While we in the New Democratic Party would have preferred that there be no legislation before the House at all, it is surely an inherent part of the democratic process that a government be willing to listen to all sides and to achieve through that traditional mechanism of politics and reasonable compromise a piece of legislation that would be far less offensive to Canadians and our own national welfare. But I guess that is not possible for a Government that takes its orders from Washington.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, sitting in my office, this morning, I could not believe the kind of paranoia in which the Hon. Member was indulging. I couldn't believe he was saying he is against creating 1,700 jobs in Montreal. Where is his colleague, the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin)? He should be sitting next to him to give him advice. Where are his colleagues? How will they dare show their faces in

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
Montreal at the next election? How will they be able to justify rising in the House of Commons to say they were against 1,700 jobs? How can anyone be against that? Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that the Socialist Party... I think they are more than socialist, they are almost communist. We have now reached the point that if we listen to what the Hon. Member is saying, obviously everyone is going to leave. They are going to go to the United States or somewhere else, because it will no longer pay to invest in Canada.
Does anyone realize what it costs to send a young person to university to study pure science? We have young graduates coming out of university and they want to do research. Is there any room for them in Canada, in Montreal or Toronto? No, Mr. Speaker, there is not. They go off to the United States. The Hon. Member is being paranoid when he says we are adopting this Bill because of the Americans. No, Mr. Speaker, it is not because of the Americans, it is because this Government believes the private sector is in the best position to create jobs. This Government believes that jobs must be made available, and that we need research and development to discover new drugs.
1 would like to ask him a question. Is this a kind of tactic on the part of socialists with communist leanings, to ensure, there will be no more companies in the pharmaceutical industry doing any research in Canada so that in the long term, we will have to go communist?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it really is amazing that this Hon. Member of the "PCP" Party would stand before the House and again utter the accusation that has already been such a terrible embarrassment to the Conservatives. The Hon. Member would declare that because the New Democratic Party stands for the average Canadian, and because it has a reputation among the vast majority of Canadians for fighting for justice for the ordinary Canadian, and seeing justice for everyone, that that is communistic. I saw a smile come to your face, Mr. Speaker, when those words were uttered.


Mr. Andre:: He always smiles.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am afraid that he has plenty to laugh about from that side of the House.
Let me address the substance of some of the other things stated by the Hon. Member. It is astounding that ignorance could be so well organized in a grammatical sense. I wish to advise the Hon. Member that I understand well the situation of students in science in the universities of this country. I spent 25 years struggling to get enough research funds in order to make it possible for Canadian students to do research that was first class. In the same manner as this Government has failed, previous governments failed to address the issue of funding basic research. Basic research is not done by the corporations.
Let me give the Hon. Member a quick kindergarten lesson in science. The genetic code was not discovered in the laboratories of Pfizer. Transduction was not discovered in the laboratories of Sandoz. The structure of the ribosome was not discovered in a corporate boardroom. All of those discoveries were made in universities. When companies finally patent a medicine or a pharmaceutical it is based on the fundamental discoveries that are carried out in the laboratory by scientists who will never earn as much as Tim Raines. When the Minister suggests that this legislation will make a professional baseball player out of a scientist in terms of how much money he receives for research, that argument reduces the whole subject to the level of the ridiculous, in the same manner as did this Hon. Member.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party is very aware of the need for research and of the future of our young people. I quite agree that in some universities, some extraordinary discoveries have been made.
However, perhaps we should explain to Canadians and recall how research services and science centres work in our universities. We have many young people studying with excellent professors. Of course, these young people take part in certain discoveries and some kinds of research. But why are these students in our Canadian universities so active? Because they hope that one day, when they come out of university, they will be able to find jobs in the private sector so they can earn a decent living to support their families.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's unconscionable opposition to this Bill will take away every hope these young people ever had of being able to work in their own country, to help their country and to become world leaders. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member would rather take the narrow view and thus make our young people go to other countries so they can develop their talents and make their contribution to mankind.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Again, 1 am afraid that we see the typical politician's ignorance of what motivates a scientist. A scientist does not become a scientist, that is, the type of scientist that does basic and fundamental research, the type of scientist that lays the foundation for the discoveries that occur in drug companies, or elsewhere, motivated by contract levels such as those found in baseball or hockey. Scientists are motivated by curiosity, a love of learning, being the first to discover something, and being part of an enterprise that has as its goal the understanding of the universe. If we think that something needs to be done to encourage scientists, then give them an opportunity to do research.
Do not be misled by the notion that the universities in this country are collectively first rate. They are not. In those criteria applied to judge the level of scientific enterprise, we rank eighth, ninth, and tenth among western industrialized nations. If we wish to create opportunity for our young people,
August 24, 1987

we had better make sure that our scope is wider than some nonsensical promise from the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Canada. We should make sure that the Prime Minister keeps his promises to create more investment in scientific research, and raise scientific expenditure to the level of 2.5 per cent of GNP by 1990. Keep those promises, and we will keep our students here.


Miss MacDonald:: And where will they go to work?


Mr. Orlikow:: 1 wish to direct a question to my hon. friend. Does he agree with me that the reason why the Hon. Member equated our Party with Communism is because of the desperation of the government Members when they realize how far down they are in the polls, particularly in Quebec?


Philip Derek Lewis: Looking at you gives us all hope.


David Orlikow: Obviously that Hon. Member across the way did not see the poll results that appeared in The Montreal Gazette which showed that the NDP has more support in Quebec than anywhere else. The people of Quebec approve of our proposals for a fair tax policy. They approve of our proposals that the rich are paying too little and the poor are paying too much, and they approve our proposals for universal child care. They reject the proposals of the Government. It is not Communism that they are worried about, it is the Conservative Government and its failure to keep its promises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Although the Hon. Member's time has expired, 1 will allow a short rebuttal.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: My colleague raised the delicate matter of the necessity soon to arise of that Hon. Member requiring another job. Having this opportunity to rise once more in reference to that Member's previous intervention, let me address the issue of research jobs in Montreal. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me that anyone who is serious and knows the facts, or who has any knowledge whatsoever of the record of multinational corporations in keeping promises would put her bets on a promise when there is a possibility of having a mechanism such as suggested by the Eastman Commission that would ensure that research would be done in this country. That mechanism is far more likely to lead to something other than broken promises and jobs in Montreal than Bill C-22. I would suggest that the Hon. Member break her habit and read the report of the Eastman Commission.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the new policy concerning patents happens to be one of our Government's policies which may very well prove to be one of the most beneficial to this country.
This policy has several objectives.
Patent Act
One is to turn Canada's pharmaceutical industry into a leading innovating sector through significant increases in research and development investments.
The percentage of sales invested in Canada by research and development firms has been rather low in the past, particularly when compared with that of such countries as the United Kingdom, Switzerland or the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition, prospective research investors do not particularly favour Canada because the drug industry has no guarantee with respect to the protection period it can expect to have for its patented products, something we want to rectify through this legislative measure.
Drug industry growth and competitiveness rest entirely on the discovery and development of new products, and on improving existing treatments. This is why it is imperative that it be allowed to benefit from its own research or make others benefit from it.
Low investments in Canada are a serious problem, especially when we consider that a country's economic expansion is geared to research and development. It is indeed one of the basic components of sustained economic expansion, and Hon. Members would know that industrial expansion is the cornerstone of this Government's economic recovery strategy.
The amendments to the Patent Act will change the present situation. The new policy represents a true research encouragement by widening patent protection. Bill C-22 will ensure that the pharmaceutical industry will enjoy for the medecine it has discovered an exclusivity period which is long enough to allow it to recover its research investments. The prospect of making profitable investments will certainly encourage researchers to develop new and efficient drugs which will benefit all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the innovative firms have promised to double their investments. This commitment means that research and development over the next ten years will increase from the current 4.9 percent of sales to 10 percent. This represents an additional $1.4 billion. This will bring to $3 billion the total amount which the industry will spend in research and development activities in Canada, not only in clinical research, but also in basic research.
Employmentwise, this increased research activity will create 3,000 new jobs in Canada for our high technology graduates. Our universities, hospitals, private research establishments everywhere in Canada, not only in Quebec and in Ontario, as was suggested these past few days, but everywhere in Canada, will benefit from this increased research. It is foreseen that up to 30 percent of the amounts provided for will go to these establishments and still more significant amounts will go to regions other than Quebec and Ontario.
On the medical level, one could not overemphasize the benefits from increased research. From the beginning of this debate, highly reputable people in all spheres and especially that of science have voiced their support. Through their

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
representations, Mr. Speaker, these medical authorities are not seeking monetary benefits. They are concerned, through their research, with discovering new drugs to improve the quality of life for Canadians. In the January 13 issue of the Le Devoir newspaper, Dr. Morin, a famous Quebec cardiologist, was reported as saying:
Beyond the principle of protecting intellectual property rights, the 1969 ordinance caused irreparable damage. Twenty years ago, Montreal was one of the major medical centres of the pharmaceutical industry. We have tried the utmost to chase it away.
When he appeared before the Legislative Committee, Dr. Michel Chretien stated, and I quote:
One of the major openings for these students entering the field of biomedical research is the pharmaceutical industry. However, this industry has had to limit its research staff, again because of the 1969 legislation. Young people have every reason to be concerned and reluctant. ..
to enter this field of study.
Dr. Chretien pointed out that, of the hundred or so who have graduated of the Montreal Clinical Research Institute since 1967, none now works in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. Four of them hold important positions in France, in Switzerland and in Germany, but not here. Dr. Chretien closed by saying that, as a biomedical scientist, he is in favour of amending the Patent Act to provide new stimulus to pharmaceutical research and make our industry internationally competitive.
Then, Mr. Gagne, from the University of Montreal, pointed out that opponents of the bill have never mentioned the months of hospitalization which could be avoided thanks to better drugs.
Mr. Speaker, the health of all Canadians will be improved, and this means that the costs incurred by our health system will be significantly reduced. The more we delay passage of this Bill, the more the benefits from this piece of legislation will be long in coming. Canadians will be the ones to suffer, particularly because the development of new and more effective treatment will be delayed.
Many reservations have been expressed about whether or not the innovative industry will respect its commitments for research and development. I can assure the House that this policy will result in an unprecedented increase of research expenditures.
The innovative industry has already provided concrete evidence of its good faith. Several companies have already announced publicly, even before passage of this Bill, investments amounting to over $700 million. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the promised amounts will be invested only after the bill is adopted.
The expenditures involved will affect fundamental research as well as clinical research and facility development. Here are three examples:
-$132.9 million will be spent over the next ten years in Alberta research centres, universities and hospitals;
-the Terry Fox Foundation and the Wellcome Foundation Ltd. will finance a biotechnical research centre at a cost of $40 million;
-the Upjohn Company in Toronto will provide $30 million for biotechnical research over the next five years and spend $22 million on capital projects.
I want to emphasize that innovative firms have no incentive whatsoever not to honour those commitments. They have everything to lose, starting with their reputations. Once their reputations are tarnished, it would be almost impossible to regain the public's and the Government's confidence.
In conclusion, I would like to say a few words on the mechanisms chosen by this Government to ensure that innovative firms honour their commitments. First, there is the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board which must submit to Parliament a yearly report including the percentage of research and development expenditures versus sales figures, not only for the overall innovative industry but also for each of its member firms. This is a most powerful tool which will inform us regularly on the performance of individual, innovative firms.
The legislation also provides for two formal reviews of the policy, to ensure that it serves the interests of Canadians. The first review will be made by Cabinet at any time after the expiration of four years after the Act comes into force. Parliament will make the second review, after the expiration of nine years after the Act has come into force. On those two occasions the Government will therefore be in a position to reduce or abolish the protection period if innovative firms have not met their commitments.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not understand the position taken by the Opposition on the Bill. On the one hand, the New Democratic Party is trying to sow fear and concern among seniors and the ill, when we know that group is completely covered by health-care programs. During their awareness campaigns directed to those people, they took this opportunity to fill their Party's coffers. On the other hand, strangely enough, they did not try to do the same thing in Quebec, because in Quebec the Senior Citizen's Federation along with a number of other agencies-and that Federation has over 200,000 members-support the Bill. As far as the Official Opposition is concerned, there is really nothing to understand. After repeated pressures at the time from the pharmaceutical industry-that was after 1969 and until 1980-the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Hon. Andre Ouellet, launched a process to review the act. The Liberal Party, if it were consistent with itself and its ideology, should support Bill C-22. If they do not support the legislation, they will show once more they do not know what they are doing and on many issues have no set policies.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary who has referred to the old, the sick and the general public who need protection. I should like to call her attention on clause 41 of the Bill which deals with
August 24, 1987

the establishment of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. 1 should like her to tell us exactly what powers this Board will have to control and, if necessary, roll back the prices of medicine, according to this Bill which she supports.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, there has never been in this country a board of this type to try and monitor price increases. For the first time in this country, such a board will be-


Charles L. Caccia: In 1977.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Moreover, Professor Eastman, who may be the force behind the whole review of this problem in Canada, has accepted to chair this Board and stated before the committees that he did so because he believes in this Bill and trust that Canadians will be properly protected against price increases.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has failed to answer my question and made a statement which is not historically correct. I should like to call her attention on the fact that there was a price control board in Canada in 1977. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me what powers this Board will have to control and monitor prices under Bill C-22. What are its control powers.


Gabrielle Bertrand: As I said earlier in my remarks, the Board will have every year an opportunity to review what is going on, the progression in the pharmaceutical industry. Also, every five years, the Government will have an opportunity to reconsider this policy, while every ten years, Parliament may review this Bill to see whether innovative companies have met their commitments in the area of investments, their research investment level and, finally, determine whether the prices paid by Canadians for their drugs is reasonable.
[DOT] <1250)


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary, in listing the benefits of this Bill, indicated that the Terry Fox Foundation was about to expend certain moneys assisting in research. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary knows that the Terry Fox Foundation is engaging in research presumably funded by donations from across the country. Is she putting it forth that that is one of the benefits of this Bill?


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly the Hon. Member's question, no, I do not think that at any time I ever questioned the incomparable contribution of Canadians, what the Canadian people contributed to the Terry Fox Foundation. What we know is that the Foundation is preparing-or rather the pharmaceutical industry is preparing to support that Foundation, as Canadians did.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's presentation. I assume from her comments
Patent Act
that she is in support of proceeding with the legislation without the proposed amendments. She is also interested in the research that the multinational drug companies will do as alleged by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).
I wonder if the Hon. Member plans to support the Government's position of taking the multinationals at their word that they will do research and development. Would she not think it appropriate that we should have something a little stronger than simply the word of some of the principals of the companies involved?
We expect that Canadian consumers who require prescription drugs will pay higher prices in the future. I do not think there is any question that existing drug prices will increase and I think that even the Government's own research would indicate that, because of a total lack of competition for many years, certain drug companies could literally charge whatever price the market will bear. Of course, that price would be in excess of what it would normally be if there were competition.
I would ask the Hon. Member, believing in her integrity, if she does not find it somewhat disconcerting that she is being asked to support legislation that promises research but in fact requires no commitment to do research other than some vague references to the fact that research will take place? Of course, when I say research, I am referring to something far beyond market research, something far beyond determining what kind of a bottle or package would sell more prescription drugs than others. I am referring to real research. Would she not like to see a commitment in the legislation that a certain percentage of the revenues raised by drug companies because of this exclusivity be spent on research here in Canada?


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, on a few occasions, together with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I attended press conferences held by a number of pharmaceutical corporations and in fact, looking at the commitment, the confidence of those people, the seriousness of their comments-and had I known I would have to answer that question I would have quoted them . . . Those people had left Montreal, those companies had left Canada and they are now coming back and are so happy to see finally that the legislation will come to pass, that we cannot help trusting them.
I think that from the minute the Bill is implemented, the next day those millions and billions of dollars will be announced. So I do not see why we would not trust an industry that used to be prosperous in Canada, that was chased away because of the 1969 Act and that is now preparing to announce a $1-billion investment effort, and above all the creation of so many new jobs for our young scientists and researchers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period of questions and comments has now ended.

August 24, 1987

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of native Indian students acquired Indian status under Bill C-31, passed by this House two years ago. Those students are entitled to post-secondary education assistance from the Department of Indian Affairs. However, they have been told they may not be able to go to school next month after all. There is no more funding for them at this time, although they are being told efforts are under way to obtain the necessary funds. They are being told to wait until Ottawa makes a decision. In the meantime they are in limbo.
They cannot leave their home communities to look for apartments because they do not know if they will receive funding. They risk losing their places in the courses in which they have enrolled. They cannot wait any longer.
They must know now whether they can go to school and they need the answer immediately. Therefore I urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to end this uncertainty and waiting. Give the students the assurance today that they will be able to go to school and not be let down. I ask, sir, that these students be encouraged rather than discouraged.



SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Stuart Smith steps down at the end of August as Chairman of the Science Council. He has been an eloquent spokesman for science and fully understood the linkage between research and the market-place, the need to develop a knowledge intensive society, and he had an enormous capability for communicating to the general public the importance of science.
Last week he cited some of the accomplishments which he had encouraged and shaped: the creation of a Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology in the House of Commons; the creation of a basic framework for a national science and technology policy; the creation of a new Department of Industry, Science and Technology; establishment of a space agency as announced in the Speech from the Throne; and encouraging more science in the high schools and more young women in science.
Dr. Smith, the former Leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, believes that science and technology have risen substantively on the list of government priorities, and he is reported as saying the present Conservative Government in the last 18 months has listened to him far more than the previous Liberal regime. I ask all those in this House to join me in thanking Dr. Smith for his enormous contribution to Canada and we wish him well in his new endeavours.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, last week we heard from the Canadian Council of Churches, through its interchurch committee on refugees, the stand of the major Canadian denominations, Roman Catholic and Protestant, against Bill C-84 as it presently stands. We heard from them before on Bill C-55.
Now we hear from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. I have this telegram which says:
World Relief Canada, which serves as the refugee re-settlement arm of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an association of 23 evangelical protestant denominations, strongly urges our Government not to pass Bills C-55 and C-84 as originally proposed. While we agree that abuses of our national largesse need to be prosecuted, we request that Parliament carefully consider amendments to the Bills which will strengthen fair treatment of bon fide refugees, and protect Canadians who helped them out of compassion and conscience.
R. E. Reimer World Relief Canada



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the mayor of Montreal officially gave his support to the patent legislation. The Montreal Chamber of Commerce has also made very positive representations. All Quebecers, and
August 24, 1987

particularly Montrealers, understand that this legislation means 1,300 jobs and $700 million in investments.
As for the eventual users, the chronically ill, senior citizens and, the injured, they know how important it is to have effective medication. This is why we need research and development and the amendments proposed in the patent legislation.
The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) is too weak to put pressure on the Senate. As for the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), what is he doing to defend the 1,300 jobs in Montreal and the $700 million in investments? If he is leader of his caucus for Quebec, he should clarify his position and put pressure on the Senate.
The same goes for the Leader of the socialist party (Mr. Broadbent). He and his party, who have always been against the Senate-you Socialists are too quick to applaud-suddenly decided to support it last week. Now, the socialist Leader prefers the Senate to the health, the jobs and the industries of Quebecers.
Canadians will remember this, Mr. Speaker.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, first, 1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) that the debate on Bill C-22 is not over. However, I am rising today to ask Canadians and Quebecers to continue to sign the petition which is now going around Canada to ensure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will not impose a tax on food in his tax reform.
Mr. Speaker, we are having so much success with this petition throughout Canada that, very belatedly last week-end, the Quebec Conservative caucus asked this same Minister to impose a sales tax throughout Canada, but to make sure, as the Federal Liberals have been asking for months, that this tax will not apply to food products. I thank these new supporters of our campaign. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that, since we are now in agreement, our campaign will continue because we cannot affort to relax with this Government as we know that it acts only under pressure. We shall therefore keep up the our pressure, Mr. Speaker.



SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Special Canadian Grains Program helped to correct partially the intolerable situation created by the subsidy war between the EEC and the U.S. Farm Bill and will undoubtedly save hundreds of our farms, but it also hurt many farmers.
For example, many Canadian hay producers are on the verge of bankruptcy because the subsidies paid under the Grains Program enabled barley and green feed producers to sell at a reduced price to the feeders.
Second, the first payment failed to recognize the difference in yields of grains grown on stubble, on summer fallow, and on irrigated lands. This was partially corrected in the second payment when payment was made for the increased yields on irrigated lands providing the water was supplied by an irrigation district. The program refused to pay for the increased yields on lands that were irrigated by farmers who irrigated their lands through a co-op, an association, or privately, even though they grew the same crops and had similar yields and the same input costs. This is absolutely unfair and is infuriating hundreds of farmers.
Fairness is the essence of this Government's program and these unfair decisions should be corrected immediately.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, one of government's most vital functions is to maintain the integrity of our financial systems. Confidence in financial institutions underpins the operation of the capital markets and payment systems and confirms the credibility necessary to support the value of our currency. It is also important that Governments ensure that depositors are made clearly aware of the security of their deposits and the risks attached thereto.
With regard to the collapse of the Principal Group empire, many of the depositors have alleged that they were misled into believing that their deposits were 100 per cent safe and secure. We now know that such was not the case.
I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to consider the proposal recently put forth by the Consumers' Association of Canada that, when depositors make an uninsured investment, they sign a waiver indicating that they are well aware that it is not covered by insurance.

August 24, 1987
While Governments cannot insulate consumers from shoddy or shady practices by financial institutions, they can reduce opportunities for such activities and minimize the financial damage caused by unscrupulous investment counsellors.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the rail strike will cause incalculable damage to the nation, particularly to the economy of western Canada which relies so heavily on the bulk shipment of commodities such as grain, coal and potash.
Prairie farmers could ill afford the Thunder Bay and Vancouver closures and they certainly cannot afford this latest episode. Canada simply cannot afford to fritter away all the good economic progress achieved over the past three years- solid progress evidenced by the fact that 865,000 more Canadians are working today than three short years ago.
Strikes and lockouts are primitive, archaic weapons whereby the few can visit untold misery on the backs of all Canadians. Surely the time has come to find a better way to resolve labour-management disputes in essential services without these stoppages which hurt all Canadians.
1 urge the establishment of a parliamentary committee to study alternatives and make the appropriate recommendations. In the meantime, I urge legislation putting an early end to this sorry, unnecessary, and yet all too common situation.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the long and sad saga of the Guelph-Toronto Toxicology centre goes on. The funds for this centre were cut from Environment Canada's budget in November, 1984, as you may recall. All of a sudden, in August, 1987, $12 million is found by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), not for a toxicology study centre but for a pest-control research facility in London, Ontario, to study biological and other pest-control programs aimed at reducing the reliance of farmers on pesticides in the long run.
This is good, but one wonders why the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) cannot find the funds necessary
for the development of the long overdue Guelph-Toronto toxicology centre. Toxic chemical contamination is becoming a fact of life, particularly in the Great Lakes Basin, which affects the population living around it. What we badly need is a centre to study the effects of toxic chemicals on human health.
Canadians are wondering why the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) cannot find funds to launch the Guelph-Toronto toxicology centre. Can it be attributed to ineptness?



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to draw to the attention of the Canadian public a situation which 1 feel is totally and unequivocally unacceptable. What I am referring to are the actions of some specific Members of this House who blatantly and repeatedly abuse their parliamentary privileges. They take advantage of the immunity granted to them by this House to viciously malign private citizens who have absolutely no means to defend themselves.
These character assassinations destroy the lives of not only the individuals but also their families and children. In many cases apologies are required after the fact, but this will never undo the damage.
I am referring directly to two recent incidents involving the defaming of two Petro-Canada employees and two members of CSIS, where I know this to be the case. On behalf of these people I would like to send a simple message to the fair-minded and honest citizens of our great country. When you hear degrading comments and slanderous remarks, do not take them at face value but consider the source.
Finally, I would like to apologize to the individuals who have fallen prey to the likes of those who use such cowardly and underhanded means. I refer to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that while there is a lot of latitude used in Statements by Members and, in general, something that is a complaint can, of course, be mentioned, but it is not appropriate to identify a particular Member.
August 24, 1987



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been on the chopping block since the 1984 election. No other Department has lost so much of its budget. The slashing of staff, budgets and research is leading to chaos in our commercial, sport and food fisheries.
There is an urgent need for watershed management boards involving all user groups, especially on the Skeena River. The pressure on some wild stocks of salmon and steelhead has reached the breaking point. Many runs, in fact entire races of these anadromous species are becoming extinct.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) does not blink at giving the Reichman brothers a $1 billion tax holiday with the "little Egypt bump" on Gulf Oil, $1 billion to bail out the Northland and Canadian Commercial Banks and a SI billion tax holiday to the big banks for their mismanagement of loans outside Canada. What about our fisheries? How about a break for those who derive their livelihood, their sports activity and food from the seas and rivers?
Time and again the Minister has been asked to establish a process to bring all fishing sectors together in the spirit of avoiding resource conflicts and possible confrontation. No initiative has been shown. While the Minister holidays and negotiates lower flows on our rivers, steelhead and salmon runs disappear. Once again what western Canadians prize in our fisheries this Conservative Government neglects and destroys. How about a "blink" for our fish?



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, most of the opposition to Bill C-22, the patent drug legislation, has been based on the falsehood that consumers will be adversely affected. The Liberals and New Democrats have been practising political opportunism of the most despicable kind. They are preying on the fears of seniors and the ill. However, it is important to note that there is a lot of support for the Bill as passed by the House of Commons in May.
This morning, in Charlottetown, the General Council of the Canadian Medical Association, which represents 43,000 Canadian doctors, passed the following resolution unanimously:
That the Canadian Medical Association declares its support in principle for Bill C-22 as a measure which in the long term is likely to benefit the health of Canadians.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, those who work in the health care field, and can offer an objective opinion, support Bill C-
22.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning to the very unwelcome news that the national railways were shut down due to striking unions.
This is bad news for the people of northern Ontario, as it is for others across the country. The resource based industries of the North depend greatly on the rail service. In the riding of Timiskaming the iron ore mine of Adams-Sherman, which has 800 workers, ships pellets to Hamilton. Lumber mills across the North and the Ontario Northland Railway, which is a regional railroad, are also heavily dependent on rail service.
I trust that the Government will act to ensure a speedy resolution of this labour dispute. We would like to see all Canadians back on track.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement to make with regard to the Post Office and to its commemorative stamps program.
Most Canadians would have been shocked, as I was, to read that the Anglican Church was denied a commemorative stamp, an historic stamp. I cannot for the life of me figure out why. Other major churches and institutions have been accorded such stamps. The Post Office has given these stamps for many different purposes, so why could it not add one more stamp to the historic stamps it will issue this year? Why is it at least appearing to discriminate against the Anglican Church? I find this difficult to understand.
I hope that the Government will take the Post Office president by the collar, shake him up a bit and say: "Pay a little attention to the people of Canada and stop being deaf when people bring their concerns to you and ask you for a small action that could reflect the historic events of our country".

August 24, 1987
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, last week when I asked what the Government intended to do to avoid a rail strike here is what the Minister of Transport had to say as reported in Hansard at page 8167:
-the Government has no intention of intervening unless that becomes
absolutely necessary on behalf of the public interest-
Now that the Government has allowed the situation to deteriorate into a full-scale national strike, now that commuters have to scurry around in the morning trying to find alternative ways to get to work, now that grain, coal, sulphur and other commodities are piling up in warehouses instead of moving, and now that tourists are stranded across the country, may 1 ask the Minister if he does not think that it is time to act decisively "on behalf of the public interest", to quote the Minister again?
What does the Government intend to do to try to get an early negotiated settlement of this strike? For example, does the Government intend to modify or to extend the mandate of the mediator? What else does the Government plan to do to settle this matter?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the entire litany of my colleague opposite. I can inform the House that, considering the framework of the recommendations contained in Commissioner Stanley's report, and the assistance of mediator Carson, I am deeply concerned and disappointed at the parties' abdication of their responsibility to come to a settlement. Notwithstanding that, earlier today I summoned the negotiating teams of the parties to Ottawa to start negotiating again with the help of mediator Carson and my Associate Deputy Minister Bill Kelly in a final attempt at mediation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, 1 am certainly not encouraged to see that it is the Minister of Labour who is in charge of settling this strike. We all remember his record on the postal strike.


DEREGULATION OF TRANSPORT INDUSTRY-WORKER LAY-OFFS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the transportation deregulation program of the Government has already resulted in lost jobs without adequate provision of measures to have the workers adapt. The Government does not appear to realize that this has caused grave concerns with the workers and has embittered labour relations. This is making a settlement of the strike very difficult.
1 would like to ask the Government, or perhaps the Minister of Transport, whether they think it is high time that the Government thought in terms of reviewing its deregulation program in order to bring a more humane approach to lay-offs of employees, as this is making the settlement of the strike very difficult. 1 would like to see it settled with a negotiated settlement before it takes its toll on the Canadian economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: Because of the fact that my hon. colleague does not seem to know exactly which question to ask, he asks about 10.
With respect to my record, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he is against negotiated settlements as occurred in the Post Office?


RAIL STRIKE-MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, last week we were told that the Government has no intention of doing anything about the rail strike until it becomes absolutely imperative to do so. Now that we are in a strike situation, now that people have to seek alternate means of transport to get to work in the morning, now that such basic commodities as wheat, coal and others are being stockpiled in warehouses instead of being delivered, I would ask the Government what it is going to do since the time to consider public interest-as the Minister said last week-has come indeed. Does the Minister, who spoke to the mediator this morning, intend to change and extend his mandate? What measures will the Government take to prevent the rail strike from dragging on and doing irrepai-rable harm to the Canadian economy?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should send my colleague a copy of the Canada Labour Code just so he will know exactly how the collective bargaining process works. From the outset, even when the Canada Post issue was making headlines, he has been urging the Government to intervene. The Government intervenes when and as provided under the Canada Labour Code, and 1 already asked my colleague whether he was against the collective bargaining process. To be more specific, I should like to quote the last sentence of the telegram I sent to both parties, and 1 quote:

I urge you take advantage of Mr. Kelly's expertise in the railway industry,
as well as his mediation skills, and discharge your responsibility to terminate
this dispute through collective bargaining.


CANADIAN NATIONAL'S CORPORATE PLAN-PROPOSED REDUCTION OF WORKFORCE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In looking at CN's corporate plan we see a massive reduction of 25 per cent of its workforce over the next five years.
August 24, 1987

How can the Minister expect the union leaders to agree to sign a collective agreement that does not give the workers job security?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is the obligation of the management of Canadian National, as it is of the management of CP, to manage the company in the best manner they can, given all the circumstances that they have to face.
It is well known in the railway industry that there has been a reduction in the number of people who work in the railway industries in Canada, the United States, and other countries as the nature of the transportation system has changed. Trucking has become more competitive, shipping has become more competitive, therefore management has had to deal with that regrettable situation.
CN has indicated that in the future it will have to be very careful with respect to how many people it employs, and attempt to increase productivity. All of this helps the shippers of Canada, helps to make Canada competitive, and helps to make Canadian products competitive. It helps to sell grain abroad at a competitive price. The hon. gentleman knows this.
As to security under the contract, there were provisions in the contract that are still in effect that deal with that question. It is now a matter for negotiation between the parties, and I don't think I should say anything further.


OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH PROGRAM TO ASSIST EARLY RETIREES
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just taken the Pontius Pilate way out, and I think it is unacceptable that he should shift the entire responsibility for the loss of 12,000 jobs on to CN.
Would the Minister be prepared to provide immediately an early retirement program for railway employees who will be directly affected by the massive deregulation imposed by the Conservative Government? This early retirement program has already been tried previously and successfully by the former Government in the case of textile and footwear industry employees, who were laid off because of changing conditions.
Could the Minister accept his responsibility and do something for the railway employees?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility, as I conceive it, is to see that the parties are left to negotiate in good faith, to reach a settlement as quickly as possible with respect to this collective bargaining
Oral Questions
dispute. That is the system of law that was left to us by the previous Government, and with which we agree.
The Minister of Labour has described the efforts he is now making to call upon additional mediation, which I heartily support. It is not my duty and responsibility to intervene for cheap political reasons, to make it appear that we are taking some action that might be very damaging to a long lasting and permanent settlement to this dispute.


JOB SECURITY ISSUE-EFFECT OF LAY-OFFS ON OLDER WORKERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In recent labour disputes, whether it was Air Canada, CBC, Canada Post, or right now with CN, job security has been the issue. I do not believe it is a cheap political shot to ask the Minister where people who have worked for CN for 25 to 30 years and are now fifty or sixty years old will get work.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think the House and anyone who is fair minded will recognize that CN is one of the leaders in the area of job security in Canada, and when it has been put in the unfortunate situation of having to lay off or terminate employees for various reasons, it has been among the most generous employers in Canada. There is a system in effect now by which certain provisions go into effect if one has, I believe, eight years service and is laid off. CN has nothing to apologize for. I know it will want to improve that system as time permits and its economic position permits. It has already indicated that. That is a matter that is now subject to mediation and collective bargaining.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering that the Crown corporations I mentioned in my first question have been negotiating against job security, what is the Government's position with regard to what those Crown corporations should be doing in terms of negotiating job security? I am sure most Canadians want an answer to that question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our position is to encourage CN to be as generous as possible with respect to employees who have to be given notice that they can no longer continue to work for the company for various reasons. That was demonstrated in the Moncton case, for example, but frustrated by certain parties that did not cooperate to settle that issue. We will continue to encourage CN to do that. I am sure it will do its best to see that there is a fair solution.

August 24, 1987
Oral Questions TRADE


IMPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN POTASH IMPORTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is fully aware that on Friday the United States announced the imposition of up to a devastating 85 per cent tariff on potash exports to that country, which will have an effect upon $350 million worth of exports and affect up to 4,000 jobs in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and other provinces.
The Minister for International Trade said the reaction of the Canadian Government was only one of disappointment. Does that mean the Canadian Government is in effect agreeing with the United States' determination of this matter, or does it intend to fight through every possible avenue and recourse, and not cave in like it did in the softwood lumber case in which it imposed a tax on ourselves and set a precedent that has resulted in this kind of further action being imposed on Canadian producers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, certainly the Government is very disappointed and is reviewing the case very carefully. I think the Hon. Member is aware that this is one step in a very complicated quasi-judicial process, but I think it is fair to point out that all this leads to the fact that we do need a comprehensive trading arrangement.
This decision is a product of the current trading relationship we have with the United States and we are trying to confront this issue in the broadest possible sense by working out a solution which would be encompassed in a framework that would provide a comprehensive trading relationship between our two countries with an adequate dispute resolving mechanism. The Hon. Member should be supporting that initiative rather than picking holes in it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I only want to point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that it appears that the more we negotiate, the more we get hit by American trade actions which are having an incredibly damaging effect on all parts of the Canadian economy. So much for the negotiations when all we do is pay the price and they get the benefits.


SUPPORT FOR PRODUCERS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if the Government intends to provide any form of contingency protection for the potash producers in order to ensure that they stay in business and continue their operations, or is in fact any support that might be provided prohibited under the proposed free trade negotiations in which the Government is presently engaged?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for International Trade has pointed out, she and officials will be working very closely with the Government of Saskatchewan, the potash companies and all those involved to try to work together toward presenting the best possible case.
There is simply no question about the fact that there is a strong protectionist sentiment in the United States, and I know my hon. friend across the way shares some of those political views with his colleagues south of the border. What we in this country need more than anything, and it is becoming clearer every day, is a comprehensive trade arrangement with a dispute resolving mechanism that can see these kinds of issues resolved once and for all.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, what the people of Canada need is a Government that will just for once stand up for their interests in trade with the United States. Apropos of that, I would like to ask the Minister a specific question. Since this is damaging to an industry that exports about $500 million worth of products each year and affects the people of New Brunswick as well as the people of Saskatchewan, what is the Government of Canada planning to do concretely on a bilateral basis with the United States to get it to reverse this totally unjustified whack at another Canadian export industry that happens to be doing very well in fair competition?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that this was not an initiative taken by the U.S. Government, it was an initiative taken by the industry. It is the first step in a long series of steps through a very complicated quasi- judicial process. As I indicated to the previous questioner, the Government of Canada stands very solidly in support of the Canadian industry, the Government of Saskatchewan and individuals in trying to put the best case forward on behalf of Canada and the potash producers of Canada.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister knows very well, this follows a long series of unfortunate and unfair decisions on shakes and shingles, tubular steel, softwood, pork and a whole range of products. The last time a major decision was made against us was on the softwood issue. The Government then said it would protest the American decision at GATT. Instead of doing that, it caved in and, in a masochistic way, imposed a self-inflicted punishment on Canadians in order to mesh with the American decision.
Since the Government promised it would take the earlier unfair decision to GATT and it did not, will we get a concrete promise now about what the Canadian Government will do to
August 24, 1987

protect potash producers? Will the Government deliver on that promise?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would have rather seen the $600 million flow to the United States than stay in Canada. That is certainly contrary to the views of this Government and the views of most Canadian Premiers.
While the Hon. Member seems to take great satisfaction in bearing bad news, may 1 just point out that the Canada West Foundation which has just done a study on the trade negotiations has indicated that in the Province of Saskatchewan, about which the Hon. Leader of the NDP seems to be concerned, a comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States would produce about 55,000 new jobs. It also points out that failure to secure an agreement would cost the Canadian economy some 350,000 jobs. Why does the Hon. Leader of the NDP, not get on with it and support the protection of Canadian jobs and the Government's initiatives?
1 think the workers of Canada would laud him for his efforts.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this Party favours an approach that has worked quite well, and that is to deal with the United States on a multilateral, multinational basis in order to get fair trade all around the world and not just a special deal with the United States that is bound to work to our disadvantage.
Since the Deputy Prime Minister has expressed concern for the impact on the workers of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick who will potentially be affected by this, and I have no doubt that he is quite genuine about it, what plans is the Government considering putting in place if worse comes to worst and there are significant lay-offs in this sector of those two provinces as a result of this unfair American decision?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader is a lecturer in a classroom yet he does not understand a few lessons from an ordinary layman like myself. I have tried to point out that the Canada West Foundation has indicated that a free trade arrangement would save some 350,000 jobs in Canada and produce some 55,000 new jobs-


John Edward Broadbent: I will give you federal studies that show the opposite.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Council of Canada and other organizations like that share the same view. I am not trying to argue that black is white, but obviously the Leader of the NDP is.
I would like to point out that in connection with the reference to GATT, the Minister has indicated in a press release that we will be reviewing the Commerce decision,
Oral Questions
particularly with a view to ensuring that it is consistent with the United States' obligations under GATT. 1 think that should respond to the earlier question raised by the Hon. Member.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSTPONEMENT OF MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. Speaking of studies, the Government's own study from its Department of Regional Industrial Expansion shows that a lot more industries and a lot more jobs would be hurt than would be helped by the Government's free trade initiative.
If the Prime Minister is so convinced that the provincial Premiers support what he is doing, why has he unilaterally and without consulting with the provincial Premiers postponed a meeting with them to consider a draft text of a free trade agreement from an agreed on date of September 8 to September 14? If the Prime Minister has made such a postponement, could it be that deep in his own heart he realizes that giving the Premiers enough time to study any draft text of a free trade agreement would show that it is not a good deal for Canada and should not be proceeded with?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose my hon. friend would want to square the comments he has made with those made recently by Premier Bourassa, the Liberal Premier of Quebec, who said that the absence of a free trade arrangement would mean the irreversible decline of Quebec in Canada economically. When the free trade initiative is supported by the Premiers as it is, I think my hon. friend would do well to listen to their voices and to the objective studies.
My hon. friend referred to the Economic Council of Canada which predicted a net increase of some 350,000 new jobs in Canada and a decline in unemployment, particularly in our far-flung regions. This is why we are seeking so actively a free trade initiative. It means jobs and prosperity for Canadians, particularly in those areas that have not had the kinds of low unemployment rates we have been able to bring to southern Ontario, for example. I know my hon. friend would want fairness to prevail in employment.
Regarding the time, we are seeking an occasion on which the First Ministers can review carefully, in all the time required, any trade arrangement, if indeed we conclude one. We are looking for a mutually acceptable date.


STUDY BY PREMIERS OF DRAFT AGREEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that if the meeting the Prime Minister is going to have with the Premiers to look at what could be a draft of a free trade agreement does not take place until September 14 it will leave only some three weeks, or about fourteen working days, for the Premiers to consider a matter very vital to Canada

August 24, 1987
Oral Questions
because the deadline for presenting such an agreement to Congress is October 5? How can the Premiers be expected to give such an important matter adequate study?
Is this not another example of how the Prime Minister and his Government are trying to ram through an issue vital to Canada without permitting full and proper discussion by the Premiers and the Canadian people?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Thunderous applause.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is hard to hear me over that applause.


André Ouellet: We can do it again if you want.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find the concern about what might be in a free trade briefing to be a little ironic coming from my friend inasmuch as he and his Party turned down the opportunity to receive a full confidential briefing from Ambassador Reisman. For someone to say he is interested in getting the facts, and then does that, means that he is trying to be on both sides of the issue, as his Party invariably seeks to be.
He asks whether three weeks are ample time to consider a proposed free trade arrangement. My hon. friend seems to think this will be the first time the First Ministers have seen the document.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is true.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our last meeting lasted seven or seven and a half hours. Meetings before that lasted hours. There have been dozens of ministerial meetings and I understand many dozens of meetings between officials. Various Premiers, including Premier Peckford and Premier Getty, have commented on the fullness of the information and the celerity with which it is transmitted to the provinces. The Premiers are fully informed of what is going on and I can assure my hon. friend that at the next meeting, and any other meetings required, they will have full access to all information and lots of time to make up their minds on its value to Canada.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF REPORTED CORRESPONDENCE ON CANADIAN POLICY WITH RESPECT TO AUTO TRADE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. 1 have here copies of correspondence between the Office of the U.S. Representative for External Trade and Congressman John Dingwall. This correspondence, although it is a year old, is proof of a concerted attack on key elements of Canada's policy on the automobile industry as reflected in the Auto Pact.
Could the Minister confirm that is indeed the case?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, is the Hon. Member referring to a report, which is about a year old, raised by the CBC? If so, that is a bit of an old news item and there is really nothing new to add. This had to do with an exchange of correspondence between the U.S. trade representative and a Michigan Congressman concerning duty remission arising out of the Canadian Auto Pact. This matter was debated to some extent a year ago and nothing has changed.
The position of the Canadian Government is the same. We have not raised the Auto Pact. Neither has the U.S., I am advised. If issues surrounding the Auto Pact are raised which would improve Canada's position, of course we would be prepared to sit down and talk about it.


DUTY REMISSION SCHEME
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, let me make clear that the reference was to the calling into question of the Canadian duty remission scheme. Will the Canadian Government, during the free trade negotiations, accept the American position that in order to have such a pact the duty remission scheme must be cancelled? That scheme was intended to produce and has produced Canadian jobs.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this issue was raised about a year ago. Nothing has changed since that time. The position of the Canadian Government is quite clear. We have not raised the Auto Pact. I am told the U.S. has not raised the issue. If proposals are made that would enhance the arrangement and be in Canada's interest, certainly that would be the case.
The Hon. Member's Party was invited to sit in on a confidential briefing requested by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. His Party refused. I think it is really inappropriate to try to hammer out a very complex arrangement on the floor of the House of Commons.


TAX REFORM
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question was meant for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of State (Finance).
Inspired by the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. John Turner, thousands of Canadian men and women have signed petitions this summer urging the
August 24, 1987

Government to withdraw its proposed sales tax on food. Over the weekend the Quebec Conservative caucus finally saw the light and came out against this food tax.
Better still, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, and 1 quote: "When we live in a democracy we must take the wishes of the people into account, otherwise we would not be acting democratically but quite stupidly." Can the Minister of State (Finance) tell me whether the Conservative Government has shelved its plan to tax food, or has it decided to act stupidly, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said?


Marcel Prud'homme: Poor Marcel, he has put his foot in it again-


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we never maintained that we were going to tax food, never! I deplore the fact that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), for example, should renew his scare tactics campaign. What we want is an honest debate on the tax reform.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, nor did they ever say they would not tax food, and that is the point.

Conservative times are hypocrisy times. You must beware of that.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot fool Canadians all the time.


Mr.   de Cotret@: You certainly tried.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want a straightforward answer. Canadians in general do not want a hidden consumer tax. They do not want a tax on food. We have been tabling petitions to the Government asking that food not be taxed. Will the Minister get up and categorically deny that the Government intends to put a tax on food?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has made it clear on a number of occasions that this Government has not confirmed in any way that it is going to tax food. What it has confirmed is that the federal sales tax system is in disrepair, as it has been for decades, and we are going to change it for the better.


TAX ON FOOD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question dealing with the same matter is directed to the Prime Minister.
Considering that the Quebec Progressive Conservative caucus has endorsed the position of my caucus and has stated its opposition to a sales tax on food, is the Prime Minister
Oral Questions
aware of the fact that 93 per cent of all Canadians are opposed to a food tax and can he assure them that the government will not introduce a sales tax on food?


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Member is somewhat late in asking such a question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is asking me to point out to the Hon. Member that he is late. It is done.
The Minister has already answered the question. The Conservative caucus has taken a stand on the matter during the weekend as any political organization is entitled and indeed has an obligation to do so. It would perhaps be interesting to know where does the NDP caucus from Quebec stand on Bill C-22. There are 1 300 jobs in Montreal waiting for the answer of the New Democrats on a vital project for Quebec and Canada.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Despite the comments of the Minister of State for Finance the Government is considering a sales tax on food which will add $400 a year to the cost of living of the average Canadian family.
In view of the opposition of 93 per cent of Canadians and that of his own caucus in Quebec, will the Prime Minister now assure that his Government will not impose a sales tax on food? That is the question Canadians want answered.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just, no doubt inadvertently, misled the House with the direct statement that the Government is considering a sales tax on food. That is false.
The Government put out, as it ought to in a democracy, a White Paper dealing with a very complex issue. We set out some options for consideration and debate by parliamentarians and all Canadians. They are to be addressed, but not to be distorted and deformed as my hon. friend has just done.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. So far, recognized groups have proposed amendments to the Meech Lake Accord but all have been rejected by the Government. Today, the

August 24, 1987
Oral Questions
Supreme Court of Canada has revealed its opinion-the same as that of the Official Opposition-that the Meech Lake Accord should be amended to allow the Territories to submit lists of candidates, including judges and lawyers, for the Supreme Court of Canada. Does the Prime Minister also reject the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should put his question in the proper context. I do not agree with the premise of the question. Not having seen the total report and having read only the press reports on the report of the Canadian Bar Association, I would not draw the same conclusions.
The reality is that the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association had to do with eligibility of members of the Bars of the Northwest Territory and Yukon. Our position has been clear. We consider them eligible for appointment. That, purely and simply, is the situation which faces us with this report. If the Supreme Court judges agree with us, I am very grateful.


NOMINATIONS TO SUPREME COURT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will look into precisely what has been recommended. As 1 understand it, it has indeed been expressed as the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada that the territories should be able to submit lists directly.
Is the Government prepared to accept that very sensible suggestion so that, like the provinces, the territories can suggest names to be considered by the federal Government for appointment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members will know, this is the subject of litigation at the present time. The position of the territories is before the courts, initiated by them. I think it is highly improper for us to be commenting on issues before the courts.
I have indicated our position which has been set forth by counsel on behalf of the federal Government which sustains the position I have articulated. I think we should now leave the matter to the courts to resolve the exact legal position.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SOFTWOOD LUMBER TARIFF
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber bound for the U.S. This is the largest self-imposed fiscal penalty in world trade history
and costs our largest industry and largest source of balance of trade $600 million a year in penalty.
Is the Prime Minister suggesting to Canadians that, following the signing of a free trade agreement with the United States, he will lift this self-imposed penalty against our softwood lumber?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a self-inflicted penalty. Under one proposal this $600 million a year was going to go into the coffers of the United States. Under the proposal worked out by the Government in co-operation with the provinces the $600 million remains in Canada very much under provincial control and, in large measure, to improve the situation of our forests and our competitiveness. Surely as a British Columbian my hon. friend knows that and would agree with the thrust of that action.
In larger terms, objective studies indicate that a free trade arrangement with the United States of America, while not perfect, would bring 300,000 or 400,000 new jobs to Canada. 1 think that is highly desirable. In addition to that, if we are successful, it would normalize a situation and would allow the resolution of disputes such as the one my hon. friend has mentioned which, in the normal course of a better trading arrangement, would not arise.
We are pursuing this with such vigour, first, because we believe that the prosperity of Canada and the creation of jobs for young Canadians depend very much upon this kind of initiative. Second, it would eliminate the kind of capricious action taken in the past. However, I think a wise Government has managed to keep the proceeds of that here for reinvestment in Canadian forests.


REQUEST THAT TARIFF BE REMOVED
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. It is a very simple question. Up until January 1 of this year we always had unrestricted free trade in softwood lumber with the United States. If the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States reach and sign a free trade agreement, will the Prime Minister then lift this 15 per cent self-imposed tariff off Canadian softwood lumber bound for the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend can correct me if I am mistaken. He seems to speak disapprovingly of what was done with regard to the softwood lumber issue. My understanding is that that was very much endorsed by the IWA in British Columbia and the provincial members of the New Democratic Party in his province. It was endorsed as well by all of the Premiers and the Government of Canada. It clearly met national objectives which were, at that time, to resolve a very strong irritant and to keep the money here in Canada for reinvestment in our forest area.
August 24, 1987

Can the matter be resolved in the future? Obviously the object of concluding a comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States is to eliminate irritants and the kinds of capricious actions which we have seen in the past which continue to debilitate our relationship and preclude the possibility of further trade arrangements. If we are successful, as a necessary follow-up we would want to try to deal with each one of these irritants to make the situation even better than it can be under a trade arrangement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. At 1.40 a.m. on June 30 Members of this House made a most difficult decision regarding capital punishment. The reinstatement of it was rejected.
I have a question for the Minister of Justice about the concerns of Canadians with regard to the lengths of sentences of a number of prisoners. Many people feel the sentences are too lenient. They are also concerned about the situation of parole being granted too soon.
Canadians really want a safer society. What does the Minister of Justice plan to do about these two important
issues?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question, particularly because it affords me the opportunity of indicating that, even before the vote on capital punishment, the Government had been taking initiatives to improve our system of justice in Canada and ensure that it is receptive to the requirements of a modern society.
We have before us for consideration the sentencing commission under which I have undertaken wide consultations with provincial Attorneys General, the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and Canadians generally, asking for their input. We also have our Standing Committee on Justice and Solititor General undertaking a very extensive review of the question of parole, and it will indeed be dealing with the recommendations, I take it, of the Canadian Sentencing Commission. So we are, as parliamentarians, responding positively to the challenge. I know the Hon. Member will take a leading part in the consideration of these issues.
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. 1 received today a copy of the minutes of the Conservative national caucus meeting of last Wednesday which include a number of recommendations and comments made by Ministers and Members of Parliament. Under the name of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, it states that the Minister told his Government colleagues regarding Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 that: "We will not accept amendments that will weaken Bills".
How can the Minister be advising his government colleagues that he will not accept any amendments at the very same time the legislative committee was receiving very moving testimony from leading authorities across the country suggesting that, while cutting abuse is a legitimate concern, it should not be done on the backs of real refugees, on the civil liberties of Canadians and in terms of our United Nations commitment? Will the Minister show more respect for the views of Canadians and concede that amendments are needed and will be made?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend would like to impress the House in referring to what I said. He just had to read the newspapers or watch television to see that I always said that I will not agree with amendments which could weaken Bill C-84. I repeat what I said. But I think it is more than useful to hear, and we have to hear, what we heard in committee from witnesses because we believe that we can improve this legislation in terms of the way we word it. However, once again 1 tell the Hon. Member today that if he wants me to say that I will agree with anything that would give more chance to abusers to come into this country, 1 will not say that.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACCEPT AMENDMENTS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, judging from the looks of the Prime Minister after he conferred with his national caucus chairman, it is not a simple matter of simply having read the newspaper. This document clearly suggests that despite the recommendations by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, the Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, and churches from across the country, this Minister and that Government were not prepared to listen to those recommendations. So much for the accessible, open government promised by this Prime Minister back in 1984.
I suggest to the Minister that he would be doing the legislation a service by keeping it out of the courts-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

August 24, 1987
Patent Act


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member, who has had an extensive preamble, could put his question very succinctly.


Sergio Marchi: Given that this piece of legislation unamended will be tied up, making this policy chaotic in the months and years to come, will the Minister not agree today on the floor of the House of Commons that amendments are required and that the Government will embrace or initiate such amendments tomorrow in the legislative committee?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it would give me far more satisfaction if my honourable friend had told me exactly what his Party's position is on this matter.
1 think everyone realizes that there is an urgent need to deal with a situation where there is daily abuse of Canadian legislation on refugee determination. Whatever the Hon. Member may have to say about the various positions that are taken across this country and which I am following carefully, I repeat that my honourable friend has the right, and he has been availing himself of that right, to move amendments within the parliamentary framework. We are now having hearings before the Legislative Committee. I will be there myself tomorrow, and I will listen to his recommendations.
That does not change the substance, however. 1 will not entertain amendments that will allow people to abuse the system. 1 think that the recommendations we receive, whatever they may be, should reflect the two considerations that are contained in the preamble to the Bill: To respect the rights of genuine refugees and deter those who abuse the system. I repeat: That will not change.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has the floor.


Charles L. Caccia: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the speech given in this House on Friday morning by the Minister of corporate affairs is one that deserves attention, study and definitely a rebuttal. I was stunned to hear the Minister imply in his speech that this piece of legislation, once approved, would protect Canadians from price increases in drugs and medicines. As can be seen in Hansard of August 21, page 8282, the Minister stated with respect to Bill C-22:
Under our scheme the Drug Prices Review Board will be examining those drugs and keeping the price increases of them at less than the cost of living.
August 24, 1987

That is quite a statement. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a Minister of the Crown committing this piece of legislation to the extent of protecting Canadians from drug price increases. I looked at the Bill to find the basis for such a statement but nowhere could I find a clause in Bill C-22 that would corroborate that particular statement by the Minister.
Proposed Section 41.18, with respect to the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, contains a lengthy description of what this Bill will do. It is over two pages long and includes a description of the powers of the board, specifically proposed Section 41.23(4), but nowhere in the Bill is there a scintilla of an indication to justify the Minister's statement that drug prices would not increase more than the cost of living. In fact, nowhere in the clause with respect to the powers of the board is there an indication that this particular board would have powers to control prices. Proposed Section 41.23(4) in the Bill states:
The Board has, with respect to the attendance, swearing and examination of witnesses, the production and inspection of documents, the enforcement of its orders and other matters necessary or proper for the due exercise of its jurisdiction, all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in a superior court of record.
That is all. Nowhere in this clause are powers given to the board to control prices, let alone the power to roll back prices.
1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, in light of this, how can the Minister of the Crown make the promise to Canadians that price increases will not be greater than the increase in the cost of living? Nowhere in this Bill are these powers given to the board. The only power given to this board, according to the proposed legislation, is to review. You know as well as 1 do, Mr. Speaker, that the power to "review" prices is just what the word means. It means to review prices. As indicated in the Bill, it is necessary to report probably once a year to Parliament and to the Minister the result of one's reviews. But this board has not been given the power, anywhere in the Bill, to control or to roll back prices once the legislation comes into effect.
It is no wonder why, when enumerating the individuals and organizations who are in support of this legislation, the Minister could not include such important organizations as the Consumers' Association of Canada. He could not include in his list of supporters, who were, by the way, mainly individuals and organizations interested in international trade, the Canadian Hospital Association. Nor could he include the Canadian Anti-Poverty Association or the Canadian Council on Social Development. He could not include the National Pensioners & Senior Citizens Federation on his list. I ask Hon. Members why he could not include these organizations. Why could he not include the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association which has written to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every Member of Parliament since last October? Why could he not include that organization? It was for a very clear reason. These are basic, fundamental organizations which are not in favour of Bill C-22, for understandable reasons.
Patent Act
I submit that one of the basic reasons is that there is no power given to this board to control the prices once this law comes into effect. All that it can do, and this is where the Minister did not indicate to the House the facts as they are, is review the prices, as its name implies, and nothing more. It is a very poor thing for a Minister of the Crown to create an impression by making a statement in the House of Commons that is so far removed from the facts.
I suppose that is one of the reasons why on Friday the Minister could not include among those who support this measure your own provincial Government, Mr. Speaker, which is not in support of this Bill. That Government certainly cannot be considered to be composed of a bunch of rabid socialists, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. He could not include the Government of Manitoba. Nor could he include the Government of Ontario. He could not include the Government of Prince Edward Island. Not only that, he could not include two other Tory governments; he could not include the Tory Government of Prince Edward Island, as I mentioned, or the Tory Governments of Newfoundland and New Brunswick. That makes six provincial Governments which are against the legislation we are now discussing.
That should send a message to the Minister. It should indicate that these provincial governments are preoccupied with the impact of this particular legislation on the consumer, the average person, and, of course, on the prices of pharmaceuticals. If it has an impact on prices then it means that those provincial Governments have come to the conclusion that proposed Section 41.23(4) gives the board no power. It gives it the power just to call witnesses and to take a matter under investigation. But this board does not have substantial, fundamental and important powers for the protection of the public, namely, controlling prices and, where necessary, rolling them back. Therefore, support for this Bill may be an indication to Members of the House of how weak it is, particularly since six out of ten provincial governments are not in support of it.
An interesting letter was sent to us last December from Vancouver by the Building and Construction Trades Council in which the Secretary-Treasurer of the Council included a copy of his letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) in which he states:
On behalf of our members and other wage earners in our communities we are extremely disturbed by the proposed amendments to drug patent legislation.
He goes on to state:
There can be no doubt that the effect of these changes will be to increase drug prices to the consumer. Since most working people have received little or nothing in the way of wage increases in the last few years and since hundreds of thousands of working people continue to try to exist on Unemployment Insurance payments, increases in the price of drugs, which would represent cuts to the present incomes of all Canadians-drugs, an absolute essential for many of our people-would represent a cruel and unjustified hardship.
One can well understand the reason why a letter such as this has been sent. It is why I took the first opportunity this

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
morning of asking the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate to us where in the Bill there is the power to control prices. She was not able to answer that question because she cannot find that assurance in the Bill; It is not there. That matter has to be put on record and has to be brought to the attention of the public in a clear manner now that we are again debating it.
I would now like to deal with another passage of the Minister's speech which he gave the other day. He said that the Senate is threatening to veto this Bill. On the one hand he says that the Senate is threatening to veto the Bill while on the other he says that he has a number of amendments he would like to negotiate with the Senate. One cannot negotiate amendments with the Senate, as the Minister proposed on Friday, and then at the same time the Senate is threatening to veto the Bill. That is not what the Senate is doing.
The fact of the matter is that here we have the Senate exercising its constitutional rights and duties, as it has done with other Bills: It has done quite well in that respect. In other Bills when it has come forward with a number of amendments, the Government has accepted them. Consistent with that role in the past, which is constitutional and which is within the right and the responsibility of the Upper House, the Senate has come forward with a number of amendments resulting from a number of public consultations. In doing so now it has put to the House of Commons these amendments which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the nerve to describe on the one hand as a veto, while accepting certain of them on the other hand. The Minister of corporate affairs cannot have it both ways. He cannot call this action by the Senate a veto, and at the same time consider accepting certain amendments in to the Senate package.
The Senate has proposed a number of measures which indicate its perception of the public feeling today concerning the matter of drugs. In essence, it put forward a number of recommendations that were contained in the Eastman report which would protect the public in a manner that is better than Bill C-22. It would allow the Canadian manufacturers of generic drugs to produce drugs in a shorter period of time after they have been developed by a single company, namely, after four years instead of after ten years as was proposed in the Bill. This will permit greater competition, and the lowering of drug prices.
This is the essence of the Senate proposal, as far as the consumer is concerned. The Senate is also preoccupied with jobs. It seems to me that the Senate has made an eminently reasonable proposal for the development and the creation of jobs. As the Minister of corporate affairs has claimed, it is not a measure that will deny jobs to Canadians. On the contrary, the set of proposals that emanated from the Senate would permit the creation of jobs in Canada.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) in his speech on Friday made reference to the 48
amendments that he put forward in committee on behalf of the Official Opposition. Having fought for the amendments, and having lost them, it is quite understandable that those 48 amendments could not be lost and forgotten. Evidently, the Senators became aware of this enormous exercise and effort on the part of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. The Senators have picked up some of the cause. Through the Upper Chamber, they did what was not possible to achieve in the Tory dominated committee which studied Bill C-22. In that respect, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond did a phenomenal amount of work in pioneering the 48 amendments.
When a piece of legislation triggers a large number of amendments, it means that it is a poor piece of legislation. It is not only a partisan, momentary aberration to oppose, these amendments were well thought out. They were announced at second reading in the House by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. They were carried out in committee, but only to the point of proposing them because they were voted down. The Senate action has to be seen within this broader context.
We would like to see a piece of legislation that does not favour only the interests of the multinationals. That is the fundamental point that must be kept in mind. We have fought, as has the Senate, for legislation that looks beyond the interest of the multinational corporations. We would like to see a piece of legislation that looks at the pharmaceutical industry, at manufacturing in Canada, with an opportunity that goes to other active elements in the pharmaceutical sector which are not multinational corporations. There are many of them, and they have to be taken into account. It is important that we at least attempt to pursue and defend the interests of the nonmultinationals. They are employers of some considerable extent. They represent a number of Canadians who have to see a future opportunity by way of legislation that also guarantees and continues their reason for existence.
In essence, Bill C-22 is an ill-conceived measure. It has been debated back and forth for several months. I can understand the frustration of the Minister of corporate affairs in seeing his measures not accepted. But the message for him is that perhaps his legislation is not acceptable. It is not in the interest of the public, and it needs to be changed.
I am sure if the Minister were reasonable, flexible, and looked at the proposals one by one from the Senate, and considered those that are in the interest of the consumer, and the people who ultimate have to buy these drugs, he would see the merits of preserving the character of the Canadian system.
Comparing our system with the system that prevails south of the border, which was so well described by Ralph Nader when he appeared on television the other day, Mr. Nader stated the merits of preserving the character of the Canadian retail and price structure system, and not adopting the system that prevails south of the border. Mr. Nader criticized the system in the United States when he said that they would rather have
August 24, 1987

the Canadian system for pharmaceuticals and protection of the consumer, and not see Canada follow the system that presently dominates in the United States.
For all these reasons, we are very critical of the position taken on Friday by the Minister of corporate affairs. The Minister is giving the public the wrong impression as to the powers of the prices review board. It cannot be found in the existing legislation. The Minister is criticizing the Senate for having done something that is perfectly constitutional. Not only is it constitutional but, as a Chamber of sober second thought, it is its duty. The Minister is also critical of the Senate for having provided the House with a set of amendments which ultimately would protect the interest of the average Canadian consumer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White).


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon, but at the same time 1 am sorry that it had to take place in the first instance.
As it was passed by the House on May 6, Bill C-22 took a balanced view of the pharmaceutical industry. It provides for increased research and development, and chemical manufacturing, and continued growth of the generic companies. Bill C-22 is also committed to increasing consumer protection, and protecting provincial health care budgets.
Under the recent amendments proposed by the Senate, the current situation would change very little, if at all. The status quo would be maintained, which was confirmed by a memo sent to the Fiberal caucus from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). More importantly, Canadians would be deprived of the eventual benefits that would result if the original Bill C-22 was passed by the House. Indeed, the protection of individual and provincial health plans included in Bill C-22 has been completely ignored in the Senate proposals.
There have been many concerns raised over the impact of Bill C-22 on the prices of drugs. Specifically, someone stated that this policy will remove generic competition from the pharmaceutical market-place. Several months ago, a Minister of the Crown from the Province of Manitoba wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper in Swan River which stated that Bill C-22 would prohibit generic drugs in Canada. Such a statement from a provincial Minister of the Crown in Manitoba is clearly and completely false and untrue. Any such claims are simply not true. According to the legislation, all generic drugs on the market prior to June 27, 1986, will continue to be available. Any comments to the contrary are simply not true. In addition to those drugs, about 40 more could be subject to generic competition over the next five years. I emphasize that these drugs could be available because the profit motive comes into effect. If one suffers from a condition that requires a particular drug which is not a best seller, then a generic copy
Patent Act
will not be available because the only motive that drives a generic company is the profit motive. If the drug is not rich enough it will not attract a generic competitor.
One must also remember that there is nothing in this policy that would cause the price of drugs now on the market to increase. Quite frankly, consumers will not suffer because of this legislation.
This will be especially true in the area of improved health care. It is very important to note that as current as this morning, the General Council of the Canadian Medical Association, meeting in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, passed the following brief unanimous resolution which states: "That the Canadian Medical Association declares its support in principle for Bill C-22 as a measure which, in the long term, is likely to benefit the health of Canadians".
Under Bill C-22 as passed by this House, new drugs and new therapies will be introduced earlier. The need for hospitalization will be reduced and perhaps even the need for surgery will be reduced because we will have new drugs to cure old problems. An example of this is the drug Cimetidine. It was first marketed under the name Tagamet by Smith, Kline and French. It has been estimated that the introduction of Tagamet has saved Up to $130 million in surgery. It is very important to consider that there will be many other drugs that will contribute to the health care of Canadians.
It is also important to note that Smith, Kline and French has been brutalized by the present system of compulsory licensing. It has had to close plants and has lost millions of dollars in sales and has lost Canadian workers.
This decreased need for hospitalization because of new and better medication will be even more important over the next several decades as baby boomers become seniors and place substantially heavier demands on our health care system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000 the average drug store will depend on senior citizens for 75 per cent of its business. This must be kept in mind as we discuss Bill C-22 and its benefits for the health care system.
The discovery of cures and treatments for diseases afflicting Canadians, especially our seniors, is essential to our well-being. With the increased research and development under Bill C-22, Canada will play a larger role in the field of medical discovery.
Canadian consumers enjoy fair drug prices mainly because of the purchasing power of the provinces, which buy 60 per cent of all the drugs in Canada and provide coverage for almost all our country's senior citizens. I should also note that this downward pressure on prices will continue in the marketplace under Bill C-22.
Without some improvement in our country's health care system, provincial Governments will be faced with an even heavier burden for hospital care. Amendments such as those proposed by the Senate recently would impede improvements

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
to the well-being of Canadians and, in turn, lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Bill C-22, as it was passed by this House on May 6, takes into consideration all of these aspects. First, it provides the incentive for research and development which will enable Canada to benefit from new world class technologies in the fields of bio-tech, medicine, and health care.
Second, it strengthens consumer protection by ensuring that all patent drug prices are reviewed, not only those for which there is generic competition. If one goes to a drug store in Canada and randomly picks 100 drugs off the shelf, 93 of them would have no generic competitor for the reason I stated a few minutes ago. The only motive that drives the generic company is profit and, at present, only 7 per cent by volume and 20 per cent by dollar value are rich enough to attract generics.
The drug prices review board will be established to monitor the price of all patented drugs, not just that 7 per cent that are best sellers and rich enough to attract generics.
Under the current policy, consumers have no way of knowing whether they are paying a fair price for that 93 per cent of drugs that have no generic copy. Without the establishment of the drug prices review board, prices would be higher than they might otherwise be.
Doctor Eastman, who prepared the report some three or four years ago, will be the head of that board. During his testimony to the legislative committee that was considering Bill C-22, Doctor Eastman also said that he was confident that the drug prices review board would be beneficial to Canadian consumers.
The provinces will also benefit from the original Bill C-22. For instance, Bill C-22 proposed transitional payments of $25 million a year for the first four years of the policy, leading up to its first full review by Cabinet. This is additional security against any adjustment that may be made to provincial drug plans and ultimately additional security for those individual consumers who are covered by provincial plans.
The legislation that was sent to the Senate recognizes the importance of the provincial role in health care and the provision of drugs at reasonable prices to all Canadians.
The Bill allows for the establishment of an advisory panel which will be made up of persons from a variety of backgrounds. This panel would make recommendations on appointments to the prices review board. Furthermore, the board is required to notify the provincial Ministers of Health of any hearing the board will hold.
The provinces also have the statutory right to present evidence to the board. As the largest purchasers of medicine, they are, therefore, guaranteed a voice in the proceedings.
As well as protecting the provinces and consumers against unduly high drug prices, Bill C-22 will direct research and development expenditures to every region of Canada. For
instance, as a result of the new policy, the innovative sector has recently announced commitments of almost $800 million to be spent on research in hospitals, universities and research centres across Canada over the next ten years. The $800 million is not an investment in just one facility. There will be more than $200 million in Quebec, upwards of $80 million in British Columbia, at least $70 million in the Maritimes, about $100 million in Alberta, $250 million in Ontario, and approximately $50 million in my home province of Manitoba. Chemical manufacturing, which will also be stimulated by these provisions, will add to these figures.
The New Democratic Government of Manitoba has been vehemently opposed to Bill C-22. In my opinion, it has been opposed for purely political reasons and it is nothing but a political opportunist. In fact, one of the Ministers of the Crown in Manitoba recently told a group of researchers at the St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg that Bill C-22 is doing the right thing, but the NDP could not resist the political opportunity that presented itself in this situation. In my opinion, that is despicable.
Bill C-22 would provide a policy that does not rely on government grants or government subsidies and takeovers. It is the private sector at its best, doing what it does best. This new policy is another step in the Government's efforts to promote sustained economic growth and job-creation while providing for the protection of Canadian consumers.
On the other hand, the Senate proposal uses the status quo of generic copying as the only way of lowering drug prices. Unfortunately, this system does not adequately protect all individuals. It is important to reiterate that generic companies only copy those drugs with a high sales volume and they do no research. Another witness who appeared before the committee, Doctor Chretien, a clinical researcher from Quebec, said that generic companies do zero research. The few dollars they report as going into research are going into nothing other than quality control.
In fact, with the Senate amendments, companies will be able to charge whatever introductory price they wish for new drugs because generic companies take at least four to five years to copy a product. They wait that long until a market and profit has been established for a particular drug. In addition, some drugs never face competition because they are the so-called orphan drugs that are not big sellers and do not attract generic competition. Therefore, consumers of these products do not benefit from the compulsory licensing system as it exists today.
The Senate has also recommended that the royalty rate paid by generic firms be increased to about 14 per cent from the current 4 per cent. This measure could lead to an immediate 10 per cent increase in the price of generic drugs and a corresponding increase in prices of equivalent brand name products.
As well, the royalty scheme proposed will generate only a very small amount of money for new research and development. In fact, the Eastman Commission of Inquiry estimated
August 24, 1987

that if the royalty fund had been fully mature in 1983, about $6 million would have been available for distribution for new research and development projects. That $6 million is only one-fifth of the total increase in costs. It is an insignificant portion of the $1.4 billion increase in research and development that could result from Bill C-22.
The Senate proposal focuses almost entirely on drug costs. While this is very important and is recognized in the original Bill C-22 by the extension of consumer protection, there was no consideration by the Senate committee of the impact of new medicines on reducing hospital costs. 1 mentioned this earlier and referred specifically to Tagamet and its $130-million-per-year savings in now unnecessary stomach surgery.
The 1985 report of the Eastman Commission stated that the royalty proposal would have cost over $30 million in 1983 alone. Those costs would have been borne directly by consumers and provinces. This is clear evidence that the Senate proposal is not cost-free as some people would have us believe. To summarize that, in fact, for every $1 generated by the Senate's royalty fund, consumers would be paying an extra $6.20. That increased cost to consumers would amount to over $1 billion in the next 10 years.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am very disappointed that the Senate, after such a considerable delay that threatens the viability of already-announced investment plans, continues to take a position on Bill C-22 which gives such little regard to the facts. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there has been substantial discussion of the cost estimates of Bill C-22 among the many interested parties. The Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association and members of the Opposition in the House of Commons have quoted exaggerated estimates which have little basis in reality.
Indeed, officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have estimated the savings due to continued limited compulsory licensing would have been about $166 million in 1983 if Bill C-22 had been in effect since 1969. This estimate uses the same criteria as that used by Dr. Eastman in his report. However, the drug prices review board would have added between $60 million and $200 million in additional savings to the savings from modified compulsory licensing. There will therefore be a net saving to consumers by monitoring the prices of all prescription drugs.
The Government has taken great care to design a pharmaceutical policy that will result in the maximum benefit for Canada and for Canadians. I am very confident that Bill C-22 as it was passed by this House on May 6 incorporates every element needed for this to happen.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member several questions. First, why does he take the advice of the multinational drug companies as to what will happen instead of listening to organizations representing a majority of Manitobans? These organizations have indicated very clearly
Patent Act
their opposition to this Bill. 1 refer him to the positions taken by the Manitoba Organization of Seniors, the Manitoba Federation of Labour, the Manitoba section of the Consumers' Association of Canada, and an organization with which he should have very close contact, Keystone Agriculture, an organization which represents all the farm commodity groups in Manitoba. Keystone Agriculture has expressed its opposition to this Bill as well.
Six provinces have now joined that opposition. All of those provinces have pharmacare programs under which the provinces pay all or a substantial part of the prescription-drug costs of their residents. All of them have made it very clear that they have looked at the figures and done their estimates and that the cost to their programs will be increased very substantially.
Second, does the Hon. Member not realize that the drug prices review board will have very little power to do anything about prices since the vast majority of prescription drugs will be produced in the countries in which they are researched including the United States, Switzerland and Great Britain? Does he not realize that the transfer prices they charge their Canadian subsidiaries have no relationship at all to the real cost of the drug? They can charge anything they want to their Canadian subsidiaries which will be packaging the drugs and the drug prices review board will not be able to have any say about that at all. It will have no way of determining whether or not the real price is being charged to the Canadian manufacturers.


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked two questions and I would like to deal with them in that order. First, he mentioned the many groups in Manitoba that opposed the Bill. I think I could safely say that groups like Keystone Agricultural Producers and the Manitoba seniors are using the same figures that are being used by the NDP and its Leader, figures that have no basis in fact. In committee, we asked them-


David Orlikow: They must be pretty stupid, eh?


Brian White: I sat here quietly while you asked your question. I would appreciate the same respect. I asked the Hon. Member in committee for some proof of where these figures came from, and found that they had no basis in fact. They were pulled out of the air. It cannot be proven where they come from.
Some of these groups back in Manitoba quite rightly were concerned because of some of these figures. However, that is why my contention all along has been that these groups have been exploited by the Opposition. That is political opportunism in its worst possible sense. Opposition Members have been preying on the fears of these poor people.
In his speech on Friday, the Minister mentioned several of the groups and experts who feel that Bill C-22 will be beneficial to consumers and to the health care of Canadians. He mentioned the Medical Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Science Council of Canada, Dr. Michel

August 24, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Chretien, the Clinical Research Institute and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. I could spend 10 minutes listing the groups and experts who believe this Bill will be beneficial.
The Hon. Member's second question dealt with the drug prices review board. The Hon. Member said that it will have very little power. I submit that under our present system, 93 per cent of drugs in Canada have absolutely no price restrictions. They can be priced at any amount. There is no way that we can regulate or control those prices. I would think the Hon. Member would welcome a system that will try to keep those prices down.
Dr. Eastman who headed the commission back in 1983 will head the board. He is optimistic that it will be effective in controlling prices. Rather than being such a pessimist, I would think the Hon. Member would say that he approves of the Bill, let us try it for four years so that we may control the prices of these 93 per cent of drugs which do not attract generic competitors. I would think he would welcome such a move.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who in most circumstances is a very sensible man, has spoken about opposition Members drawing figures from the air. By his own admission, the figures about the amount of money to be invested in research on which this legislation is based come from the air. Those figures come from a promise.
Even that promise amounts to very little because, as has been pointed out, if one projects expenditures by the pharmaceutical industry between now and 1995 based on trend lines already established, they would be at about the level promised by those who are trying to gain support for this legislation. Many figures are drawn from the air, but they are not drawn from the air by members of the New Democratic Party or those who are in opposition to the legislation. They are drawn from the air by those who support it.
We have heard a great deal about research and development. I know that the Hon. Member, being a sensible man, a well informed man and a fair man, would have taken the time to investigate thoroughly what amount of money promised, within that limited context I described before, will really go to basic research. I do not mean clinical trials nor do I mean researching new packaging for pills, new colours or something that will make medications more palatable. I mean basic research, the kind of research that will lead to new discoveries about the mechanisms by which viruses affect cells. How much research will there be into nerve transmission mechanisms? How much fundamental research will be done in the way in which nucleic acids and proteins function and how those functions become disturbed? How much research will there be into the understanding of that disturbance, making it possible to design drugs on a well-informed, scientific basis? What guarantee is there that the promise will be kept that there will be great breakthroughs through investment by multinational corporations who have their centres elsewhere?


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about figures coming out of the air. As far as the Government is concerned, the $800 million figure has not come out of the air, it has been coming out of the air waves. These companies have made the commitment. If the Member would study the Bill he will see there is a four year review and teeth in the Bill to deal with those companies which have not met their commitments. As to the figures 1 used about the saving resulting from the drug prices review board, we used the same criteria and the same basket of drugs used by Dr. Eastman in his report and plugged in Bill C-22 as if it had been in effect from 1969 through 1983. We did not pull those figures from the air. It is using his criteria, his formula, and the figures are accurate.
As to research, clinical versus basic, I know from the industry that clinical research in pharmaceuticals is very important. Some very important discoveries have been made. Basic research is important but in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, clinical research is very important. I cannot predict what the breakdown will be, but I can give three quick examples of what compulsory licensing has done to drive our scientists out of Canada.
I was speaking to a researcher at the St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg who told me about two researchers at the University of Manitoba who discovered two new compounds and packed their bags and left the country to develop them further because of our compulsory licensing laws. A scientist in Ontario developed a naturally occurring substance which lowered blood pressure. This was a major breakthrough. He packed up his bags and moved out of the country because of our compulsory licensing system. Those are the people we want to keep in Canada.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions and comments period has expired. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris), I must tell the House what questions will be raised tonight at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Banks and Banking-Request for publication of report forwarded by Inspector General of Banks-Government position; the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin)-Air transport- Proposed transportation of plutonium through Canadian
August 24, 1987

airspace-Territorial sovereignty; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Municipal Affairs- Upgrading of infrastructures-Government rejection of request for funds-Government position-Cost of upgrading.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased today to address Members of the House of Commons on behalf of the people of St. John's East.
I intend to improve my knowledge of French to be more at ease when addressing this House.

It is of great significance to me that my first full speech in the House of Commons deals with a Bill such as this. I believe there is a lesson for all Newfoundlanders in this Bill and the actions of the Government. I was born six months before the Confederation of Newfoundland and Canada in 1949. I am very conscious that I am here as a Newfoundlander as well as a Canadian to fight to ensure that all Newfoundlanders get their fair and just share of the fruits of this great nation. I am also here to ensure that they get a fair and equal opportunity to use their talents and energy to better themselves, their families and their country.
For several hundred years before we became part of Canada the people of the communities of St. John's East struggled against a harsh and demanding environment in order to make a living, mostly from the sea in the great fishing and sealing industries which existed off our coasts and in Labrador. They also struggled against their economic masters, the great fish merchants of the west country of England, the multinationals of their day, and the fish merchants of Newfoundland, their local counterparts. The fish merchants determined the price they would pay fishermen for their fish. These same merchants often being the only source of supply, would also decide the price of food and other supplies sold to fishermen. This system benefited the few and neglected and kept down the many. As a consequence of this economic relationship. Governments of Newfoundland have also been in a position of subservience to other countries and other interests.
While Canada was experiencing a level of maturity constitutionally in 1931, Newfoundland was going through a very severe economic period. In its relationship with the mother country, as England was then known, the Newfoundland Government, not the people of Newfoundland, gave in to its

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
demands to give up self-government. Newfoundland had selfgovernment for 100 years. In 1933, it gave up self-government as a result of the recommendations and demands made upon it by the international financial community.
In 1949, Newfoundlanders joined in Confederation with Canada. That was done with the hope that being a part of the great nation of Canada we would together be able to create our own destiny, decide our own future and determine our own priorities. What we now have before this Elouse is legislation which is a direct counter to that.
The people of Canada have spoken about this Bill. Since 1969 we have had legislation and a format for the control and availability of drugs which was the envy of other parts of the world. Drug prices in Canada, compared to those in the U.S., improved considerably as a result of that legislation. A report prepared by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs showed that in 1969, drug prices were 9 per cent higher in Canada than in the U.S. In 1976, they were 21 per cent lower than in the U.S. That shows that the legislation created the opportunity for generic drug companies to make available to Canadians in need these beneficial drugs at a lower price.
We have also heard much talk about employment and jobs flowing from the legislation before us. During a similar period, that is 1967 to 1982, employment in the drug industry in Canada rose by 28.8 per cent. In the U.S. during that same time, when they enjoyed the absence of compulsory licensing, employment rose by 22 per cent. So we have a decrease in drug prices and an increase in employment in Canada during that period.
Given these facts, how can we explain why the Government brought in legislation that turns the benefits of the 1969 legislation around and goes back to what we had before? How do we explain the fact that it makes available to the multinational drug companies a monopoly on the use of patents for drugs necessary to the health of Canadians?
As a newcomer to the legislature I made it my business to do research and prepare for this speech. I found out a number of interesting things. Perhaps I will bore the House with a certain bit of naivety. There is a history of efforts by the multinational drug corporations to influence the Government of Canada. It appears to have been very successful. It goes back to a very powerful cartel of multinational drug companies which, over the last 15 years, have attacked the generic companies in Canada and the United States. These companies have stopped at nothing in attacking generic drug companies.
I have before me a report contained in Consumer Reports of August of this year entitled "The big lie about generic drugs." This is the big lie being promoted by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association in the United States. This comprehensive article says that with increased competition in sight from generics in the United States, beginning in 1983 the
major pharmaceutical firms opened a campaign of disparagement, which continues to this day, confusing and frightening doctors, pharmacists and patients alike. When Ayerst Laboratories, which operates in Canada as well as the United States, realized that it would soon face competition from a generic version of its drug called Inderal, a hypertension drug which was one of its most profitable drugs bringing in sales in excess of $350 million per year, it started a propaganda campaign aimed at both doctors and pharmacists.
It told doctors that one ought to use Inderal because of its proven therapeutic efficiency, but that with the generic alternative the chance existed that the patient's response may be compromised. It warned the doctors of the possibilities of law suits from patients. They sent a letter to pharmacists discussing pharmacists' potential liability if the cheaper generic version were dispensed instead of Inderal. The letter warned of troublesome, expensive lawsuits which would generate adverse publicity.
The Food and Drug Administration in the United States called this false and misleading. It said it served only to confuse and intimidate pharmacists into dispensing only Inderal. This is the kind of activity these companies undertake in order to discredit generic drug companies. It is reported that pharmaceutical manufacturers spend approximately $9,000 per doctor per year to convince them to use their drugs. This is an incredible amount of money to be spending on propaganda and promotion of drugs.
It is not surprising that these companies have supporters within the medical profession in these debates. These companies attempt to promote their drugs by taking doctors on trips to introduce them to their new drugs. Various other perks are granted to physicians in order to induce them to be sympathetic to the drug industry.
I am sure the House is well aware that as part of this campaign the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association took the opportunity to lobby intensively the Government of Canada, Members of Parliament, officials of the Department and Ministers. The former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ms. Judy Erola, said that the war got absolutely furious, that the lobbying was perhaps the strongest she had ever seen. Ms. Erola replaced the previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was pushing for changes in the drug legislation as a result of lobbying efforts.
As of March 30 of this year, Ms. Erola became the President of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. The most formidable and strongest lobby that the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had ever seen had found a spokesperson in Ms. Erola after she ceased to be the Minister.
In bowing to the wishes of the multinational corporations the Government is assisting these corporations to increase their massive profits. The profits of these companies are, by any measure, outrageous. On January 6 of this year, the Globe and
August 24, 1987

Mail reported that shareholders could be in line for a bonanza from major pharmaceutical companies which, cash rich from drug sale profits, were buying back their own shares and considering an increase in dividends.
"The major reason for the growing generosity of pharmaceutical concerns toward their shareholders is that they are sitting on piles of excess cash from their booming business. Some of those funds amount to more than $1 billion, which can be a drag on the balance sheet in the current low growth, low interest rate environment." The excess $1 billion which is lying around is a drag on the balance sheet. These are the kinds of profits which these multinational drug companies have lying around and must do something with.
In the United States they are recognizing Canada's example in controlling the use of new drug discoveries. Henry Waxman is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce which conducted hearings into the issue of drug prices and generic drugs. His subcommittee issued a report showing that prescription drug prices in the United States increased more than 79 per cent during the past six years. The industry had spent only one out of every three dollars of that increase on research and development. But the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is asking us to give the industry more money, which we will not recover in research and development. All we have is a promise and nothing else.
The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White) referred to the Minister of Consumer Affairs for Manitoba of acting like a political opportunist when he opposed the legislation. I ask the Hon. Member if he considered the Minister of Consumer Affairs and the Minister of Health for the Province of Newfoundland to have acted as political opportunists when they criticized the Government of Canada for its legislation?
The people of Newfoundland were told for many years by the Party in power in Newfoundland that when we the Newfoundland Provincial Government and the federal Government are of the same political persuasion, we will see the kind of development Newfoundland needs to take its rightful place in Confederation. The Minister of Consumer Affairs of the Province of Newfoundland advised members of the committee that in June of 1985, he was first presented with the federal proposals to amend the Patent Act. At that time he outlined the province's concern that they would have a significant impact on drug prices in Canada, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador. On May 22, 1986, he wrote to the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs advising him of his Government's strong opposition to the federal Government's plans to amend the Patent Act.
There were further proposals given later to the Government in June, and in September when they were again discussed, the
Patent Act
Government of Newfoundland considered the argument put forward by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. After consideration, the Government of Newfoundland would still not support the amendments. The concern expressed was for the impact on the consumer due to the expected drug price increases, and the lack of commitment of the federal Government to any definite job creation and business development plans for the Province of Newfoundland as a result of these amendments.
The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said in the House this afternoon that there is nothing we can do except have faith in the promises-


Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will be very generous as will, I am sure, the House, since this is the Hon. Member's maiden speech, and allow him another minute to wind up. He is now eight or nine minutes over his time. I hope 1 will receive unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to finish.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has another minute to finish his speech.


Jack Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 thank Members of the House. In view of the comments made by Government of Newfoundland to the Senate committee, it seems that this is not an attempt to take cheap political shots at the federal Government. There are serious objections to the Bill. I would ask the House to consider a statement by Dr. Twomey, the Minister of Health for the Province of Newfoundland, who is also a physician. This is important because we have heard that 10 years is needed in order for the drug companies to make enough profit to pay for their research. Mr. Twomey stated:
As a physician, I know that the therapeutic lifetime as the drug of choice of most drugs is probably around 10 years. When a drug has been on the market for that long, there are usually changes in the formulation, and an entirely new drug in the same therapeutic class will appear on the market, which does essentially the same thing, but probably is deemed to be marginally more therapeutically beneficial for the particular disease or disorder.
That seems to me to indicate that once the 10 year monopoly period is up, it could be all over for a new drug, and the generic companies which are trying to produce cheaper drugs will be out of the door, in any event. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister admitted in the House this afternoon that the problem seems to be that we can do nothing but trust the drug companies and take them at their word-


Mr. Lanthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Even if it is the Hon. Member's maiden speech, he is not allowed to refer to the absence of a Member of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe he did.


An Hon. Member:: He did not.

August 24, 1987
Patent Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon Member referred to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Jack Harris: The Parliamentary Secretary is still in the House, I believe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the Hon. Member would wind up.


Jack Harris: We are told we can do nothing but take the drug companies at their word. If the Government is powerless to do anything about these multinational corporations, and can do nothing but take them at their word, then I would ask it to support this side of the House in doing something about it, as we will surely do.


Marc Ferland: If I had an advice to give my hon. friend who is making his maiden speech in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, it would be not to make the mistake of having his speech photocopied and distributed among his constituents, for in view of this recent attack against multinationals, he would run the risk of being asked whether multinationals should stop investing in Hibernia oil? Whether Exxon, Esso, Texaco, Shell and all the other international investors should be asked to stop investing in Hibernia oil, since the Hon. Member for Saint-John East (Mr. Harris) does not agree with multinationals.
On the other hand, he stated that he was born six months before Confederation. He is not that old. I had the pleasure of visiting Newfoundland and I know, as a Quebecer, that that province may not be the luckiest. It has tremendous problems unemployment-wise. He has been very lucky and able to attend university. As one who has "made it", however, does he not feel that other young people in his own community or province should have access to higher learning and be able to work in Newfoundland in the development of medicine or advanced technology? What he is suggesting, for all practical purposes, is to destroy Bill C-22, prevent young people from attending universities, stop university professors from receiving support from multinationals who would invest money in various universities to keep professors in their present positions, to make it possible for young people to study and develop advanced technologies. He said no, to refuse that to Canadian citizens would be bad. What do you propose, my dear colleague? That all young Canadians remain copiers and cheaters! Is that what you are proposing for our Canadian youth?
If I may give a little advice to my young colleague in the House, Mr. Speaker, it would be from now on to think twice before advising the young people of this country to remain cheaters and copiers.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to both comments. First, my comments were not directed against multinational investment in general. Multinational investment is good for
Canada. It is needed in Canada. But it is the kind of investment that has to be done-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Oberle:: Careful. Your colleagues are wincing.


Jack Harris: -in the way Canada determines not decided by the multinationals by twisting the arm of this Government. It is in that context that the multinational corporations have appeared to be successful in telling the Government what to do.
With respect to multinational investment in Newfoundland and to my own success in achieving university education, as my hon. friend said, I hope that I will be able to use that education to fight for better things for all Newfoundlanders and for all Canadians.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my hon. friend on his maiden speech in the House and to wish him well on behalf of all the members of the Government.
I would like to ask him a question about NDP policy. Traditionally, the policy of the NDP has been to oppose the Senate and, in fact, to abolish it. Last week the House Leader of the New Democratic Party was quoted as saying: "We would assume that the Senate would see the wisdom of stopping this Bill as well". He then went on to say: "But the fact is that they do some good work some of the time". Does the Hon. Member support the new position of the New Democratic Party that an appointed Senate should have the right to veto this legislation or, in fact, any legislation passed by this democratically elected House of Commons?


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it has ever been the position of the New Democratic Party, either before or now, that the Senate has the right to veto legislation passed by this House. I think that the Hon. Member must know that the New Democratic Party is very realistic about these matters. The Senate is in place at the moment and it has sent these amendments back to the House. We debate them because they are before us.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join in congratulating the Hon. Member for his maiden speech in the House. I thought he did a very credible and excellent job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: A refreshing change from that side of the House.


Neil Young: We can all learn a few lessons. We certainly received a few today from the Hon. Member.
I would like to follow up on an earlier question that was asked. I seem to recall that perhaps in May of this year I happened to be in the Province of Nova Scotia. At that time the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre)
August 24, 1987

landed on the shores, so to speak, and announced that if this Bill were passed, all kinds of jobs in research and development would be created in Nova Scotia for young people. Immediately the Minister of Health for the Province of Nova Scotia, who shares the same political philosophy as the people over there who are trying to inflict this piece of legislation on the Canadian people, turned around and, in response to that statement, said: "Well, look, hold on for just a second. First, everything that we have seen coming from the multinational corporations has been promises. Second, they have not been talking about research and development but, rather, clinical research, which is an entirely different proposition. Third, since there is hardly any, if any, pharmaceutical production established in the Atlantic provinces, you are proposing that if the money appears at some future time, and we are not sure about that, all it would do is perhaps train a number of young people in the universities of Nova Scotia. But once they graduated there would be no jobs for them in Nova Scotia".
I want to ask the Hon. Member this simple question. If the Government is serious about providing jobs for the high number of young people who are unemployed in the Atlantic provinces, would the Government not be far better using what power it has to establish industries in the Atlantic provinces so that young people when they come out of university at least have the opportunity for employment in that hard-stricken area of the country?


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the Government is dependent upon the decision-making of the multinational corporations with respect to where they will place jobs, and where jobs ought to be does not depend upon the will of this Parliament or the people. If the Government used its power and its ability to establish job programs to benefit the areas of Canada which need it most, then I think the same money could go further and benefit the people of the Atlantic region.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, of course I am tremendously pleased to rise today in this important debate on Bill C-22. As a Quebecer and a Canadian, 1 would like that we assume once more our rightful place in the research and development of pharmaceuticals. I do not want to see another flight of foreign capital away from that industry. I do not want to see any more our young university graduates having to go abroad when our education system and their parents spent a lot of money so that they could study in our universities right here in Canada. Let us be realistic- when we invest, we want that investment to yield a return. It is rather embarrassing that a large country like Canada, exporting as it does 80 percent of its goods to other nations, does not protect the inventions of our Quebecers, our researchers, our scientists.
Quebecers understand that, except that I wonder if the New Democrats, the Liberals who are sitting here today-I think that some are from Quebec but they were not here when the
Patent Act
time came to vote. The others do not know Quebec. They claim to know Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that although I speak some English, I do not claim to know Ontario. But I do know Quebec and I know what is good for Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an editorial by Jean-Guy Dubuc that appeared in La Presse, from which I would like to quote one paragraph if I may:
Only Liberal Senators did not understand what is at stake in the debate. Even Quebec senators are willing to forget Quebec's interests in order to defend those of Ontario. It is not surprising that the Senators have even convinced the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. John Turner, who supports them without seeming to know-or perhaps knowing only too well-that the Liberal Government had promised the Quebec Government to amend the legislation when Mr. Andre Ouellet was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now, Quebecers and all Canadians will have to pay the price of the Liberal vendettas.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am very glad to see the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) in the House. I had the pleasure of sitting with him on the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform. I can tell you that I learned much from him on that committee. He has a lot of experience, knowledge and common sense. 1 think that he will be speaking after me, perhaps to tell his colleagues in the Senate and even on the other side of the House to take some tranquilizers and get a bit of rest.
As a matter of fact, since we know that some Senators like to sleep outside the Senate Chamber, it would perhaps not be a bad idea for all the Liberals to take tranquilizers and go to sleep at the door of the Senate. The Senators could-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. One has to be respectful even though it is the Chamber of sober second thought. 1 hope that the Hon. Member will take that into account. The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault).


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I am greatful to you for calling me to order and asking me to show respect to the Upper House. In this case, 1 will be so to speak respectful, Mr. Speaker.
To return to what I was saying concerning my friend from Papineau, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly remain until the end of his speech, because I am sure that, as a sensible man, he will tell his colleagues that the infusion of $1.4 billion would create nearly 3,000 jobs over the next ten years. I suggest that because of his habitual eloquence, the Hon. Member for Papineau and former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will make an extraordinary speech in support of the Government and its Bill C-22.
Mr. Speaker, it is also suggested that the Senate report which is here before the House would not succeed in stopping the brain drain. Thousands of students and scientists would

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
continue to leave Canada to seek opportunities elsewhere. It is too bad!
Mr. Speaker, if 1 were a parent today-unfortunately, I never had children, something I regret-and if my children were attending university, and studying pure science, I would ask mysel serious questions. I might suggest to them to make another option, because the opportunities for promotion in Canada are few and far between.
Mr. Speaker, my Argenteuil-Papineau constituents whom I was pleased to meet all summer long do not quite understand. As you know, not everyone can boast of knowing our Parliamentary system. It is difficult for someone to understand how come we on this side of the House, who are the elected government, are not capable with 211 Members to pass a piece of legislation. You know the average citizen wonders why, and this is the reason why for a number of years we have been talking of reforming the Senate, which I respect as you suggested 1 should do.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate's proposals jeopardize all the efforts made by this Government to change the structure of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. If adopted, the Senate's proposals would mean that pharmaceutical firms would keep on importing from abroad the active ingredients and simply mix them, or even import the final product and only do clinical tests in order to comply with the requirements of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Speaker, the exclusivity periods proposed by the Senate make no distinction between pharmaceuticals that are entirely invented and manufactured in Canada and products that are simply imported. The Senate's proposals now before us do not do any good on any count. They do not stimulate research activities or grant adequate protection to Canadian innovators.
Mr. Speaker, this Government has a duty to afford special protection under Bill C-22 to pharmaceuticals that are invented and manufactured in Canada, and this for a number of good reasons. First, it is a matter of fairness to inventors.
Mr. Speaker, if I was an inventor-or should I say an "inventress"-I would be frustrated at not being able to do any research. I would be frustrated at having studied in our great Canadian and Quebec universities but not being in a position to use my knowledge for my own country-the country that gave me those vital instruments, our universities-and at not being able to contribute to the progress of that country. We must afford the same degree of protection to inventions in the pharmaceutical industry as to any other invention, Mr. Speaker. Drugs are an basic necessity and we must therefore do all in our power to protect and reward investigators who develop drugs which improve the quality of life of all Canadian men and women.
Mr. Speaker, as one prominent journalist put it: it is well worth two or three cents more a pill. Yes, it is well worth it!
Secondly, affording better protection to drugs invented and developed here in Canada is a stimulus to fundamental
research since it is here that investigators must initiate the discovery process. That is how we could make the Canadian pharmaceutical industry a major field of innovation.
My friend the Hon. Member for Papineau (M. Ouellet) represents a riding located in the Montreal area, Mr. Speaker, one from which foreign capital has fled to other provinces and even to other countries. This is because people believed that our Quebec language legislation, Bil 101, would be detrimental to business interests.
Mr. Speaker, in an aside I must say that it would be awful if the New Democrats came to power. The Montreal economy is just beginning to recover. Just try to imagine, Mr. Speaker, what we would look like if the New Democrats, with their way of thinking, were to say no to free trade and did not want to protect the wonderful opportunity the Bill before the House affords our researchers.
Mr. Speaker, with such a protection for drugs invented and developed here, how could Canada not attract capital investment as well as manufacturing facilities? Companies which will invest in Canada will be able to recover their costs adequately. We must also remember that our Canadian researchers will be strongly encouraged to stay in Canada instead of leaving our country to go to our main trade partners.
Mr. Speaker, a researcher, an inventor who works for a large manufacturing company, particularly a drug manufacturer, earns quite a lot of money. He is not a low income earner. He is well paid. It means that this man who is involved in research and his family contribute directly to other important sectors of our economy. They are good consumers who support other small and medium businesses around them. So if all these great scientists with big earnings leave to go where it is financially and intellectually more rewarding, the loser is not only the drug industry, but the whole regional economy.
For a long time, scientific groups doing research in Canada have been hoping for a Bill which would encourage Canadian discoveries. They were not the only ones, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how caucus members can be against the premier of their own province, against all the ministers from the province of Quebec that we represent in Ottawa, against all the companies which probably contributed to our election, whichever side we are on, how can they be against all these people? I wonder.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, most of the medical discoveries done in our universities and research institutes are bought by foreign companies which develop commercially products invented in Canada. This is a shameful and unacceptable situation which has to be changed.
Our Prime Minister said we should do something and we did, Mr. Speaker. The proposals of the Upper Chamber bring us back to a situation which had been denounced with the utmost vigor by our best scientists.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, a country which wants to be at the leading edge of technology . . . You will recall that three or
August 24, 1987

four years ago the Premier of Quebec said: "We are living in a period of technological change. We have to face the music." The time when Canada was only able to sell to its American neighbor is over. We have now access to much larger markets. Think of the nations of Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Speaker. Here is a very interesting market. Mr. Speaker, consider all the potential investments if, as a nation, we are intelligent enough to protect the intellectual property of our researchers as well as the inventions of the companies.
Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that if in any field ... Consider for instance our designers in the clothing sector, our designers in other commercial undertakings. Very few people like to have their ideas copied by others. Somebody spends a fortune to come up with a new product, it has hardly been marketed and practically overnight others are producing copies. If 1 were an investor in that field, you can understand why I would not be in too much of a hurry to get my money out of the bank to invest more. On the contrary, I would be tempted to go and see what is happening elsewhere, which is exactly what others did. They invested elsewhere.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize the fact that Canada has every right to rank first in pharmaceutical research and that our researchers are entitled to more protection for anything they invent in this country.
Bill C-22 confirms this, and any amendment which could be made would deny these rights.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly hope that everyone will be sensible, that our friends in the Upper and Lower Chambers, in front of us and beside us will sleep peacefully, read everything that has been said, listen to everything, and change their minds. We changed our minds ourselves in the past because Canadiens told us that we had perhaps gone a bit too far. Canadians are now saying that the Senators and our Liberal and NDP friends opposite are going too far about Bill C-22. It is now time to be reasonable and to approve Bill C-22, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), who has commented on the behaviour of the Liberal Senators who are blocking this Bill, why exactly the Conservative Senators abstained from the vote and even left the Senate Chamber to avoid having to vote. Were they afraid to vote against this Bill? It is a fact that the Conservative Senators did not vote, Mr. Speaker. Why is this? This is what I am asking my hon. colleague.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to hear that the Conservative Senators did not vote on this Bill. Perhaps it was for a technical reason. I can say, however, that we are fortunate in having in the Senate a great scientist from Montreal, Senator David, a great Canadian and Quebecer, who was a member of the Senate Committee. Senator David, the director and founder of the Montreal Cardiological
Patent Act
Institute, is a great man and a great Quebecer. He supports Bill C-22 as a doctor and as the founder of one of the major cardiological institutes in Quebec. He is a man of sense and we should be listening to people like him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland). The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will be recognized after the Hon. Member for Portneuf.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault). I have here a copy of a statement by a distinguished Canadian scientist who says that the price of drugs represents 5 percent of the cost of health care in Canada. And I will quote a few lines from his text which he read. He says: All acute, subacute and chronic illnesses which have no cure contribute substantially to the other 95 percent of health care expenses.
I would like to know first, whether my colleague from Argenteuil-Papineau shares that view of a distinguished scientist who happens to be Senator Paul David and, second, whether she would explain to our colleagues opposite and our somewhat testy Liberal senators the facts concerning those figures submitted by Senator David.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault). However, we are now getting into the realm of what is happening in the other place. I do not think that should happen in this Chamber. I will permit the Hon. Member to answer very briefly, but I hope Hon. Members will not participate in asking questions about what is happening or not happening in the other place.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well your intervention but you will have to admit, your Honour, that we find ourselves in an embarrassing situation since we are precisely discussing amendments introduced in the other place. Therefore I do not know whether we should or not deal with that matter ... As to the question asked by my colleague from Portneuf (Mr. Ferland), and I thank him for it, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that Bill C-22 has some merits in that it strikes a delicate balance between various key elements, such as research, development, intellectual property, employment, the industrial sector, health care, and consumer protection. Obviously I agree with my colleague from Portneuf as regards that distinguished expert.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), who severely criticized the Senate for doing its

August 24, 1987
Patent Act
job. As you know, the Senate is a place where the regions of this country are represented and where regional rights are supposed to be defended. 1 think the Senate has given serious consideration to Bill C-22 and that the recommendations it proposes seem reasonable. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, considering that her main emphasis, namely that the purpose of the Government in tabling Bill C-22 would be to create jobs in Canada and promote more and more research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, which we agree is not something that is commonly done in Canada .. . The multinationals usually do this at Headquarters, in their own countries, either in Holland or the U.S. or elsewhere. They don't have to do it in a country with a market of only 25 million, and they haven't yet. Since the Hon. Member knows as well as 1 do that the multinationals have promised $1.4 billion within the next ten years-we are talking about thousands of jobs to be created as a result of these investments-I would like to ask her what guarantees she has that the multinationals will make those mass investments in Canada, totalling $1.4 billion over ten years, and how many jobs they are going to create? And could the Hon. Member perhaps tell me whether she has firm assurances, in writing, from her Government that these companies will keep their word? And if they don't, what will happen to this legislation which, as we know, tends to favour the multinationals considerably?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I hold my Hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in high esteem. I admit he has had better days than today in his parliamentary life. He has opened the door for me and 1 am going to answer him. He told me that the Senate had done its duty. It most certainly did not. I am sorry. The Senate has not done its duty, its function is to examine bills coming from the House to prevent errors of interpretation within the bill itself. It is not to torpedo what the House has accomplished. Quite the contrary! The Senators did not do their job. They travelled all around at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, including those of my Argenteuil- Papineau riding. They spent some $300,000 or $400,000 travelling across Canada. It is a fine way to leave the Upper Chamber and to travel, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question and comment period is over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau has the floor.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in this debate on Bill C-22 dealing with drug patents. I am all the more so because, while I was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1983, the Liberal Government of the time had looked into this very complex and important issue. I must say that the Members of this House and the other place who belong to the Liberal Party have never declared themselves against changes to the current legislation. As a matter of fact, we were the first to propose a review of the present system. The recommendations which appear in the Eastman Report, an independent commission created by the former Government to find out about what is true and false in
this area, seem to us to be quite reasonable, because they set a balance between the interests of consumers and the need to increase research within the pharmaceutical industry.
Unfortunately, 1 have to say that once more the Conservative Government has chosen to be overly generous with the Americans.
Recently we were told by General Motors that this Government had made them an offer they could not refuse for keeping their plant in operation in St. Therese. In other words, from what General Motors told us, they had the choice either to stay in St. Therese or to close the plant. But the Government offer was so generous that they were left with no choice. They took the money and stayed.
It is precisely this kind of generosity with the Americans that once again we are blaming the Conservative Government for with regard to pharmaceutical products.
As Liberals, we are not against changing the law. However, we object to undue concessions to pharmaceutical companies.
The Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) has quite a list of questions put together by the department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be asked of those who participate in this debate. But when asked a while ago, what kind of safeguards had been obtained with regard to investments and jobs, the Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) preferred to remain silent in her seat. Because there are really no safeguards. The Member for Portneuf can goof-off all he wants behind the curtains, but if he has any proof, it should be tabled in the House. We will listen to him and even applaud him. Except that he has absolutely no proof that the multinationals will make the required investments.
We feel the Government chose to go much further than Professor Eastman's recommendations. It chose to tilt the scales in favour of the multinational pharmaceutical corporations, to the detriment of the Canadian generic drugs industry and Canadian consumers. We feel this is deplorable because fundamentally, what we Liberals have always been striving for is a balance between the real and pressing need for increased drug research and the corresponding need that those drugs be made available at prices that people can afford, and this we have a duty to ensure.
This is why we are supporting the Eastman Report's recommendations and this is why we, Liberal Members in this House, are of one mind with Liberal Senators who want to amend the bill to guarantee that the investments promised by the multinational corporations take place, that the jobs promised are created, and also that prices remain at levels that consumers can afford.
And that position of course is different from that of the New Democratic Party who want no change-they want the status quo. Of course, the short term status quo as supported by the New Democratic Party might be of benefit to consumers, but it would provide no incentive for the drug industry to develop new drugs.
August 24, 1987

But we say: Drug companies are willing to invest, they are ready to create jobs. Hurrah! Let us use that opportunity, let us amend the act. But let us not be blind to the point of thinking that drug corporations will deliver all the goods if we do not have a legislation with teeth. And unfortunately, the current bill does not provide the formal guarantees we are hoping for. And there lies the basic difference between the government's position and ours. We agree that the act has to be amended, but we believe the government is going too far when making a 10-year concession to the drug corporations- that is excessive in our view. The Eastman Report recommends four years and a 14 percent royalty. Obviously, those who engage in research, those who invest considerable amounts to put a new product on the market must meet their costs. It is absolutely essential that, in order to continue bringing new products onto the market, pharmaceutical firms be afforded a degree of protection which allows them to meet their costs and turn a reasonable profit. The Eastman Report tells us, based on an objective, in-depth evaluation of the issue, that four years are enough protection to allow the drug industry multinationals not only to meet their costs but to attain reasonable returns on their investment. So what does the Government do rather than leave it at four years? It gives them ten years. In other words, pharmaceutical firms are given an extra six years which, we contend, is based on no good reason and is not justified.
This situation is of great concern to us since we know that at the Irish Summit, the 1985 meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, President Reagan had insisted that Canadian patent legislation be harmonized with American legislation before the initiation of the free trade negociations. We also know that Mr. Clayton Yeutter, President Reagan's trade adviser, has stated that he would suspend the free trade talks if Canada did not honour its committment to give better patent protection to American multinationals.
And finally, we know that the American pharmaceutical industry had in hand a preliminary version of the bill we are now studying, Bill C-22, even before it was tabled in this House. What we are saying then is that the Conservative Government has caved in to the influential American lobby, that the bill in its present form goes too far and is far too generous for the pharmaceutical industry.
And there is no better proof of that than to recall that in the first version of the bill as tabled by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Langeiier (Mr. Cote), there was a provision intended to encourage inventors of patented products to manufacture them in Canada whereby they would be protected only if the drugs were manufactured in Canada. And so what happened between the first and second versions? That clause has vanished.
I see that you are preparing to put an end to the debate. I would simply want to quote the following from the document
Business of the House
presented by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Langeiier:
[DOT]	(1650)

"Incentives for development of fine chemical manufacturing industries in Canada will be given in the legislation, but there will be a loss of exclusivity for innovative firms on new drugs unless they manufacture the fine chemical ingredients here in Canada."

Well, that is the problem. Between the first bill of Conservatives and the second bill of the present Minister, that important but embarrassing clause for American drug companies was removed. It disappeared. And in our opinion, it is more evidence of the Conservatives' submission, their kowtowing to American interests.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it five o'clock, I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) on a point of order.

[DOT]	(1700)


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I have three Private Members' Bills on the Order Paper which deal with capital punishment. I do not know whether I could be considered lucky or not but one of them has been drawn again for debate in this House tomorrow afternoon at five o'clock. I would like unanimous consent to the withdrawal of Bills C-201, C-202 and C-203, all of which call for a return of capital punishment. Given that Parliament resolved the issue with a vote against returning capital punishment, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw all three Bills including the one scheduled for Private Members' hour tomorrow night at five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have consent to remove the Bills from the Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Orders discharged and Bills withdrawn.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, have the Table Officers seen fit to schedule a new Bill for that hour tomorrow? If so, can we have notice of which Bill will be called for debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Private Members' Business tomorrow will be second reading and reference to a

August 24, 1987
Official Languages Act
legislative committee of Bill C-258, moved by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Jean-Robert Gauthier: that Bill C-223, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (primacy of the Act), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part today in a debate on a bill I introduced on October 14, 1986 and which is one of a series of bills I tabled in the House over the last ten years or so.
Bill C-223 we are considering tonight seeks to recognize the primacy of the Official Languages Act, to make that Act supreme over any other statute. I am introducing that Bill because the matter is important, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well that in a bill tabled as recently as June 25, 1987 Hon. Members will have the opportunity to discuss this fall, 1 presume, the Government agrees to grant the Official Languages Act a qualified primacy, so to speak, but some primacy nonetheless over Canadian statutes, or the law of the land.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain why the Official Languages Act should explicitly contain a clause that guarantees its primacy over all other legislation.
When the legislator includes the concept of primacy in an Act, he confers on this Act a quasi constitutional character because it is thereby clearly distinguished from other Acts while, as we know, remaining subject to amendment or repeal by the same legislative authority from which it received this primacy. The effect of primacy is to make the Act supersede any provisions of any other Act that are inconsistent with the former, unless otherwise stated. That was the purpose of Bill C-223, and that was also the purpose of many other Bills I shall not mention here but which have been considered in the House from time to time and, I must admit, have always been postponed indefinitely because, as I was told at the time, it was too much, too soon. Too much, too soon has become a very familiar refrain for people like me who have taken up the cause of official languages. We are always being told: You are in too much of a hurry and you are asking too much.
I must say that the Government-this Government did not originate the concept but it tabled the Bill and drafted it-1 must say that Bill C-72, which will be before the House for second reading in the fall, proposes that the primacy of this Act shall apply to the first five parts of the Bill in question. There are shortcomings and there are sections which I will certainly try to have amended in order to broaden the scope of the legislation and extend its primacy beyond what is being proposed, but on the whole, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased, and I am even quite satisfied with this major step forward embodied in Bill C-72.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 should provide some brief historical notes in the few minutes I have at my disposal. As you know, the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969, after an extensive national debate. It started with the B and B or Laurendau-Dunton Commission. At the time, the Commission went around the country, trying to find a way to resolve the crisis that was troubling Canadians, a crisis which, I hope, has now more or less died down, and I even hope it will disappear altogether.
But in a few minutes I will have the opportunity to remind you that even here in Ontario today we still experience difficulties when trying to make some people understand that the official languages of this country, English and French, do not in any way prevent either group from asserting its rights. Whether 1 do so in French or whether I do so in English does not take anything away from the other group: it can assert its rights in its own language. Francophones outside Quebec-and that includes me-assert their right to exist in French in Ontario, or in British Columbia for that matter, and I would hope that a country which claims to be basically bilingual, with two official languages, would show full respect for the aspirations of its minorities in the various provinces. This is sometimes difficult because it is not easy to defend oneself, to fight to have one's own schools, to have one's school rights recognized, to have one's rights respected before the courts, and to have one's rights in the legislative assembly.
Remember Alberta where an individual was denied the right to speak in his own language. Remember that before the courts today, in both Eastern and Western Canada, Canadians sometimes find it difficult to appear and give evidence in their own language, French, just as it has been difficult now and then for some anglophones in Quebec to understand and to be able to use their own language everywhere when they wanted to do so. Mr. Speaker, because of this ongoing evolution over the last 20 or 25 years, we now have today before us, after 18 years, a new piece of legislation containing what is in my opinion an important clause which asserts the primacy of the Act.
When the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969, it was a great step forward. For the first time in Canada, we recognized that we have two official languages, and implemented legislation to ensure the equality of English and French in federal parliamentary institutions.
August 24, 1987

While certain problems with the 1969 Act have come to light and brought the Government to introduce a new bill, Bill C-72, we must not forget that the 1969 Act has been the major instrument in changing public attitudes as concerns official languages.
It is because of the evolution in attitudes especially, and of the action taken by some Governments that the 1969 Act has become outmoded and needs to be brought up to date.
When the Liberal Government of the time adopted the Act in 1969, our Constitution had not yet been patriated. The rights of official languages minorities to be taught in their own language throughout Canada did not exist, neither did the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and so on.
While we say that the 1969 Act needed to be amended, this does not mean that the problems were identified by the Conservative Government. Since its passage in 1969, the Act has been examined in depth by the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons and applied in all federal Departments. The Official Languages Commissioner examines how this is done and reports each year to Parliament.
It is by applying the Act and looking at the results that we were able to identify weaknesses. For instance, the concept of bilingual districts has never been implemented because it was restrictive and seemed unnecessary, while the language of work concept, which is vaguely defined in Section 2 of the Official Languages Act, quickly became one of the main problems with this legislation. The amendments to the Act have therefore been identified thanks mostly to the reports of the Joint Committee on Official Languages. Indeed, four of the main reports of this Committee contain recommendations for amendments to the 1969 Act. These are the first, fourth and fifth reports of the Thirty Second Parliament, tabled in July 1981, June 1982 and April 1983, as well as the second report of the Thirty Third Parliament tabled recently.
Given that Bill C-72 contains most of the proposed amendments, it would seem appropriate to sum them up in order to put this debate in context and give credit, in particular, to the joint committee which worked very hard and submitted amendments which I consider contructive and which will reinforce the Act.
The first report of 1981 proposed two changes, first the repeal of all clauses dealing with bilingual districts and second the inclusion in the Act of the expressions "where numbers warrant" and "active offer of services".
We should recall that 1981 was a year of constitutional negotiations. The reference to numbers comes from the desire to harmonize the Act and the constitutional document. As to the active offer of services it will be embodied in the Act of 1987, in Section 27.
The fourth report, in 1982, added three new subjects. First a section to clarify the question of the language of work, a recommandation made by the committee following contested decisions of the courts. I recognize that the Act of 1987 took
Official Languages Act
that into consideration since it defines the language of work and its application in Sections 33 and 34. But the Government did not invent anything, it merely reproduced the parliamentary resolution of 1973 on the language of work, passed by this House in June 1973.
Then, again to clarify the Act, following the courts' rulings, the committee recommended that it should be made binding and declaratory, which means it should contain provisions making its implementation compulsory. It would therefore establish rights-we could for instance before the courts ask for compliance with the Act. The 1987 Act implements part of that recommendation in Sections 75(1) and 76(1). I need only remind Hon. Members the issue of airline employees and the whole disruption that was brought about by the court ruling that Section 2 of the Official Languages Act was only declaratory and not binding. This caused us many problems and we are trying to amend and strengthen the legislation, as I said earlier, in order to make it binding and declaratory.
Finally, the Committee insisted on the inclusion of a section regarding the fair participation of both language groups in this country, which is covered by the preamble and Part VI of the 1987 Act, Bill C-72. As regards the fifth Report of the Committee, one of its main recommendations concerns the recognition of the supremacy of the law. To some people, that issue was settled by the fact that Sections 16 to 20 of the Charter of Rights were enshrined in the 1982 Constitution Act. In fact, as the Charter is enshrined in the Constitution, it will render inoperative those provisions that are inconsistent on any other rule of law, in view of the supremacy of the Constitution. Incidentally, the wording of the Charter is almost exactly the same as Section 2 of the 1969 Official Languages Act.
In other people's view, the law will always be the interpretation framework for judges who try to determine the spirit and the intent of the law. If the law is not specific enough, the very vague safeguards provided for in Section 16(1) of the Charter will prevail. There have been many court rulings to this effect. In fact, the Deputy Minister of Justice confirmed it when he appeared before the Committee in March, April and May 1982.
Thus, to protect the provisions of the Official Languages Act, it is essential to include a clause that clearly asserts the intent of the law to give that act precedence over any other act, order, decree, by-law, rule or regulation.
Mr. Speaker, these events summarize the evolution of the issue from 1969 to 1982, when the problem of the primacy of the Act was recognized and identified. I am not saying that this problem occurred all of a sudden in 1982. What I mean to say is that from 1969 to 1982, the issue was examined from every angle and the courts rendered their decisions. It is a long process of interpretation and identification of the problem, as well as determination of the remedy which has made the

August 24, 1987
Official Languages Act
primacy of the Act a central and even significant issue in Bill C-72 which was introduced by this Government.
Mr. Speaker, I was involved in various capacities in this process. As an Hon. Member, as a Member of the Committee on Official Languages, and as chairman of this Committee. As an Hon. Member, I introduced a number of private bills calling on the House to adopt the principle of the primacy of the Official Languages Act. In 1984, I introduced a couple of bills, including Bills C-203 and C-223, all of which were seeking to establish the primacy of the Official Languages Act, thereby giving it a quasi-constitutional character, since all other legislation had to be subordinated to it, just as ordinary legislation are subordinated to the Constitution.
1 do not want to repeat the need to establish the primacy of the Act, for I have dealt enough with it from the start, preferring to show how Bill C-223 would provide in some cases a better protection than the provisions of Bill C-72. For instance, Clause 1 of Bill C-223 provides for the implicit repeal of any provision of a law of Canada in case of conflict, unless the notwithstanding clause applied. Moreover, Clause 11(1) made it an obligation for the Minister of Justice to examine every regulation to ascertain whether any inconsistency existed. The primacy sought through Bill C-223 is aimed at the subject matter of the Official Languages Act and not at the whole legislation. More specifically, it is to Section 2 that this primacy should have been provided.
Clause 79 (1) of Bill C-72 provides also that the primacy of the Act will be limited to certain provisions of the legislation, more specifically Parts I to IV which supersede all conflicting provisions of any other federal legislation or regulation.
Such a procedure namely the reference to explicit rather than implicit content, as in the case of Bill C-223, has advantages as well as disadvantages. On the positive side, this difference will dispel some of the doubts felt by judges because they will know exactly what the legislator was referring to when he granted the primacy of the law. Conversely, this leaves no room for a wider interpretation by the courts. Thus, although Bill C-223 is general in its application and covers the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 79 (2) excludes it explicitly, and also excludes its rules. It so happens that in some sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act, for instance those providing that race, ethnic or national origin are grounds for discrimination, section 3 of the act, or section 7 concerning discrimination in hiring, and section 8 concerning job applications, advertising and, may very well, Mr. Speaker, contradict the Official Languages Act.
Linguistic rights could therefore be weakened due to the removal of discriminatory motives since the Canadian Human Rights Act is excluded from the primacy clause in Bill C-72.
Furthermore, the fact that Part VI in Bill C-72 is excluded from the paragraph concerning primacy could cause problems relating to representation, equal participation, language of work and language of service. For instance, there could be
conflicts between the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act and those of the Official Languages Act. If that were to be the case, the Courts probably would decide in favour of the Public Service Employment Act rather than the Official Languages Act, because there is a rule that an Act of specific scope takes precedence over an Act of general scope, as is the Official Languages Act, because it will be remembered that Justice Deschenes in the Gens de l'air case in 197778 ruled it was an Act of general scope.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the situation as regards the primacy of the Official Languages Act has changed a lot since Bill C-72 was put in place. As 1 just said, the latter includes very specific provisions as to the primacy of the Act. I am quite pleased about that, Mr. Speaker. However, any specific provision eventually includes loopholes because of its very specificity. This is why it is useful to have legislations of a more general scope that become interpretation cases allowing the Courts to enjoy more flexibility, to be more open-minded in interpreting the law. Such is the thrust of Bill C-223 now before us. While being of general scope, it could complement the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.
Moreover, Bill C-223 includes provisions that are used-as I say, it charges the Minister of Justice with the responsibility to look at any proposed regulations.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Hon. Members in this House to support the Bill. I believe it is essential that we make two amendments to Bill C-72, and they are in Bill C-223-one to give primacy to the Act, and for which I hope 1 have the support of Hon. Members, and another to charge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) with the responsibility to review any regulations to ensure that there is no inconsistency with any act voted by this Parliament. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I thank all Hon. Members for their attention.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss the bill tabled by my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The bill is entitled An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and its basic purpose is to assert the primacy of the Official Languages Act which is now in force. Mr. Speaker, all those here would agree, I believe, that the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier has spared no effort to improve the status of official languages in federal institutions. 1 would like to congratulate him personally since I have had the opportunity on two or three occasions to sit in for a member of the joint committee on official languages and can therefore say that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is a relentless fighter on the french language issue. I would therefore take this opportunity to congratulate him personally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the primacy of the Official Languages Act over conflicting rules in other Acts has been abundantly discussed in the past. Already, in 1978,
August 24, 1987

the then Commissioner of Official Languages advocated that primacy in his annual report. Subsequently, a series of bills much to the same effect were tabled, as it happened most of them by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. Meanwhile, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms took effect. It enshrines the basic principles of the present Official Languages Act and gives them special status since they are encompassed in the supreme legislation of the country.
On April 24, 1986, during the second reading debate on the last of the bills introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier, Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, which dealt also with the primacy of that act, the importance of the matter had been acknowledged to a large extent. However, it was also emphasized a debate on this complex matter would not be appropriate at that time. Let me borrow from the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), my colleague on this side of the House and co-chairman of the Standing Joint committee on Official languages, the words he said then, and I quote:
-it would be premature at this stage to go the supremacy route alone, since in-depth studies undertaken by the Ministers most involved in language reform, at the request of the Prime Minister, should very soon result in a number of proposals that will allow for consideration of all aspects involving the Act and its application.
As you know, that examination has been undertaken, the work has been done and we now have the pleasure of having before us a complete bill on the official languages. Bill C-72 gives meaning to our linguistic duality, covers all important aspects in the language field and provides us with a strong and durable legal base. It applies to all Canadians irrespective of their ethnic background or mother tongue, and whether they belong to a majority or a minority. It shows a strong will on the part of the Government to bring about a true and profound renewal of our language policy. It dovetails with our commitment of national reconciliation. In short, it has, I believe, all the necessary elements to answer the expectations of Canadians in this regard, even those of my friend from Ottawa- Vanier. In fact, that Bill on official languages provides, in Section 79, for the primacy of the main clauses of the Act over those in other federal Acts or Regulations that might be inconsistent with them. And that is not all.
In the administration of justice, it guarantees better access to federal courts by reasserting and defining the right of a defendant to use one or the other official language. The Bill also provides for a better access of the public to federal institutions by strengthening the right of Canadians to communicate with and receive services from these institutions in the language of their choice.
As to the language of work in federal institutions, the Bill specifies, for the first time, the right of federal civil servants to use either one of the two official languages at work. Moreover, the Government commits itself, in that Bill, to guaranteeing equal opportunities of employment and promotion in federal institutions to all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic
Official Languages Act
background or mother tongue, and to seeking in these institutions a distribution of staff which reflects the distribution in Canada of English-speaking and French-speaking communities.
As for the Francophone and Anglophone minorities in Canada, the Government is determined to promote their development. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline once again the Meech Lake Accord which recognizes the distinct character of Quebec. If we want to engage in an exercise in semantics, we all know that the specific character of Quebec means its language. The Secretary of State will play a major role in this regard as his mission will be to coordinate federal efforts in this area, for instance through co-operation with the provinces and the private and voluntary sectors.
The position of the Official Languages Commissioner will be maintained. His role will still be to ensure that the spirit and letter of the Act are respected, but he will have more effective tools at his disposal.
Finally, one of the major strengths of this Bill is the provision of legal redress. Those Canadians who feel that their linguistic rights have been violated can take their case to the Federal Court. This Bill is good for both French and English Canadians. This cannot be overemphasized. The Official Languages Commissioner will also have the possibility of legal recourse.
Mr. Speaker, one man who deserves credit for the introduction of Bill C-72 is the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
We have as Prime Minister someone who is completely and perfectly at ease in both official languages of our country. It is rare for a Prime Minister to master completely both official languages. I am proud to be a member of his team.
I believe that these few words are enough to show that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, is a major piece of legislation which the House will soon be able to examine. We can easily conclude that the Bill introduced by my Government on June 25 both encompasses and surpasses that introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that, for the moment, there is no need to proceed further with consideration of Bill C-223 and that my Hon. friend for Ottawa-Vanier should certainly have made this clear and should perhaps simply have asked, as others have done before, that his Bill be withdrawn, as the Government has tabled a Bill which meets more than adequatly and even more substantially all the aspirations of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who is a great defender of the French language in the beautiful province of Ontario.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain sense of pride that as a Private Member one

August 24, 1987
Official Languages Act
has an opportunity to respond to a Bill such as Bill C-223 put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). This is one of the best examples of a Member of Parliament, working in co-operation with the joint standing committee concerned with a special issue, in this case the primacy of the Official Languages Act, being persistent. As my hon. friend across the way indicated at the beginning of her speech, for many, many years the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has put forward arguments year after year about the need to move in this direction, along with others in the House. He has done so once again in Bill C-223.
As a result of his persistence and as a result of his constantly reminding Parliament and his colleagues of the need to move on the whole matter of official language primacy, the Government in its wisdom has introduced Bill C-72. On June 25, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) introduced for first reading Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. That Bill is really a major step forward. Again, I think it is important at the outset that we indicate very clearly that these particular initiatives, Bill C-72 and Bill C-223, are of no threat to anyone in our country. They are a complement to Anglophones and Francophones. They are complements in terms of enhancing the status and role of those who wish to speak English and those who wish to speak French, or both, in Canada. Therefore it is a clear indication of the maturity and maturation that our country is going through to begin serious consideration of Bill C-72 sometime this fall.
I want to take off my hat, figuratively speaking, to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for once again reminding us through Bill C-223 of the importance of establishing the primacy of the Official Languages Act. Establishing primacy is like giving a quasi-constitutional status to the Official Languages Act in that it will take precedence over other statutes. Other laws will be subordinate to it when it comes to matters of language.
When one recalls the passionate and thoughtful debate that occurred in 1969 when the Official Languages Act was originally passed, one will recall that all sides of the House felt strongly about this issue and believed that it was certainly in the best interests of Canada. Now, through the establishment of primacy of the Official Languages Act, I think we will advance the cause and therefore make very clear in all parts of the country how seriously we feel about the primacy and role of English and French in Canada. We still have some way to go.
As my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier indicated, not long ago in the Province of Alberta a Member of that Legislature, the Member from Lac La Biche, Mr. Leo Piquette, rose in the House and asked a question, through the Speaker, in French. In a sense he was chastised for that particular act. There has been a great deal of debate following that action in terms of the appropriateness of that particular move. What it did was to place on the public agenda discussion of the issue and, again, to advance the cause. We have learned from that. From what I can gather, the matter is now before the Legislature of
Alberta. Out of that will come a reasoned debate and, hopefully, a reasoned decision.
I do not want to belabor this point but I think that it would be appropriate to take a moment or two to refer to Bill C-72. I do this out of no disrespect for my colleague regarding Bill C-223. 1 believe that his Private Members' initiative which resulted in the introduction of Bill C-72 will see the real discussion and debate probably in a legislative committee or, perhaps, in a reference to a joint standing committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.
Bill C-72 is an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. For our purposes this afternoon I will simply read the purpose of the Act since it would be appropriate for those listening and watching. The purpose of the Act is the following:
-to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to
(a)	ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions;
(b)	support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society; and
(c)	set out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions with respect to the official languages of Canada.
In terms of a purpose that is, obviously, a laudatory purpose. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has indicated, his Bill actually advances in some cases Bill C-72. It goes beyond what Bill C-72 covers. For that reason, his mentioning those areas in his Bill today will assist us in improving Bill C-72 when it comes forward for second reading and for discussion and amendment in legislative committee.
I am pleased to be part of the process that now works toward the establishment of the primacy of the Official Languages Act. It will set to rest a great deal of concern and wonderment that we have seen in the past when it was asked what, in fact, did take primacy, the Official Languages Act or some other statute. This, along with the passage not so much of Bill C-223 but the eventual passage of Bill C-72, will solve that issue once and for all.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I join the debate on Bill C-223. First 1 should like to make a brief remark concerning the sponsor of this Bill. The tenacity of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-since 1969 he has been relentlessly drawing the attention of the House to the important issue of the primacy of the Official Languages Act-deserves special mention. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier belongs to that group of illustrious people who for a number of years have been faithfully advocating full respect for the equal status of the official languages in this country. One of my eminent colleagues, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin),
August 24, 1987

called them defensores fidei linguaeque in an earlier debate on another legislative measure of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier in April 1986.
Shortly after the Official Languages Act was implemented there was a growing awareness of the need to ensure the primacy of this statute over other federal legislation. Not only was this opinion expressed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier, the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages and the Commissioner of Official Languages, but it is also the position of this Government which clearly stated its views on this question in Bill C-72. As a matter of fact, clause 79 of the Bill guarantees primacy by providing under subclause (1):
In the event of any inconsistency between Parts I to V and any other Act of
Parliament or regulation thereunder, those Parts prevail to the extent of the
inconsistency.
Parts I to V of the Bill are as follows: I - Proceedings of Parliament; II-Legislative and other instruments; III- Administration of justice; IV-Communications with and services to the public; and V-Language of work. These are the substantive parts of the Bill which derive from the constitutional rights and obligations set forth in sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We will have an opportunity to take a closer look at clause 79 in the near future when the measure is referred to a parliamentary committee, but I think the objective sought by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in his own Bill has been achieved to a large extent, a fact he would be prepared to acknowledge.
Bill C-72 tabled on June 25 meets in fact many other aspirations that have been expressed by the Canadian public, the Official Languages Commissionner, the Standing Joint Committee and language groups for the past 18 years since the implementation of the Official Languages Act.
The brief description of the main elements of Bill C-72 that my colleague has just made was surely sufficient to convince you that we have introduced a substantial reform. It shows how seriously this Government takes its national reconciliation policy under which the Official languages reform falls.
The Government has honoured the commitment it made in the Speech from the Throne of October 1986 and on many other occasions to make the Official Languages Act consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to commend all my colleagues who since September 1984, have allowed the use of French to increase in the House from 7 per cent to almost 21 per cent.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are coming closer to the Canadian reality. At least 27 to 30 per cent of the Canadian people are French-speaking. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we can continue in the House to develop that expression and to allow Canadians throughout the country to benefit from the French language as such. But it is also
Official Languages Act
important to keep on developing as well both official languages throughout Canada.
One of the main objectives of that reform was to make the Official Languages Act consistent with Sections 16 and 20 of the Charter. Language rights that are set forth in our Constitution are the foundation of our national language system. On these strong basis we are going to build a modern system.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will agree that Bill C-72 meets most of his concerns and objectives and that he will be very pleased to cooperate with us for a speedy passage of Bill C-72.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-223 has already been explained at great length since the beginning of this debate. It is, of course, about the primacy of the French language, as already stated in Section 2 of the Official Languages Act, 1969, over any conflicting rule in other federal legislation ... of course, Mr. Speaker, all this has been said so many times, and again today by the two Hon. Members who spoke previously, and of course in committee and in the House of Commons by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
We know the Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes no direct reference to this provision, and now we have Bill C-72 which in English, and I will have to quote from the English text, is An Act respecting the status and use of the Official Languages of Canada. This legislation starts as follows-and I will quote the English text because that is the text I have before me and I would rather not give you a translation that would not be the official one:
Whereas the Constitution of Canada provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament and Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is quite clear and that it would be very hard to misinterpret this clause. I would like to mention at this point that Bill C-72 was tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and given first reading on June 25 of this year. This first provision of Bill C-72 is mentioned more specifically in Clause 2, and here again I will quote in English because I only have the English text:

"to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages".

This means that this legislation, Bill C-72, will reinforce all pertinent legislation to ensure that both official languages are

August 24, 1987
Official Languages Act
used by the Canadian Government and Parliament in their general administration and all their instruments,
Mr. Speaker, the same Bill contains a provision that is quite clear and which I will not translate but I would like to quote it to remind people of the full impact of Bill C-72. It reads as follows, and I quote:

-ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions.

Mr. Speaker, after sitting a number of times on the Official Languages Committee, 1 realize that it is still a fairly difficult business, especially for French Canadians, to ensure that while certain laws may be favoured by the majority of Canadians and thus compliance may not seem as problematic, nevertheless we must not forget that although the minority may not have numerical clout, it does have equal status and that we have two official languages in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that is of course why, in Clause 79 of the Bill, it says clearly that in the event of any inconsistency between Parts I to V and any other Act of Parliament or regulation thereunder, those Parts prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. The aim is to ensure that the status of both official languages is complete and that we, French Canadians, both outside and inside Quebec, may use the French language in total security, just as English speaking persons would be ensured the opportunity to speak in committee, in a committee that would be held in Montreal or Saint-Polycarpe or Saint-Telesphore or anywhere in Quebec, even if the majority is French-speaking, at that point, Canadians can speak both on Parliament matters and on Government matters or on any of its acts or regulations in the language of their choice.
Mr. Speaker, it is understood that the very clear intent of parts I to V is indeed to ensure that the rights and privileges and obligations of the English and French languages are respected on a constitutional basis. Part I and Part V, which deal with parliamentary procedure, legislative procedure and other procedure and other parliamentary instruments, with the administration of justice and also, in the same section, very clearly, in order not to leave any loophole in that legislation, that list a whole range-as others that 1 am now listing, communications and services to the public, working language-it is clearly understood that all this will naturally lead to a clear, outright and final expression, that the principles put forward in Sections 16 to 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are completely respected, both in English and in French.
Mr. Speaker, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supreme in Canada, to the extent that any law which is not consistent with the principles and provisions of the Constitution must be declared to be inconsistent with the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, and as such it has no effect. The text is quite clear in this respect. Therefore it stands to reason that the Official Languages Act is a statutory and constitutional statement that protects the rights and obligations which in case of conflict must prevail over any federal legislation or regulation whatever, again be it parliamentary or executory within the government generally. It is very broad in scope, in the sense that all anglophones in Canada can expect to get good service in Quebec City, Gaspe and Montreal, and that a francophone can rightfully enjoy his privileges and be well served in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
However, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that all amendments to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which apply to federal institutions require the consent of Parliament and of the ten provincial legislatures. It goes to show how serious this is. So all provisions of the Official Languages Act and of the Charter are not subject to the "notwithstanding" clause and as such express the exception procedures already established in section 33.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, all these rights are already deeply anchored in the constitutional rights set forth in the Official Languages Act.
Let me point out here that this complex case which had been covered since 1969 under general statutes is now specifically defined so that all Canadians can feel at ease in the operations of both their Parliament and their government. We Frenchspeaking Canadians can consider this as an important step on the part of the Progressive Conservative Government to ensure that we can express our privileges, our rights and our obligations in the language of our choice in our beautiful Canada.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it pleases me greatly to take part in this debate with my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who, in my parliamentary experience, is a staunch and able advocate of bilingualism.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-223, which proposes to amend the Official Languages Act of 1969. I do not wish to dispute the principle of primacy that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) proposes to inscribe in the Official Languages Act. However, I do want to add some remarks.

It would be going against the grain of Canadian history to deny the capital importance of the official languages debate in shaping our national identity.

1 agree with my colleague, the author of the Bill, for whom Section 2 of the existing language legislation is crucial to our collective equilibrium. The wording of this section of the 1969
August 24, 1987

Act has become part of the essence of Canada's linguistic duality. That wording has now been basically entrenched in Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In the Bill tabled by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) at the end of June, the principle of primacy has in fact a much wider scope than the legislation which my colleague would like us to adopt. Earlier today, my colleague read Clause 79 of Bill C-72 which would give the five substantive parts of the Official Languages Act primacy over any conflicting federal legislation other than the Canadian Human Rights Act. Clause 79 of Bill C-72 contains no notwithstanding clause while Bill C-223 presented by my colleague does.
Our Bill does not restrict itself to giving primacy to the Official Languages Act since it contains numerous measures to improve the equality of status of the two languages in a large number of fields. I refer to proceedings of Parliament, preparation and publication of federal legislation, and certain other things.
I think it is important to put on the record the comments of the Hon. Member who has long been at the forefront of the battle to improve the status of English and French in Canada. When Bill C-72 was tabled at the beginning of the summer, my colleague probably realized why the careful preparation of the proposed legislation took some time. Let me quote the remarks of the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition as he referred to Bill C-72:

I am pleased to acknowledge that this Governement, building upon initiatives of the previous Government and in an effort to ensure consistency with the Charter of rights and freedoms and to meet certain other requirements, has come up with a bill which I find constructive. And 1 must say, in a non-partisan vein, that the bill meets a great number of its intended objectives.

I think I have tabled about ten Private Members' Bills. I find them here.
I do not believe we could have any better advocate on behalf of the Government's legislation, Bill C-72, than the Hon. Member. When the Bill goes to committee I am sure we will have his assistance in proceeding with that legislation.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on August 18,
I put a question to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), asking him what action he would take with regard to the overcharges placed by the banks on farmers across Canada in the early 1980s. I asked this question specifically because a number of farmers have found that they have been charged exorbitant amounts of interest over and above that to which they agreed on the original notes they signed when the banks switched fixed-rate notes to floating-interest-rate notes.
Several such cases have already gone to court and rulings have been made in favour of the farmers. In some cases, out-of-court settlements have been made involving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Many months ago, in the early spring, the Minister referred the matter to the Inspector General of Banks, who is now the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and I understand that that report was made available to him in late June. So far, the Minister has not made the report of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions available to the House. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do that this afternoon on his behalf.
The other issue at stake is that a number of farmers who believe they have overpaid hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest have gone to their banks to receive copies of their liability ledgers or lists of notes they signed in the early 1980s. Before 1982, it was the practice of most banks to use a fixed-interest-rate-note form when lending money to farmers, and in fact, those are the legal documents and the ones that are binding in court. However, when some farmers have asked their bankers for copies of their liability ledgers, they have been told that they must pay as much as $500 just to see their documents.
I find it incredible that a bank doing business with a valued customer, business in many cases involving tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars and large interest payments, would not want to make those documents readily available. In any case, the banks are not making them available and many farmers are having difficulty proving their cases.
The House of Commons Agriculture Committee heard testimony from a lawyer who does a lot of business with farmers in southwestern Ontario, Mr. Larry Rider. He indicated that it was a very common practice for banks to switch from a fixed rate of interest to a floating rate of interest during the recession when interest rates were climbing dramatically. He said that he was sure that many farmers had paid exorbitant amounts of interest. Earlier I referred to two such cases. One was a court case in which some $250,000-worth of interest was awarded to the farmer. In another case in Alberta, some $240,000 was returned to the farmer in an out-of-court settlement.

August 24, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I believe the Minister of State for Finance should call the bankers and major financial institutions to ask them to make these documents freely available to their valued customers, including farmers and some small businessmen, so that they can handle their cases in an open, direct, honest and aboveboard manner. This matter is of national significance because tens of millions of dollars of interest payments are at stake.
It seems to me that unless the Government releases the documents of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and clarifies exactly where this whole matter is going, it should appoint a royal commission of inquiry to deal with this matter which affects many, many farmers and small businessmen who may have been overcharged large amounts of money.
S)
It is very difficult for a farmer, unless he is extremely well off, to sue the bank because of the legal costs involved. As well, there is the danger of his credit being cut off. It is therefore essential for the Government to set up a commission of inquiry to clarify this matter, and then put in place some mechanism whereby the banks and other financial institutions make restitution to the thousands of farmers who were overcharged for interest during the early 1980s.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, since we were just talking about official languages I will be pleased, as a matter of courtesy, to answer the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) in his own language.

This issue of overcharging farmers by banks has been raised in this House on several occasions and has also been the subject of considerable public debate and attention in recent months. The debate centres on the past practice of chartered banks and other financial institutions relating to the past administration of their past floating rate loan portfolios. The proposition has been put forward that interest in excess of rates set out in loan documentation, signed by farmers and other businessmen, was illegally charged by banks to their customers. These claims arise from a long established administrative practice formerly engaged in by banks until their loan documentation was revised in the seventies and the early eighties. The practice consisted of documenting loans carried on a floating or variable rate basis through fixed rate demand promissory notes. That is, a customer who borrowed on this basis would execute a promissory note at the then prevailing interest rate and would be asked to sign new notes as rates changed. Over time, many banks ceased having new notes signed, for administrative ease, but notified clients of the new effective interest rates.
The banks no longer document floating rate notes on this basis but have developed and introduced floating rate promissory notes. It is understandable that the former practice might lead to confusion on the part of the borrower as to the interest
due on his loan. That is, is the floating rate or the fixed rate applicable? The issue in alleged cases of overcharging is whether the borrower knew and had agreed to the rates he was being charged. This is basically a legal question that raises issues of interpretation of the arrangements or contracts between the borrower and the lender. The proper forum for the resolution of disputes of this nature, which the Government has been saying all along, is the court system. Only a judge has authority to weigh evidence in a particular case, find facts, and order proper redress. The Government cannot act in the place of the judiciary, and only the judiciary can determine whether in a given case a farmer or other customer was overcharged or not.


SMALL BUSINESS-NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, on August 19, 1987, I asked the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) about the fate of the Native Economic Development Program. This program began in 1984 with a budget allocation of $345 million over a four-year period. It offered great hope to aboriginal groups that finally there was a serious commitment by the Government to advance the selfsufficiency of aboriginal communities and individuals by providing long term adequately funded business opportunities. In the first three and a half years, only 40 per cent of the funds were allocated. As I understand it, the program has been extended by one year to March, 1989. There then remains one and a half years to disburse the 60 per cent remainder of the committed funds.
The Minister answered my question by stating that a number of projects were being funded by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. However, that was not my question.
Following the discovery two months into the fiscal year that the entire budget of the DRIE funds had been expended, a freeze was put on all DRIE and related programs, the Native Economic Development Program being one of those. It, of course, specifically addressed the needs of aboriginal communities. Although agreements signed with ministerial approval do seem to be honoured at the moment under the Native Economic Development Program, other applicants to this program are being told at one bureaucratic level that a freeze is on and at another that it is not. It appears that the serious mismanagement of the one program, DRIE, is resulting in the further mismanagement of another.
It is well known that over a century of colonial rule has destroyed the traditional land-based economy of Canadian aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are not asking for handouts. They are asking, and have been encouraged to ask, for assistance in developing small businesses which are relevant to many of the rural communities in aboriginal situations as well as assistance with financial institutions which will facilitate the
August 24, 1987

capitalization of such businesses when traditional lending institutions will not. They have received a mish-mash of programs operated by various ministries focusing on shortterm training and job creation and rarely resulting in enabling a stable, long-term economy to develop.
In fact, in the Government's own paper of July, 1987, entitled Consultation Paper on DRIE Native Economic Programs, they admit that to date the Government has been unsuccessful in addressing the economic needs of aboriginal communities. It says: "Efforts have resulted in only term employment at low wage levels".
The Native Economic Development Program offered at least one answer to this problem, but it now seems that aboriginal groups are the first to take the fall for the Government's admitted mismanagement of the DRIE program. The Government has offered promises and little money and now promises consultation and less money. Consultation is always useful, but not if it is simply another substitute for action.
In fact, in a briefing note to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) of July 23 it is indicated that on July 30 the Cabinet was to decide the future of native economic development programs, and this before a six-month consultation process with aboriginal people had even begun.
I dare say aboriginal people may be some of the most consulted people in Canada and have received some of the most apathetic action on their expressed concerns. It is no wonder that they have lost faith that their interests are being taken seriously by the Government.
We are talking here about people's lives, about whether the trapper, the fisher, the trucker, the store owner or the construction company can get started, hire people, and begin to address the extremely high rates of unemployment which exist in many aboriginal communities.
The House was recently told by the Government that the Canadian economy is doing pretty well, that jobs have been created. My question is simply oriented to ensuring that aboriginal people share in this. We cannot say that the Canadian economic situation has improved for all Canadians if a large segment of our population is left out. It is time for the Government to give some straight answers to aboriginal people.
My questions were really quite simple. While the Minister did confirm on August 19 that projects are being approved, I do understand that $43 million is unexpended under the Native Economic Development Program in this fiscal year. 1 further understand that, given the audit on the Department, Treasury Board authority is required to expend this amount and that the matter will be brought before Treasury Board on September 15.
Will the Minister confirm this information? Will he undertake, on behalf of aboriginal people, to do his utmost to ensure that this year's full allocation for native economic
Adjournment Debate
development programs is secured in addition to ensuring that the $345 million for the Native Economic Development Program is spent according to a previous commitment made?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I am really embarrassed and sorry, but I cannot answer the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mrs. McLaughlin) who was taking part tonight in her first adjournment debate, as we were not prepared to answer such a question. I think there has been some mix up in the answers which have been prepared. However, we have taken note of her question which, by the way, matters a great deal to me since I am of Indian descent on my mother's side. I can guarantee the Hon. Member for Yukon that we will answer her in writing very shortly.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS-UPGRADING OF INFRASTRUCTURES- GOVERNMENT'S REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR FUNDS- GOVERNMENT POSITION-COST OF UPGRADING
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, some months ago at its most recent meeting, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, having had a study done on the state of the infrastructure of most of the municipalities, particularly the large municipalities in Canada, including the state of the roads, sewers, sidewalks and water supply, realized that these services were deteriorating at a tremendously rapid rate. Given the sharp increase in the numbers of people living in our cities, it was felt important to bring to the attention of the federal and provincial Governments what was happening and to propose a plan to deal with this situation before a crisis arose.
As I drive around the City of Winnipeg I see sewer breaks, roads which have collapsed, sidewalks with large holes. I am sure other Members of Parliament see the same in their cities so I understand the needs outlined by the Federation. Healthy municipal services contribute to a healthy economy. Good roads are essential for getting employees to work and products to market. Industry, which this Government says it wants to encourage, needs the water systems to keep working and machines to keep operating. Bridges and sidewalks are equally important for the movement of people and products.
Studies have been done which show very clearly that if we leave these things too long, the cost of repair becomes astronomical. It costs almost three times as much to repair these facilities after 25 years as it would be to repair them after 15 years.
The municipalities have, in most cases, deferred the necessary maintenance of their roads, bridges, sewers and water distribution systems not because they are unaware of the problem but because of economic pressure. The revenue from taxes, federal and provincial funding and municipal taxes, have been inadequate to do the work which should be done.

August 24, 1987
Adjournment Debate
It is estimated that what needs to be done would cost about $12 billion in the next five years. What is proposed is a threeway funding, a third paid by the municipalities themselves, a third paid by the provinces and a third paid by the federal government.
That is a lot of money, but it was pointed out that to a large extent this cost would be self-financed because it would provide 280,000 person-years of work. Jobs would be created and the cost would be recovered through increased taxes paid by these people, through lower unemployment insurance payments and lower social assistance costs.
It makes eminent sense to me, and the proposal received the support of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the support of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). I was shocked when 1 asked questions of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to hear their very quick rejection of this proposal. They say they are not interested subsidizing municipalities. I find that very strange since they are prepared to subsidize provincial government infrastructure. In the regional development plans which are agreed on between the federal Government and some of the provinces, there are subagreements to fund highways and other projects. The projects about which the municipalities have talked are just as important. 1 would like to give one illustration of what this means.
I express my amazement that the Minister of the Environment, who comes from Prince Edward Island, does not realize, or does not know, about the tremendous problem in cities such as Halifax and Dartmouth. There are 200,000 or more people in those cities. They simply dump their sewage into the harbour. His own Ministry has estimated that only 13 per cent to 14 per cent of all the sewage in Nova Scotia is treated. How can a Minister from Prince Edward Island be so blind, so callous and so uncaring about a situation which exists just a few miles from where he lives?
This is a problem which is of tremendous importance. I urge the Government to stop thinking about the balance sheet for the immediate present and to think about the long-range consequences of not taking action. I think that the proposal made by the Federation of Municipalities makes eminent sense. It would bring benefits to the municipalities, lower unemployment and reduce our costs for dealing with the unemployed. It is one which the federal Government should give careful, sympathetic and early consideration to rather than the kind of brusque brush-off it has given to it.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, we have the answer to that question, but first of all I would like to emphasize my interest for that subject, first as an engineer by profession, and second
for having represented the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to comment briefly on the position of the Government regarding the financing of municipal water and sewer systems. As my colleagues would know very well, for some time now the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has been asking the federal Government to pay over the next five years one third of an outlay which might be as high as $15 billion to help finance the municipal infrastructure and its replacement. Nearly half this amount would be earmarked for improving water and sewer services.
In 1980 the previous administration abolished a program of assistance in this field when financial restraints raised the issue of federal assistance in a field of provincial and municipal jurisdiction. Although this is still the case, new evidence at the international level leads to believe that not only are such grants inadequate from a constitutional standpoint and somewhat financially ill-advised, but they also can prove to be ecologically irresponsible.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a recent publication of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development concerning the rates for water services. During a two-year study the OECD Environment Committee gathered data from 24 permanent member countries and became a strong supporter of the principle that the user should pay the cost directly. Another one of their conclusions is that the adoption of this principle would produce highly acceptable results from an environmental point of view.
This Government, our Government, firmly believes that the most viable and the most valid long-term solution to the many water problems in Canada lies in realistic rates, both in the literal sense, which means charging an adequate price for water used, and in a more general sense, and that is respecting the wide variety of values which water may represent and on which no rate can be set.
I also wish to mention a recent study of the American Waterworks Association which indicates that among the ten industrialized countries surveyed, Canada charges the lowest price to its industries. Canadian industry as a whole pays about one quarter the amount paid by the European industry for its water and about half the amount paid by our American neighbours.
You can be assured that the federal Government will assume fully the responsibilities conferred on it by our Constitution. However, it will promote the application of realistic guidelines for water; it will manage its own facilities and play a leadership role in the development of new techniques and the transfer of information; but it will certainly not propagate the idea of bad financial and environmental management by creating a national subsidy program in this area.
Mr. Speaker, this problem is completely outside our jurisdiction, and the proposal advanced as a possible solution is
August 24, 1987

impractical and even reprehensible from an environmental * point of view.	Adjournment Debate this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
' The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): The motion to adjourn E the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly,	The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.

Tuesday, August 25, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers