1987-11-03

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government response to 23 petitions bearing the following numbers: 332-3124 to 332-3126 inclusive, 332-3131, 332-3144 to 332-3146 inclusive, 332-3194 to 332-3197 inclusive, 3323200, 332-3207, 332-3211, 332-3217 to 332-3219 inclusive, 332-3224, 332-3227, 332-3228, 332-3238, 332-3245 and 3323261.



VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the Victorian Order of Nurses, I would like to offer the Government of Canada's sincere congratulations to the Order, a national voluntary non-profit organization comprised of 75 branches in nine provinces across Canada.
It was in 1897, with the support of the National Council of Women, that Lady Aberdeen founded VON Canada. Lady Aberdeen had been actively promoting visiting nursing in Britain, where she had made the personal acquaintance of Florence Nightingale, who later wrote to her in Canada, and offered support and encouragement for the new Canadian nursing venture.
At a public meeting on February 10, 1897, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a motion inaugurating the Order "as a mode of commemoration by the Dominion of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee". Lady Aberdeen was chosen president of the new Order, and on December 28 of the same year, Queen Victoria granted VON Canada a Royal Charter.
The Order's First 12 nurses were admitted at an official ceremony in November, 1897. After only five months, the Order organized a team of four nurses to accompany the Canadian Government Expedition to the Klondike. Throughout the 1917 Halifax disaster, the influenza epidemic of 1918, and two world wars, VON Canada continued to meet the challenging and changing needs of Canadians.
The first branches were organized in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver, and Kingston. When other requests for nursing services came from remote pioneer districts in the west, the VON offered to establish cottage hospitals. In 1898 the first of 44 cottage hospitals was opened in Regina. The last of these was turned over to local authorities in 1924.
More recently, in response to changing community needs, VON Canada is offering such innovative services as adult daycare, placement co-ordination, foot-care clinics, volunteer visiting, and such specialty services as palliative care and respiratory care.
During 1986, some 1,618 VON nurses provided more than three million home visits to 134,500 Canadians. I offer my thanks and congratulations, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the Members in the House, to this active and vital organization.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I am pleased to join with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) this morning to honour the contribution of the Victorian Order of Nurses to Canadian health care on this, the occasion of its ninetieth anniversary.
The Minister has spoken this morning of the Order's first 90 years of service in Canada; of its selfless contribution in times of war, natural disaster and health epidemic. The mark of a truly great health organization is service to Canadians day in and day out in both urban and remote communities. The Victorian Order of Nurses meets and indeed surpasses this standard.
When, in the past, Canadians required nursing care, the Victorian Order of Nurses has always provided this public service with compassion, efficiency, and dedication. As Canadian society has changed and developed, so has the nursing services provided by the Victorian Order of Nurses. It is this ability to identify the needs of Canadians and to respond to those needs which will ensure that 90 years from now parliamentarians will again rise in the House to congratulate the Victorian Order of Nurses for its outstanding contribution to Canadian health care.

November 3, 1987
Petitions
[DOT] (mo)
Again, on behalf of the Official Opposition, our sincerest congratulations.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me as health critic for the New Democratic Party to add our most sincere congratulations and appreciation to the Victorian Order of Nurses for 90 years of very special nursing services to Canadians.
The VON public health nurses and nurse practitioners have consistently pushed forward the frontiers of health care in Canada, bringing services to northern and remote communities and to the elderly and infirm in the comfort of their homes. They have a vision of a health care system which we as New Democrats share, a system that is preventive and community-based.
Many studies have shown that we must shift a much larger share of our health care dollars from curative to community care. Our population is rapidly aging and institutional care is very costly. It is essential that older people have the option to remain in their own homes as long as possible with a range of community support services like those provided so well by the VON.
1 am sure that VON nurses were pleased when Bill C-3, respecting the Canada Health Act, included a new Clause 9 to provide insurance coverage for "additional services rendered by health care practitioners". Unfortunately, to date no provinces have implemented this clause, which could greatly extend community nursing and paraprofessional services. The bulk of funding is still going to hospitals and nursing homes. Only 10 cents of the health care dollar goes to community support services.
1 call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to extend and expand the tradition established by the Victorian Order of Nurses by increasing funding for community nursing and by persuading provinces to implement Section 9 of the Canada Health Act.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise in the House to present a petition which requests that Canada Coast Guard not destaff lighthouses on the West Coast of Canada in order to protect and enhance the safety of the travelling public.
A great deal of concern has been expressed in the petition, and the individuals wish that the Minister would act immediately to overturn the proposal as laid down by the Canada Coast Guard.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a petition which bears the signatures of a number of residents of the Ottawa-Carleton region and which is in accordance with Standing Order 106. This petition humbly sheweth that:
Whereas close to one million francophones residing outside Quebec will not be able to watch French television broadcasts of the Calgary Winter Olympic Games;
Whereas the CRTC compromise under which French TV signals would be made available to cable companies is unacceptable because not all francophone communities outside Quebec have cable service;
Whereas French-speaking Canadians will pay their share of the $200 million earmarked by the Conservative Government for the Calgary Winter Olympic Games.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to urge the Conservative Government to respect its commitment toward Canada's linguistic minorities by providing all communities from coast to coast with the possibility of watching, in both official languages, broadcasts of this international event, the 1988 Winter Olympic Games.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by people from the riding of Ottawa- Vanier, in which your petitioners state that nearly one million francophones living outside Quebec will be enabled to watch the Calgary Winter Games on French language television.
The compromise suggested by the CRTC which would be to make the TV signals in French available to cable TV distributors is unacceptable.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) pointed out, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to urge the Conservative Government to respect its commitments to language minorities in this country by making this program available.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to table a petition on behalf of many people in Ontario who want to watch the Olympic Games in French. Your petitioners are asking the Conservative Government to meet its commitments to this country's language minorities by making television broadcasting of this international event, the 1988 Olympic Games, available in both official languages throughout the country.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as well to table a petition on behalf of people who are very concerned about the fact that the 1988 Olympic Games will not be televised in French throughout Canada.
November 3, 1987

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will meet its commitment to official language minorities and ensure that television broadcasts of this international event be available to all minority groups in the country.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I am pleased to present to the House a petition containing hundreds of names and concerning the closure of the embassy in Ecuador.
The petition reads as follows: Whereas the Canadian embassy in Ecuador has been opened and closed twice in the last 10-year period, and whereas the closure of the embassy in Ecuador has caused hardship to those individuals seeking to apply for immigration to Canada and for visitors' visas, and whereas the waiting period for an appointment with an immigration officer in Bogota, Colombia, the nearest Canadian embassy to Ecuador, can be as long as six months, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to express their support for the reopening of the Canadian embassy in Ecuador and to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reverse the decision to close the embassy.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House of Commons on behalf of the rural communities in Canada which stand to lose their post offices over the next 10 years under this Government.
The Government has given direction to Canada Post to cut back on rural services and on rural post offices, whereby rural postmasters and postmistresses will be taken off salary, and we will not have a representative of Canada Post per se on the payroll of Canada Post in the rural communities of Canada.
The petitioners from Wilno, Ontario are a case in point. They feel that the fight for the Wilno Post Office is the fight for every rural community in Canada. They do not want to see these rural services diminished in any way, because the postmaster or postmistress is the one remaining public servant of Canada identified with the federal Government in many of those communities. He or she is well known to everybody in the community and stands as a representative of the federal Government of Canada and indeed a servant of the community.
Therefore, 1 present the petition to support their cause that the Government retain rural post offices for the services of rural communities.
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 194 will be answered today.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Justice make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Since September 4, 1984, the Department of Justice made the following contributions to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto:
$75,000 Public legal education information network in Canada-Canadian Law Information Council
$9,500 Improving community mechanisms to support child sexual abuse victims-Metro Chairman's Special Committee
$6,500 National Conference of Directors of the Native Courtworker Program-Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres
$145,800 Child victim/witnesses in the criminal justice system-Metropolitan Toronto Special Committee on Child Abuse
$50,000 Development of a position on the federal government discussion paper on equality rights-N.A.C. on the Status of Women
$5,700 Brief to the Sub-Committee on Equality Rights- Peter Maloney
$5,000 Standford Lectures-1986-Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies
$5,000 Enterprise Crime Conference-Ontario Provincial Police
$10,881 National Database-Metfors
$17,985 Legal Information to Youth-Community Legal Education-Ontario
$38,700 Immigration Kit-Community Legal Education- Ontario
$150,000 National organization for mediation in family law matters-Family Mediation Canada
$60,000 Research project on mediation in family law- Legal Aid Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
$5,000 Conference on Constitutional Litigation-Faculty of Law-University of Toronto
$23,000 Language Rights in Canada-Faculty of Law- University of Toronto
$15,160 Special Issue on Section 15 of the Charter of Rights-Phoenix Rising Magazine
$3,500 Special Issue regarding the Charter of Rights and the psychiatric system-Phoenix Rising Magazine
$9,443 Citizen's Handbook on legal ways of cross-border interventions-Canadian	Environmental Law Research
Foundation
$8,200 Symposium about kids on the streets-Covenant House Toronto
$20,000 National Conference on family mediation-Family Mediation Canada
$20,160 Training, Information Standards and Ethics on Family Law-Family Mediation Canada
$7,500 National Criminal Law Program Conference- Federation of Law Societies of Canada
$8,000 Conference on the Charter of Rights-Federation of Law Societies of Canada
$6,000 Annual lecture series on media, courts and the Charter-Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
$11,000 Start-up of Advocate Journal-Canadian Human Rights Advocate
$12,700 Research study on the effects of mediation-York University
$25,275 Upgrading and expanding legal information- Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped
$7,500 International Conference on black lawyers and jurists-Delos Davis Law Guild [Translation]


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Minister has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by six minutes beginning at one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to'amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are making history here today in the House of Commons but not the kind of history any of us could be proud of. Never before in this country, in this Parliament, has the House of Commons been asked to approve a legislative proposal not once, not twice but three times.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: You might get it right the third time.


Harvie Andre: Three times we have been asked to pass a piece of legislation.
Let me recount very quickly the history of this legislation. All kinds of claims have been made as to its initiative, where it has come from, where it is tied to and so on. It bears reminding the House that in June, 1983 the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), then the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, introduced a White Paper on behalf of the Liberal Government which said in part:
To generate further growth in this industry-
Namely the pharmaceutical industry:
-the Government of Canada has decided to change the Patent Act to rebalance the 1969 policy.
That was the policy of the Liberal Government which needed to rebalance the 1969 changes to the Patent Act to generate growth in the pharmaceutical industry. On April 17, 1984 the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Judy Erola, appointed the Eastman Commission. In June, 1984, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), who at that point in time was duly elected and receiving briefings from Mr. Osbaldeston, continued to hold directorships of several companies, including the chairman of Sandoz Canada. In that capacity he was highly critical of compulsory licensing and said that it needed to be amended.
On July 16, 1984, during the election campaign, which deals with the question as to whether the Government has a mandate, the Progressive Conservative Party said:
A Progressive Conservative Government would review the Patent Act to ensure that intellectual capital is protected and to allow innovating companies to profit from the investment made in research and development without causing the consumer to pay unduly higher prices for medications.
We are on record as a Party during the election campaign as saying that we would change the Patent Act.
On February 16, 1985, four months after the Government was sworn in, the current Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote) then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, described the Government's intention to act on the pharmaceutical issue in a February 16 interview with Les Affaires, a Quebec business journal. The Minister stated that he intended to table a new policy for pharmaceuticals by the spring of 1985.
November 3, 1987

On February 22, 1985, again just four months after being sworn in, the Government, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada and the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association initialled a protocol suspending compulsory licensing applications while work proceeded concerning amendments to Section 41(4) of the Patent Act. Four months after the Government was elected, we had this protocol, but it came apart and was never acted upon. On February 28, 1985, the Eastman Commission reported. On March 15, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs announced that consultations with the generic and brand name companies would be held. There were a series of consultations.
I might point out that on June 20, 1985, the then PQ Government of Quebec adopted a resolution unanimously in the National Assembly calling for amendments to the Patent Act. That was repeated by the newly elected Liberal Government of Quebec on December 19, 1985.
Someone has suggested that the trade negotiations were tied to Bill C-22. The Government in July, 1985 had P and P meetings in Baie Comeau. The Cabinet decision to initiate trade talks was announced in September, 1985. The amendments to the Patent Act came out of our commitment in the election and preceded by almost a year any concern about the decision respecting free trade.
One year ago on November 6, 1986, the Bill was finally given first reading in this Flouse. There were 12 hours of debate in this House and extensive committee hearings were held. Finally the Bill was sent to the Senate in May of this year. The Senate resisted all efforts on our side to encourage it to engage in pre-study on the Bill. That is something the Senate does quite often on complex and important Bills, but the Senate refused to do so in this instance. When the Bill was referred to the Senate, instead of giving it the usual treatment of reference to a standing committee, the Senate set up a special committee which went on a tour of the country to try to get some groundswell of opposition. Some $350,000 were spent on that. That committee reported at the end of June. I was around all the month of July making it known to the Senate that I was here to discuss the Bill with the Senators. I had only one meeting, and after prodding from our side finally, on August 12, the Senate reported. On August 26 this House discussed the motion to send the Bill back to the Senate.
I might mention a couple of quotes from the debates of that day. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said:
-we believe the Senate should let the Bill pass after the House of Commons has, in fact, reviewed the matter.
On the same day the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, said:
Patent Act
-at the end of the day the elected House of Commons must prevail. That is
a clear position of the Liberal Party.
The Bill went back to the Senate. The Senate has then referred it to another committee. The Senators said they had no intention to delay, and I made it clear that 1 was anxious to appear before their committee. Finally, on October 3 I had one appearance before the committee. A member of my staff saw the amendments which we are now debating written on a document dated September 29. In other words, the Senate had already made its decision on the amendments before I appeared before their committee. It then reported to the House. The Senate was to debate the matter two weeks ago, but it was not possible because the Liberal Leader in the Senate was in Scotland and he wanted to speak. The Senators were going to discuss the matter last Tuesday, but again it was not possible because my remarks from the committee on October 3 were not yet translated. Then the Senators were to discuss the Bill on Wednesday, but the Governor General had need for the Red Chamber. Finally, on Thursday with one speaker from each side, the Senate sent the Bill back.
I challenge anyone to suggest seriously that what we have been exposed to over the last six or seven months is cold, analytical, non-partisan sober second thought. 1 challenge anyone to describe that as sober second thought.


John V. Nunziata: What are you suggesting?


Harvie Andre: We have now before us amendments with which we must deal.
I have a motion I would like to put to the House respecting these amendments. I have given copies to each of the opposition Parties and if it is agreed, 1 would like to have the motion taken as read. It is technical and extensive and I will deal with the substance of it, of course, in debate, but in the interests of saving time, perhaps I could have the agreement of the House that this motion, seconded by the Minister of State, might be introduced as read.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, would there be a quick summary of the motion given before we give the unanimous agreement to it? I would like to hear the motion in summary.


Harvie Andre: I am not asking for unanimous agreement to the motion, I am asking for unanimous agreement for it to taken as read and I will give a description.


Raymond John Skelly: Before that is given, will the Minister just give a quick summary?


Harvie Andre: Okay, Mr. Speaker-


John V. Nunziata: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that a copy of the motion has been given to

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
opposition critics. Elowever, there are others in the House who have not had an opportunity-


Harvie Andre: I gave four copies to each Party.


John V. Nunziata: That is true, but there are more than four Members in the House of Commons. I have not received a copy and perhaps the Minister can give us a precis of the resolution itself in order for us to participate adequately. If not, we might be put in a position to request that it be read.


Harvie Andre: I will read it and I want to thank the Hon. Member for his respect for the traditions of decency and fair play in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As soon as the Minister has read the motion and has forwarded it to the Chair, the Chair will make copies for everybody in the House.


Harvie Andre: The motion reads as follows:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 18(b) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to Amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendment 13(a), (b), (c), and (d), 14(a), (b), (c) and (d) and amendment 16(a) because this House believes that amendments 4(b), 11, 12, 15(a), (b), and (c), 16(b), (c), (d) and
(e), 17(a) and (b) and 18(a) are in contradiction to the fundamental principles of the bill and undermine the objectives of the policy.
More specifically:
Amendments 4(b), 11 and 12 change the coming into force of the sections thereby jeopardizing all the research and development commitment of the industry, and are therefore not acceptable;
Amendments 15(b), (c) and 18(a) remove flexibility from the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board inconsistent with the design of such regulatory agencies and are therefore inconsistent and not acceptable:
Amendment 15(a) arises out of Senate amendments 13 and 14 and is therefore inappropriate;
Amendment 16(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 17(a) and (b) arise out of amendments 13, 14, and 16(a) which arc proposed for further amendment by this House in this Message. Therefore the Senate amendments are inappropriate.
And that Senate amendments 13(a), (b), (c), (d), and 14(a), (b), (c) and (d) be amended to read as follows:
That clause 15 of Bill C-22 be amended,
(a)	by adding, immediately after line 36 on page 13, the following:
"(1.1) Where, in the opinion of the Board, a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine has, within such period as is prescribed, increased the price at which the medicine is sold in any market in Canada by a percentage in excess of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for that period, the Board may, by notice in writing, require the patentee to provide the Board with such information and documents concerning the costs of making and marketing the medicine as the Board may specify and as is available to the patentee in Canada or is within the knowledge or control of the patentee, and on the receipt of any such notice, the patentee shall comply therewith within such time as the Board may specify."
(b)	by striking out line 45 on page 13 and substituting the following:
"tion (1) or (1.1),"
(c)	by adding, immediately after line 33 on page 17, the following:
"(5.1) Where, in the opinion of the Board, a patentee of an invention that is a medicine has, within such period as is prescribed, increased the price
at which the medicine is sold in any market in Canada by a percentage in excess of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, for that period, the Board may, by notice in writing, require the patentee to provide the Board with such information and documents concerning the costs of making and marketing the medicine as the Board may specify and as is available to the patentee in Canada or is within the knowledge or control of the patentee, and on the receipt of any such notice, the patentee shall comply therewith within such time as the Board may specify."
(d)	by striking out line 42 on page 17 and substituting the following: "accordance with subsection (5) or (5.1),"
(e)	by striking out line 17 on page 20 and substituting the following:
"purpose of the report referred to in"
(f)	by striking out lines 2 and 3 on page 23 and substituting the following: "shall contain
(a)	a summary of pricing trends in the pharmaceutical industry; and
(b)	the name of each patentee to whom a notice under subsection 41.15(1.1) or 41.16(5.1) was sent during the year and a statement as to the status of the matter in respect of which the notice was sent."
(g)	by striking out lines 4 and 5 on page 23 and substituting the following:
"(2) The summary referred to in paragraph (l)(a) may be based on information and".
And that Senate amendment 16(a) be amended to read as follows:
That Clause 15 of Bill C-22 be amended by adding, immediately after line
17 on page 19, the following:
"(12) Where an order is made under paragraph 6(d) in respect of a medicine, the prohibitions set out in subsections 41.11(1) and 41.14(1) cease to apply in respect of the medicine effective on the date of the order."


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, just to make the record absolutely clear, I did not request that the Minister read the motion, I simply requested a precis of the motion itself. 1 will let the record speak for itself and the manner in which the Minister read the motion speak for itself. I do not think Canadians are impressed or amused by the Minister.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, let me very quickly indicate that among the amendments sent by the Senate, there is one amendment that seeks to improve the quality of the translation between French and English, and in fact the amendment of the Senate does that and we certainly find that acceptable.
The Senate was of the impression that the rules respecting drugs which are researched, discovered and patented in Canada might be exempt from the requirement to keep prices lower than the cost of living. Our officials disagree with that observation, but certainly the amendment in that regard proposed by the Senate gives added assurance, and in that regard is acceptable.
The other amendments deal with three fundamental questions. The suggestion was made by the Senate that the provision dealing with what is called pipeline drugs and I will define them in a moment, be retroactive. The Bill acknowledges that between the old regime prior to Bill C-22 and the new regime which would be in place after Bill C-22 is passed,
November 3, 1987

some drugs are caught in between, in the pipeline for approval. That was the reason the Government signed a protocol on February 22, 1985, almost two years ago, providing that there be a halt to applications and processing of compulsory licence applications pending the introduction of the new Bill.
In the event, the protocol fell apart, and applications continued to stream in for compulsory licences, so after much negotiation and discussion, it was decided by the Government that for those drugs, there would be a special time period during which the brand name drug would have a period of exclusivity. The rules were that if a compulsory licence had been applied for and granted prior to June 27, 1986, the patentee would have seven years of exclusivity. If an application for compulsory licence had been applied for but not yet granted by June 27, 1986, the patentee would have an eight-year period of exclusivity. Anything applied for after that, of course, is 10 years of exclusivity.
Senators have suggested that the June 27, 1986, date is retroactive, so they have eliminated through amendments that provision and said that the Act will come into force when it is proclaimed. We have difficulty with that. First, it violates the agreement that we had negotiated with all parties over almost two years, a year and a half at that point in time. It would be a very bad precedent for Parliament to say that the Government cannot honour an agreement which in essence it entered into with all parties concerned after much discussion.
Then there is the question of retroactivity. Why is that offensive in itself? People make plans based on their interpretation of the law and the rules. It has been deemed unfair by the courts, and certainly by Parliament, to come along and say that the rules under which someone has been operating under for the last year and a half were not really the rules and we are now changing the law. If we were to accept the Senate amendments and do away with the June 26, 1986, date in the Act, we would be saying to all those companies who have based their behaviour until now on that date that they were wrong, that is not the correct date. That would be retroactive and detrimental. It is for that reason that we cannot accept the Senate amendments in this respect. We believe it to be inappropriate and a bad precedent to do so.
There is a second group of amendments which deal with the question of research and development commitments. The Senate has said, in debate and through its amendments, that if we have a commitment from the industry to spend 10 per cent of sales on research, why not write it into the law and make it specific?


Mr. Orlikow:: Why not?


Harvie Andre: I will explain why not. First, the commitment is an industry commitment, not company by company. There is an important difference. It may well be that there will be companies who spend 8 per cent of sales on research, or 6 per cent. There will be companies who spend 10 per cent, 12 per cent, 14 per cent. The commitment we have, and what the
Patent Act
industry will be held accountable to, is the over-all average. On an annual basis Parliament will receive the report of the drug prices review board and that will allow us to monitor whether the performance requirements have been met.
In addition, it is also bad law because it will negatively affect their behaviour. Let me give you some hypothetical examples. A new small company, perhaps Canadian but it is not its nationality but its size that is relevant, has one or two new products. It is typical in the industry that when a new product hits the market, sales start out rather slowly because physicians do not immediately jump to use a new product. They want some assurance that it is going to work properly for their patients and so on. If it turns out that the drug is valuable in the treatment of disease, then sales start to go up.
You could have a small Canadian company spending 10 per cent or 15 per cent of its sales on research while selling at a certain rate, and then if sales of the drug start to take off in the latter quarter of the year, they would have to halt sales because their sales to research ratio for that year would be knocked out of whack and they would lose their patent. It would have the effect of triggering undesirable behaviour by a company in order to meet a rigid numerical test.
Another not uncommon practice for companies with a limited number of products is to buy other companies so that their salesmen have a complete line of products. For example, most drug companies have a line of over-the-counter drugs such as cough medicines, headache remedies, stomach remedies and so on. If a new company were starting up with a limited number of patented drugs and wanted to complement its sales line by buying an over-the-counter operation, it might not be able to do that if the total sales of the group caused its R and D ratio to be knocked out of whack.
Bear in mind that research and development cannot be turned off and on like a spigot. You do not go down to the local UIC office and hire Ph.D.s in biochemistry. It takes a long time to get a research program under way. Planning is required and you are not able to respond that quickly. By having a rigid numerical formula for each and every company, you could trigger behaviour that nobody wants.
Another possibility, based on the Senate amendments, is that a company would restructure itself so that it hold its valuable patents and does its research in one company and everything else in the other. It would be very easy to meet the research targets spelled out in the Senate amendments through the one company, while the other company has no patents and therefore it does not really matter whether it has any research or not because no penalties can be imposed under the provisions of the Act.
While the intent of the Senate may be the same as ours, to achieve a spending level on research of 10 per cent of sales, while the argument for writing it into the law sounds reasonable at first blush, in fact it is not a good law and not the right way to go. For that reason I recommend that this House not accept those amendments.

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart), in a radio interview, said that at end of the day we are going to be accountable if the industry fails to meet the R and D requirements. The Government that introduced the legislation is going to be accountable. However, the Government of the day will have the ability to go back to the old rules after four years. The Government of the day will have sufficient power to make sure that the industry meets those levels. If it does not do so, it will be accountable to the people in the election, and that is the way it ought to be.


David Orlikow: You will not be that Government, that is for sure.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member may be right. If he is, then why in blazes is he doing everything he can to hold up this legislation? If he is confident that his Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), is going to be the Prime Minister, he should know, and he does, that the Government of the day will be able to undo this legislation by Order in Council. No Bill is necessary. If he is confident about being the Government, then he should have no difficulty in helping us get this motion through.
There is a third group of proposed amendments which would put in a rigid numerical test which says that the cost of a drug should not increase more than the cost of living as indicated by the Consumer Price Index. That is the intent of the legislation. The Senate says if that is the intent, write it in and be absolutely specific. That is bad law. I remind the House that when we had runaway inflation, the Anti-Inflation Board was there to make sure that prices and wages did not increase beyond specific levels. However, there was always flexibility to allow for exceptional cases. Good law provides flexibility.
Let me give a hypothetical example. A company has a new drug on the market and it is very useful in treating certain diseases but it has a negative side effect for 10 per cent of its users as a result of an impurity. By spending more money the company can remove that impurity or reduce the unfortunate side effects to 1 per cent, but to recover the cost it would have to increase the price more than the cost of living. The company would, in essence, be precluded from doing what might be appropriate for medicinal reasons because if it did so the Act would require that the company lose its patent automatically and without judgment. I do not think we should have law which contains such a provision.
There could be dozens of reasons why a particular drug may merit an increase of more than the increase in the cost of living in a particular year. The Senate apparently believes that the drug prices review board will not be in a position to ensure that that happens. The head of that board, Dr. Eastman, believes that the board has the power.
However, in order to give added assurance we are suggesting that Clause 15 be amended by adding, after line 36 on page
13, that if, in the opinion of the board, a patentee has increased the price in excess of the Consumer Price Index, the board can require that patentee to provide detailed financial information on how the price of a drug was set to enable the board to make a judgment. If the board makes a request under this provision, it will be required, in its subsequent annual report, to report that it made a request of that company and to give its reasons for its judgment, whether to allow the increase or to take away the patent.
We think this is an unnecessary addition, that the board would be effective without this, but we will put it in black and white in the law. One of the consequences of the activity of the Senate is to raise once again the spectre of whether drug prices will increase at a faster rate than the cost of living. They will not. 1 maintain that those who claim that they will are wrong and have no basis for making that claim.
However, it has been repeated so frequently that, as is the case with many things which are repeated again and again, a case has been established by virtue of repetition rather than by virtue of any foundation. That being the case, it is perhaps not unreasonable to give added assurance to the public that drug price increases will be less than increases in the cost of living except where clearly justified and justifiable.
That is the basis for the amendments. We cannot accept what the Senate is proposing. We believe that its proposal to make every company meet rigid numerical tests in research and development will lead to avoidance, distort business decisions, and could be unfair in some cases.
By way of rationale, it is very common for companies to sell drugs on licence. The most successful drug company today according to the stock market is Merck. Merck will be introducing a new anti-peptic ulcer drug called Pepsum but the patent will actually belong to a Japanese company. Merck will be selling it in North America on licence from the Japanese company.
Since you cannot take away from Merck a patent that they do not have, the inadvertent effect of the Senate's proposal would be to exclude from consideration this drug, which may or may not be very important in terms of revenues to Merck but which, in my view, should be considered when deciding whether Merck is doing its 10 per cent of sales on research. I think that should involve the judgment of the House and future Governments. The drug prices review board should be published, but a rigid numerical test is simply bad law. It is bad not to permit judgment in these instances.
With regard to the cost of living, we believe that under the original Bill C-22 the drug prices review board would have kept increasing the cost of all drugs, including that 80 per cent which never attracts any generic competitors, under increases in the cost of living. We must remember that when there is no generic interest in a drug taking away the patent is hardly a penalty.
November 3, 1987

We are convinced that the drug prices review board will work. We believe that the annual exposure of the public to drug prices will have a significant downward impact. However, because the concern that prices will rise has been repeated ad nauseam, although it has never been established on any rational basis and is only a propaganda technique, some people have started to believe it.
Therefore, to give added assurance we are proposing these amendments which empower the board to do that which I am sure it would have been able to do anyway, that is, to examine in detail the rationale for any price increases above the cost of living, to make a judgment as to whether or not they are appropriate, and to report annually on the fact that it has made the analysis and on why it has accepted or rejected the price increase in each instance.
I believe that that provides suspenders on top of a belt, but it should keep the pants up and be doubly assuring to those who are nervous.
Finally-


Mr. Dingwall:: Thank goodness.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member groans and says that he is glad I am concluding. I remind him that I had the distinct pleasure of listening to him for two hours on his third reading debate.


John V. Nunziata: He made sense, you don't.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in closing 1 will read a quote from Senator Frith, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. In speaking on July 24, 1986, on the amendments to Bill C-67, the Parole Act, which the Senate amended and which was sent back to that place in the summer of 1986, Senator Frith said the following:
Notwithstanding that we are right and they are wrong, notwithstanding all of these reasons to insist, the fact is that we are not an elected body. It is our job-and 1 believe that we classically fulfilled our job in this case-to expose the weaknesses of this bill. We proposed an amendment. We drew the attention to the people of the country and to the media of the weaknesses of this bill. We passed a good amendment, an amendment that we can be proud of. If the majority of the elected representatives still give us the back of their hand, then I suppose they should get away with it.
The Senator was saying, and he was right, that the Senate should not exercise a veto over the House of Commons. On August 26 of last year the Leader of the Opposition said:
-at the end of the day the elected House of Commons must prevail.
He was saying that the Senate should not exercise a veto over elected representatives. It is unacceptable that the Senate should veto the House of Commons.


Mr. Caccia:: It is not about the veto at all, and you know it.


Harvie Andre: Our Government will have to face the electorate with our record. We are prepared to do that. However, it is unconscionable for people to seriously propose that we should
Patent Act
have to face the electorate on a record that is not of our own building but one that is a merger of what the Senate wants and what the House of Commons wants. That is simply an unacceptable democratic principle.
There has been more said about this Bill than any other Bill in the history of this Parliament. It has had more due process, more second thought-sober or otherwise-and it is time to get on to other business and demonstrate to the other place, by our quick action on this motion, that this it is about time they let the will of the elected representatives of Canada prevail-


Charles L. Caccia: You know very well that is just rhetoric. They put on paper your own promises.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member came in, was not here for most of my debate, and now says they have just put on paper my own promises. I have just spent half an hour explaining why each of those amendments is bad law. He was not here.
He has nothing to learn and he is going to make sure that he never learns anything by plugging his ears and coming in and making a statement which, as I just spent half an hour explaining, is not true. He has the gall to make this accusation.


Charles L. Caccia: You are not convincing.


Harvie Andre: How would the Hon. Member know whether or not I was convincing if he was not here to hear me?


Charles L. Caccia: I was here for the past 20 minutes.


Harvie Andre: He was not here to listen to me, but he was sure that I was unconvincing. That is great logic.
It is the end of the day-


Charles L. Caccia: For you.


Harvie Andre: I would prevail upon the Liberal Party, but also upon the New Democratic Party, to make the point. I have not reviewed all aspects of the Bill. Those points have been made repeatedly here, more often than should be necessary. I think it is time that we got on to other business.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise-


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to apologize to the spokesmen for the opposition Parties who were here for my debate. Unfortunately, I have to leave for a speaking engagement and I want to apologize to them. However, my staff will be here. Should any questions arise that require me to answer, I will endeavour to get back to them.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the Minister leaves the Chamber, I want to ask him a question. Why has the Minister refused to table his motion with regard to the amendments submitted by the Senate in both official languages? Why has the Minister not extended

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
the courtesy to Members of Parliament of tabling the motion in both official languages? I would like the Minister to explain why he has refused to do this and what shameful excuse he can give to Canadians for allowing this to take place, when we have two official languages.


Raymond John Skelly: On a point of order.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 will very quickly explain that. Indeed, there is no requirement for tabling, if you will. The procedure is to read the motion, but this motion being long and technical, I extended the courtesy of distributing it to the opposition Parties in advance of reading it.
The reason that it is not available in both official languages is that, as recently as two hours ago, inaccuracies were discovered as a result of gremlins in the typewriter. It was simply not possible to have it earlier.
While I take the Hon. Member's point about its being absolutely necessary to reflect that this is a bilingual country with respect to our dealings in this House, I can assure him that it is not through some insensitivity, disinterest or anything else. Normally, motions are not given to the Opposition. I extended the courtesy of doing so in advance of its being read in the House. I hope the Hon. Member will recognize that for what it is and not as some attempt to violate the Official Languages Act.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order because 1 feel very strongly that the Minister must be told it is absolutely unacceptable that the Government and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre)-who has conveniently left the House, to go and hide-should table in the House a number of amendments to a Bill as important as Bill C-22, while copies of these amendments in both French and English are not available to opposition Members.
Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable and a direct contradiction of the spirit of the Official Languages Act. I want to make it quite clear today that this Government has a duty to ensure that Parliament can function properly, and that the Government must not only respect the letter but also the intent of the Act, which is that all Members shall have access to documents they can read in their own language. The methods used by the Minister do not meet this requirement, and I am referring to the fact that he gave a quick reading in English-we had to try and follow what he said-of a very technical amendment that was several pages long, and that of course Hon. Members have to be able to react to those amendments. I think that in 1987 it is absolutely unacceptable, when we have a Government, a Minister who comes to the House, gives us the verbal back of
his hand and then has the nerve to leave after tabling amendments dealing with a very important Bill in one language only.
Mr. Speaker, I will let my colleages from Montreal and Quebec take it from here.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister has brought before the House today one of the most important matters that we have discussed. Indeed, the Minister mentioned that it is historic. The Senate has slapped the House of Commons in the face with respect to this issue and the House cannot stand still.
It is with great regret that I see the Minister has left and I am unable to ask for unanimous consent of the House for a short period of questions to determine what would be the proper course of action.
In my opinion this House should be dealing with the affront to the elected officials of Canada posed by a non elected group. The Government must resign and go to the people on this issue or take up the offer to geld the Senate before the Meech Lake Accord becomes final. This is completely intolerable and the House must address that question before we get on to the merits of the drug Bill.
It has been proposed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) call a constitutional conference before the Meech Lake Accord is finalized and we still have an opportunity, with seven of the provinces and 50 per cent of the population, to put the Senate in its place and remove the powers that have basically offended the people of Canada by denying the passage of legislation put forward by their elected representatives. It is disgraceful that the Minister has left the House before we can have an opportunity for a short period of questions on this important matter.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), who has now left the Chamber, accused me of having not been in the Chamber when he delivered his speech. I object very strongly to this and 1 would ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw that statement. I have been in this Chamber since a few minutes after he began to speak.
His statement is not only incorrect, but it affects the credibility of the Minister himself who alleges something that is not true. In addition, I must draw to the Chair's attention that the Minister chose to leave this Chamber as soon as he completed his remarks.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a point of order.
November 3, 1987

Patent Act


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I think Canada's francophones have been insulted and they may well feel insulted by the Minister's tabling in the House this is a bilingual country!-of a document in English only, about a Bill, about issues that are very important to Quebecers. They may well feel insulted by the Minister, who says he realizes this is a bilingual country but in fact hands out strictly unilingual documents. Canada's francophones are fed up with words, words, words. They want action and they want it now. Mr. Speaker, to add insult to insult, the Minister goes so far as to inform us he distributed this document as a courtesy. Should we ask him to have the courtesy to make it available in French? It is not a courtesy, it is our right. If Canada is a bilingual country and if the Conservative Government is bilingual, in practice as well as in theory, then something should be done about this, and the chairman of the Conservative caucus from Quebec caucus should defend the rights of francophones.
Mr. Speaker, this happens at a time when the father of all Quebecers, after fighting to defend the rights of francophones against the stranglehold of the English, is lying in state in Montreal.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reassure my hon. colleagues and say that, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,
I will certainly stay in the House to listen to their remarks and later on convey to the Minister their concerns about this Bill.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to my colleagues that if ever a Government has been consistent in its approach to the official languages issue, it is this Progressive Conservative Government. Let us not fall into this leftward trap for they would like nothing better than to use this little incident-I will direct a question to you, Mr. Speaker, and to say that it is an insult to Canadians, etc. In my opinion, Canadians are well aware of the fact that this Progressive Conservative Government has an absolutely unblemished record in this country with respect to the question of the two official languages.
I understand that the Minister tabled this morning with the clerk a copy of the amendments. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, could you indicate to the House how things stand with regards to the translation of this document?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Actually, the Chair has just received-


Jean-Claude Malépart: It's about time. It's a shame!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -the translation of almost all the amendments.


Jean-Claude Malépart: For francophones, it's an hour later in the Maritimes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having received the translation of almost all the amendments, the Chair will have it distributed to the Hon. Members right away.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the objections made by my friends in the Liberal Party. I happen to be a Member who is still only knowledgeable in one of our official languages, which is English. It is unfortunate and I congratulate those Members on both sides of the House who have taken the time and made the effort to learn the second language. However, I happen to be the spokesperson and critic on this subject for our Party and I want to say that if the Minister, who introduced this motion of the Government in response to the Senate's proposal, had tabled it in the French language, I would have had a great deal of difficulty in dealing with it.
I am sure that Members of this House whose main, if not only, language is French are having the same difficulties now and certainly until the time they receive a translation, as I would have had in the reverse.
It seems to me that a Government which prides itself on the progress it has made in expanding the use of both languages, could have waited another day and had the translation here before it brought this motion forward.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised as a point of order, but I am specifically rising on a question of privilege and seeking direction and a ruling from the Chair on the matter. A Minister of the Crown, representing the Government of Canada, came into the House of Commons this morning and presented a resolution to the House. I was here when he presented his motion. He presented the resolution, then sought the unanimous consent of the House to dispense with the reading of that particular resolution.
If you recall at the time, Mr. Speaker, I stood and asked the Minister to give a precis. I was not aware at the time that the resolution was not translated into both official languages. The Minister proceeded to read the resolution, notwithstanding the fact that he was not requested to do so, with such speed that it was totally incomprehensible.
I am sure that if you review the video Hansard, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister's reading, you will find that not only was it incomprehensible in English but I am sure the translators in the House of Commons, who are here to translate into both official languages, were unable to translate the Minister's reading of the resolution into French.
Although I have some knowledge of the French language, Mr. Speaker, 1 am not proficient enough to read and to understand a resolution of this nature, and I understand there are Members in this House who are unilingually French. We are either a bilingual country or we are not. It seems to me that if a Minister of the Crown finds it acceptable in the Parliament of Canada to present a resolution in the House in only one official language, it is not only insulting to French Canadians, generally, but insulting to this House and shows contempt for the Official Languages Act and for the fact that Canada is officially bilingual.
The Minister gave us some lame excuse for not having the-

November 3, 1987
Patent Act


David Charles Dingwall: A patronizing comment.


John V. Nunziata: Indeed, it was patronizing, as my colleague has pointed out. He said he extended a courtesy to other English speaking members of the Opposition in providing them with a copy of the resolution in English. If it was a courtesy to provide a copy of the resolution in English, how can one describe the discourtesy and contempt in not providing the resolution in French, the other official language?
The Minister indicated that there were some gremlins in the Translation and he only became aware of it a few hours ago. By his own words, the Minister is admitting that he had full knowledge of the fact that the resolution was not translated in both official languages when he commenced his remarks today. Notwithstanding the fact that he had full knowledge that the resolution was not translated, he proceeded to introduce that resolution in the House and to read through the resolution with such speed as to make in incomprehensible. He was arrogant in the delivery, and I am seeking a specific ruling from the Chair. 1 believe my privileges have been breached as well as the privileges of all Members, by the fact that the Minister did not present the resolution in both official languages.
I believe very strongly that the Speaker should rule on the matter even though there might be a technical escape for the Minister. I am sure the Government may use some technical arguments for not presenting the resolution in both official languages. The fact remains that at the very least the spirit of the Official Languages Act has been breached and contempt has been shown for it.
A few short days ago a very prominent Canadian died, a Canadian who fought all of his life for the fact that those people who have French origins in Canada should have certain rights in this country. He went as far as to argue that there should be sovereignty association because the English-speaking majority were infringing upon the rights of French Canadians living in Quebec. Today the Government of Canada has given reason why there are those in Canada who believe in sovereignty association and separatism, because the Government has shown such contempt for the other official language.
You indicated in your comments, Mr. Speaker, that an hour after the Minister had presented his resolution, you had received a partial translation. That is not good enough. The fact is that the House did not have the complete text. A partial translation is not enough. Canada does not have partial bilingualism. It is full and complete. People have fought for that right. I ask you to stand up in the House, Mr. Speaker, and reinforce that right of all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his representation. However, in the opinion of the Chair, I must rule that the question that he raised, although an important one, is not a question of privilege. In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at Citation 411(3) it states:
All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two
official languages.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If I rise on a point of order, it is to give the translators a chance to provide us with a true copy of the document which the Minister has tabled in English only. I have scrutinized the support document which we were provided with and which is a translation of the technical amendments which the Minister is proposing. On page 1 of this document-

The front page of the document where it states that a message be sent to the Senate and explaining more specifically what the purpose is, is not with us at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I should think that the House would want to give all Members the opportunity to perform their duties correctly and responsibly, and that it might spare a few minutes to ask the Clerk how much longer we might have to wait for the final translation. Should it be a matter of only five minutes, I think that the point would have been made and that the translation will be useful. But if this is to take one or two hours, perhaps the Clerk might advise the Chair concerning the time needed to provide a translation of the document submitted in English only by the Minister.
I bring this to the attention of the Chair in an attempt to help solve this problem which is a serious dilemma for us and which, as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) reminds me, has been raised on a number of occasions in the House. It was even suggested that the Commissioner of Official Languages ought to mention this in his annual report and urge the House to request that all documents be tabled in both official languages to make work easier for all Hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) made the point: Had this document been available in French only, I think everybody here would agree with me and say: we must wait for the English version. I think it is just as unacceptable that we are given the document in only one language, that we are given a partial translation. I ask the Chair to tell us how much longer-five minutes, ten minutes- we have to wait before we get the final translation, and if that is how long it takes I am prepared to wait.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), on a point of order.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am getting very impatient, because I don't like wasting my time here in the House. I am not necessarily blaming the Government or the Chair or the staff. It is the system. I am sure everyone here realizes my good faith and personally, I think I have been very accommodating. However, one does get sick and tired of being accommodating all the time. I say "All the time" to make myself quite clear, because I realize people always get upset when this issue is brought up.
November 3, 1987



I know that many people get upset when we raise that- parliamentary language stops me saying exactly what I was going to. But on that question, I have had enough.
For those people who may feel that we are raising some difficult point, I am not blaming the Government, or ourselves,
I am blaming the system. Surely the Clerk does not have at his disposal a translation immediately. Surely a Minister of the Crown knows ahead of time that he is going to table something, he knows that he is going to table an amendment. The Ministers have the staff, the know-how, and the possibility, and they should do it.
To show our fairness, I ask for those who may be impatient and whose first language is English, to put themselves in our shoes. Since I have been in the House, I have never seen anyone having to raise this question because some documents were produced only in French. Those amendments are very technical and difficult to understand in one's own language; just imagine trying to adjust in another language.
I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that if Ministers do not have the possibility, the time is now coming, and I am sure our House Leader, our esteemed Whip, and our colleagues will say that we will no longer make exceptions.
You know the volatility of the House, Mr. Speaker, It is very difficult. If some Members start playing with the rules of the House and applying them, not much work will be done in the House. As a senior Member, I would not like to be the one to raise this again. I also would not like to be the one to start applying the book of rules of the House.
Please, Mr. Speaker, say to the House Leader to get his act together, and say to cabinet Ministers that from now on this will not be done. I hope that Mr. Speaker will understand that I will not eternally raise that question of having those services within the boundaries of the Hill. People dream of having a bilingual Canada from one ocean to the other. I dream with them. But let us start here within the confines of this building, this place, this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I should have to rise in the House to reproach the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) for having tabled amendments in English only.
It is positively unconscionable that today, in 1987, when every department has staff that is competent to prepare the documents the Minister needs, that that Minister should come to the House and table this text in only one of our two official languages.
What I find particularly unfortunate is that this is not the first instance of a profound lack of respect for a custom that has been a tradition in the Parliament of Canada for over 15
Patent Act
years. The previous Government would never have allowed this to happen, but it is typical of the present Conservative Government that it should fail to observe the now well-established parliamentary tradition of tabling documents in both official languages. 1 must reprimand the Minister severely for this breach of parliamentary tradition.
In fact, I see this as typical of the Conservative Government's general attitude to official languages. It is not the first time the present Government has been at fault in this respect.
Not long ago, I was reading an article in one of the Montreal papers which recalled that twice within the last few weeks, the President of Canadian National spoke in English only at some very important public meetings sponsored by Canadian National in the province of Quebec.
Who would have thought this could happen again in Montreal? Many years ago, a former president of Canadian National insulted French Canadians, and at the time, we hoped that subsequent presidents would be fluent in both official languages. Fortunately, the previous Government took steps to ensure that at least one of the two senior directors of Crown corporations as important as Canadian National would be fluently bilingual.
I must say with deep regret that the present CN president does not speak French, and it is a very serious shortcoming on the part of this Conservative Government that it has failed to ensure that one of the two heads of this Crown corporation-it is headquartered in Montreal and sponsors formal dinners and major social activities throughout the Province of Quebec- does not have the decency to see to it that the spokesman for CN is someone who can speak the language of the majority of people in the Province of Quebec.
And this, coupled with the attitude of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) today, reveals precious little concern on the part of the Conservative Government with respect to the two official languages, as well as French in the Province of Quebec and in the House of Commons.
Such a situation therefore is no longer acceptable, and I urge the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to issue strict orders to his Ministers so that this situation will never arise again.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I must say that I objected very strongly and that I felt insulted as a francophone-and I am sure all francophones in this country are as well-by the attitude of the Conservative Government and of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), who tabled a document in English only.

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
The Conservative Government first decided to table the text in English. But then, when Members of the Official Opposition, both anglophones and francophones, objected to this procedure, the House gave us a document with part of the text in French.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I completely disagree with this approach. I am sure there is not a single francophone in Canada who agrees with this way of doing things. First, we get a text in English only. If opposition Members had not objected or had failed to mention the fact, no one would have noticed.
So what did the Government do to correct this mistake? Did it say, sorry, we will adjourn the House for a few minutes until we get the French translation and we will submit both versions at the same time? No! People came running through the House to give us a text that was half-filled in and incomplete, and expected the francophones to be satisfied. Here is a bit of French, that should do it!
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government's behaviour cannot be condoned. And aside from any political considerations, I deplore the fact that we did not hear from our francophone colleagues on the Government side-I know some of them are ardent defenders of the French fact-and that we did not see them rise in the House to teach the Government a lesson. If we say nothing today, the Government will maintain its offhand approach, and that is why it is so important for all Ministers of the Conservative Government to understand that in future, documents shall be tabled in the House in both official languages. I am sure that if any of the Conservative Ministers-and I am sure this certainly applies to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-if any of the Ministers had to table a text in French only, there would have been the devil to pay. So if that is how anglophones feel about it, francophones feel just the same, and I hope this will not happen again.


Fernand Robichaud: On the
same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I am somewhat disappointed, because after the Minister tabled his document in the House and had copies of it distributed, when I asked the page for a copy in French, he told me that none was available.
Several minutes later, we are told that the translation of some of the amendments is available in French. On the one hand, I have a document in English with all the amendments, and on the other hand I have a document in French with only some of the amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Minister is showing his contempt for all French-speaking Canadians, considering that he had received this document from the Senate last week, more specifically last Thursday, and that he had plenty of time on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday to get a translation. He could be excused on the grounds that translators do not
work on Saturdays and Sundays, which leaves both Friday and Monday. Now we get here, and are told: Sorry, the French translation is not available. To get it, as francophones, you may have to wait a few days after the debate is over. We do not have the French text.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you are taking note of our objection to this kind of action by a Minister representing the Government of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, could I suggest to the House this compromise? In order to allow for the translation of this document, may I suggest that we call it one o'clock and that following negotiations, we proceed with the scheduled debate at 3 p.m.? Therefore, I now seek the unanimous consent of the House to call it one o'clock, to make it possible for the translators to complete the translation of the document.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague has made a very helpful observation. I am sure that when the Minister was considering his actions he had in mind Standing Order 70 which provides that motions may be in writing and in one language or the other.
I appreciate the comments of my colleague who has just spoken. I can assure him that while we had the response from the other place for two or three days, there were considerations taken by the Government in respect of what response might properly be made to the other place.
I think my friend would admit and acknowledge that in fact two of the changes requested from the other place were in translating more correctly part of the document, and that is why those two changes were agreed to by the Government. We had no difficulty with that. However, I can assure my hon. friend that the decision was only taken late yesterday afternoon as to exactly what would be the response. Of course that triggered putting the response into one of the official languages. Obviously we have to get our response in one official language before we can even begin to translate it into the other official language.
In any event, I think my colleague has made a very helpful suggestion. It is my understanding that the entire wording will be available very shortly in both official languages.
In the interests of a reasoned debate-and I know my colleague who will respond for the Official Opposition does not want to be interrupted-I think my colleague has made a very helpful suggestion that we should call it one o'clock or 1.06 or whatever and that the debate resume after Question Period. We are content with that.
November 3, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it 1.06 p.m.?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 12.40 p.m. the House took recess.
the poorest record on environmental matters of all provinces. The NDP Car Insurance Corporation is losing $50 million annually.
No wonder then, as popularity polls are taken across the country, in Manitoba where people have an NDP Government the NDP trails a poor third at 27 per cent, down from the 31 per cent of days gone by.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, according to constitutional law Professor Petter the so-called free trade agreement threatens provincial jurisdiction. He notes that in addition to removing the authority of provinces to protect domestic wine and spirits producers there is potential for encroachment by the federal Government on provincial powers in the sectors of energy, services, investment, and the right to set quantitative restrictions.
In the text of the Washington-Ottawa agreement, Canada is committed to take all necessary steps to ensure provincial compliance. This raises the spectre of the federal Government using its taxing and spending powers to force provincial cooperation.
It seems strange for a federal Government, pledged to respect provincial jurisdictions, to make a 180 degree turn and impose the supremacy of the federal Government over the provinces. Here is another contradiction of this Government between its promises and actions. If so-called free trade will be imposed on the provinces it will sap their powers. What a sham of Progressive Conservative promises.



NISHGA LAND CLAIM CASE-SUGGESTED REFERRAL TO SUPREME COURT

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, B.C. Attorney General, Brian Smith, has applied to the Federal Court of Canada to prevent Ottawa from settling the century-old claims negotiations with the Nishga Tribal Council. The Nishga have an historic claim of aboriginal title to the Nass Valley and have been negotiating with Ottawa for 12 years. The Supreme Court of Canada split three-three on this case in 1973. Already this year the Federal Court rejected a similar application to that of Mr. Smith's.
The Government of Alberta just last week agreed to settle the outstanding 47 year old claim of the Lubicon Band and negotiations began yesterday. Clearly the Government of British Columbia, which is a signatory to the Meech Accord and to the Constitution Act of 1982, is trying to stall the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal title and rights in British Columbia. In attempting to scuttle the Nishga negotiations, the British Columbia Government is forcing a crisis.
The Government of Canada must act in the interests of all Canadians and protect the constitutional, legal and moral rights of the Nishga. If there is insufficient political will to conclude and negotiate a settlement at the federal level, then now is the time for Canada to make a direct reference of the Nishga case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
* *
*
* *
*



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, so, the NDP are riding high in the popular opinion polls, but can the New Democrats govern? Ask the people of Manitoba which has the only NDP Government in Canada. It also has the highest provincial debt, $9,000 for every man, woman and child. Its spending is out of control. After Quebec it has the highest rate of taxation.
Though the New Democrats talk about the environment, according to the Canadian Nature Federation, Manitoba has



NORTHERN QUEBEC


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, an international symposium on the future of northern Quebec will be held from November 19 to 21 in Amos, Abitibi. This symposium will enable northern specialists to meet and it will promote an exchange of experiences and viewpoints on northern development.

November 3, 1987
Under the chairmanship of Mr. Louis Edmond Hamelin, a world known northern specialist, this symposium will be organized jointly by the Universite du Quebec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Hydro-Quebec (La Grande region), the municipality and the James Bay Development Corporation.
Nearly 30 speakers from Canada, Quebec, France, Sweden, the U.S.S.R., Norway and China will be there to discuss northern development.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration of Canada (Mr. Bouchard) will attend the opening of the symposium on November 19. The issues examined will be social economic development, northern development management and territory development in a multi-ethnical spirit.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the members of the organizing committee for the Symposium on the Future of Northern Quebec as this Symposium will prepare northern residents for the year 2000.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-OPINION OF HON. MITCHELL SHARP

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of free trade, we heard this morning that a freer trader by the name of Mitchell Sharp thinks this is a bad deal. The reason he thinks it is a bad deal is not because he is against liberalized trade but because he feels that this particular deal will compromise Canada. We are pitting a strong partner against a weak partner in a continentalist approach to trading as opposed to opening our eyes, our arms, and our markets to the whole world.
In fact this issue is not about free trade; it is about a bad Mulroney deal which is selling out Canadian interests in energy, culture, and economics for the all-mighty American buck. A point was made today in the committee when somebody said there is a price to pay for being a Canadian. We heard a Conservative member ask in a snarky fashion, "What price?"
The continentalist pull which has had its historic impact on this country is such that if we do not develop and continue to nurture an east-west trading relationship among the provinces, we will be taking the first step toward absorption by the United States. That is what this issue is all about. It is about keeping Canada together. It is about a bad economic and cultural deal that could cost Canada our sovereignty.
We on this side of the House believe that Canadians are entitled to all the facts on the deal. We want a full and open discussion because we believe Canadians will reject this bad Mulroney deal when they finally see the fine print. The Government wants to ram it through because it knows it will not stand up to the scrutiny of Canadians.



HOUSING


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Toronto I attended both the sod-turning ceremony for a new CMHC-funded senior citizens' home sponsored by Hope United Church and the Shelter for Women Conference sponsored by the YWCA. Participants at each event stressed the great difficulties churches and co-ops are having in finding land for affordable housing projects when they must compete against offshore investors and private condominium developers.
How can CMHC help to solve this problem without providing enormous amounts of new money? The YWCA conference had two excellent suggestions, one, lend the co-ops money to buy land on condition that CMHC becomes the owner or can sell it if the project does not proceed; two, advance the time of the annual CMHC co-op housing proposal call to ensure that budgeted funds do not lapse but are actually used to create housing.
In this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless I hope the Standing Committee that deals with housing matters will give these suggestions serious consideration.



PESTICIDES


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Canada is being blanketed with a thin film of pesticide residues, threatening animal life of all kinds and in all regions. World Wildlife Fund research recently showed a growing threat to the smallest water insects, through snapping turtles, to the polar bear, all living far from the original source of the contaminants.
Last week the Law Reform Commission of Canada issued a study which had alarming results. Many pesticides in use are unsafe, including some accepted on the basis of fraudulent safety tests.
The Pest Control Act has not been amended in 15 years and even its weak provisions are not being enforced. There is no
November 3, 1987

remedy at law for pesticide damage to the environment or for long-term health consequences. Screening for pesticides in food is often haphazard and pesticides are still being dumped in massive quantities into our river systems.
What is the federal Government doing about all this? Precious little. Research funding for toxicology has been cut back, and the Environmental Protection Act deliberately excludes herbicides and pesticides, yet we are all being affected, from farm families to consumers in the cities, from the blue heron to the voter next door.
1 call on the Government to begin to take seriously the environment and health threats from herbicides and pesticides. This means money, research, legislation and enforcement, and I call on the Government to do it fast.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, Peter Cook was right to speak about the wrinkled face of the socialist Party in this morning's issue of the Globe and Mail.
That Party recently published the summary of a document entitled "Basis of Resolutions". This document refers to the evolution of the NDP up to their 1987 Convention. Here are a few passages from this document:
Resolution K.2.1, 1979: The NDP encourages support for a whole series of efforts to establish the legitimacy of the dissident, socialist and Marxist ideology.
Resolution T.1.3, 1983: The New Democratic Party will be satisfied only when we achieve a socialist and democratic Canada; in B.4.3, 1985, the NDP objects to Canadian participation in NATO; in H.1.2, 1981, the NDP suggests the purchase of Imperial Oil at a cost of $12 billion; in E.1.3, 1981, the NDP suggests the purchase of the Canadian Pacific at a cost of $4 billion; in K.3.2, 1981, the NDP proposes legalizing prostitution and bawdy houses; in D.4.2, 1977, the NDP proposes a surtax on food products with little nutritional value.
If the socialist leader is honest, I challenge him to table in this House his "Basis of Resolutions" for the specific information of Canadians, and to say whether he still agrees with the resolutions this document contains.
___________________________________10675



EMPLOYMENT


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow 500 employees or should I say unemployed workers from Vickers of Montreal will demontrate on Parliament Hill in an attempt to catch this Government's attention.
Thousands of people in Sept-Iles tried to pressure the Government into saving jobs in their city. Unemployed workers from Matane had to pay for buses to come here in order to get the Government to do something. But this government did nothing, nothing at all to create jobs.
The Picard report was published a year ago with 86 recommendations to help promote and develop the Montreal area. Still nothing. Five weeks ago, the Committee for the development of East Montreal tabled a report on job creation and industrial development in East Montreal. But his Government did not do a thing, Mr. Speaker.
This is unfortunate. Tomorrow, unemployed workers will come here to try to be heard by this Government. One thing is sure, this Government will not last very long.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the past two years and as a former public auditor, I feel obliged to rise to express my satisfaction with the Auditor General's annual report, tabled in the House on October 27.
Believe me, Mr. speaker, I can appreciate all the efforts made by the Mulroney Government, a Government that is trying to be efficient, open, sound and honest in the management of public funds. The Auditor General's report is ample proof of the marked improvement of public administration in Ottawa and of the tightening of controls.
What a contrast with the 1981, 1982 and 1983 reports. Public administration then had no orientation, no controls and no effectiveness.
There was so much to be done. We inherited deficits and problems in so many areas: budgetary, constitutional, environmental, in the field of international relations and so on.
There is no use asking who showed more honesty and more morality. You simply cannot make comparisons with the previous Liberal Government. We put order where there was nothing but disorder before September 4, 1984. That is what the Auditor General himself is saying.

November 3, 1987
Oral Questions
Mr. Prime Minister, Quebec-Est wants to thank you for your leadership.
* *
*



RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members of Parliament will join with me in regretting the fact that two more Baha'is in Iran have been killed as a result of their refusal to recant their religious faith. These two men, Amir-Husayn Nadiri and Ardishir Akhtari, have been in prison since September 12, 1984. Their execution on September 28 of this year brings to at least 207 the total number of Baha'is killed since 1978 in Iran for refusing to recant their religious beliefs.
This religious fanaticism on the part of the Khomeini regime is an offence to the whole world and something that all Members of Parliament should be able to join together in condemning. This is one of those occasions on which I regret the passing of Standing Order 43. This is the kind of occasion on which all Members of Parliament could join together to send a unanimous message to the regime in Iran that this kind of persecution and execution of people for their religious beliefs is completely unacceptable to the entire international community.
* *
*



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to read a letter which I received from one of my constituents which is so typical of the letters I am receiving from a lot of my constituents. It reads:
With the stock market seeking new lows, it is comforting to know hypocrisy is reaching for new highs.
John Turner has repeatedly said, "Being Canadian has a cost and 1 am glad to pay that cost". He states this as he rants against the free trade agreement that will be of such enormous benefit to consumers.
As an "ordinary Canadian" taxpayer, 1 find his words full of hypocrisy as well as repugnant. Does he not realize he no longer has any concept of what the "ordinary Canadian" is willing to pay for?
When John Turner walks into his closet to dress each morning, he thumbs through his button-down $80-plus cotton shirts and has to decide whether to wear a blue, white or striped one. How many "ordinary Canadians" have to make those decisions? Few! Why?
Because most "ordinary Canadians" cannot afford a closet full of $80-plus cotton shirts. These same shirts, with free trade, would cost about half what John Turner "is willing to pay to be Canadian".
Perhaps Mr. Turner should try to "buy his Canadianism" at his own expense-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members know that the Chair always wants to allow some latitude in Statements by Members but they ought not be used as an attack on any particular Member. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to do that.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, our number two trade negotiator, Gordon Ritchie, has admitted that the Government did not do any job studies before signing the trade agreement with the United States. That was his testimony yesterday before the committee as reported to me. That contradicts everything Canadians have been told by the Government.
The same negotiator admitted that parts of the final text, which we have not seen, are critical to an understanding of the agreement. That again contradicts everything we have been told by the Government.
Finally, the negotiator admitted that the dispute settlement mechanism will not improve Canada's chances in disputes with the United States. That, once again, contradicts everything Canadians have been told by the Government.
In the absence of the Minister for International Trade I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why has the Government consistently and repeatedly misled Canadians about the job impact of the trade agreement, about the availability of critical information on that agreement, and about the value of the dispute settlement mechanism?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a matter which is before the committee. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that every study which has been conducted with regard to a free trade agreement with the United States indicates that there will be a significant net gain of jobs in Canada. That should be welcome news to the right hon. gentleman, notwithstanding the fact that he said he would tear up a free trade agreement with the United States.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Can you table those studies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Economic Council of Canada is an independent body that has studied this quite thoroughly, as have other institutions which have indicated that this is a very positive initiative for Canada.
November 3, 1987

With regard to the dispute resolving mechanism, the right hon. gentleman and other Members across the way have indicated that this trade arrangement would not be worth anything if it did not have a binding dispute resolving mechanism. That it has. That is a first in the international arena and is something which the hon. gentleman should endorse even though he does not like a free trade arrangement with the United States.


COST OF GOVERN MENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN-PROGRAMS TO ASSIST AFFECTED WORKERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am basing my questions on the testimony of Gordon Ritchie, our number two trade negotiator who reports to Ambassador Reisman and, through him, to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Ritchie said in the committee that the dispute settlement mechanism would not improve Canada's position in disputes with the United States, that it is not binding and continues to apply American law to Canadian exports.
The Government has spent $12 million in putting together an advertising campaign to promote this trade deal across the country. According to Mr. Ritchie's testimony, the Government has not yet had time to put together any adjustment programs to protect Canadians who will lose their jobs as a result of the trade agreement.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that 60 per cent of Canadian women in manufacturing work in industries which will be hardest hit by the trade deal? These include women working in the textile industry, the electronics industry, the food processing industry, and the leather manufacturing industry.
Why can the Government find $12 million to put together an advertising program to promote the deal, yet not have the money to put in place currently any program to protect Canadian workers who will be affected by the deal?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have a range of programs now, including the Canadian Jobs Strategy, Job Futures-a range of programs to help individuals, as well as a range of programs in the Department of Industry and Science and Technology that help companies. That is also reinforced by the programs for western diversification and Atlantic opportunities. That clearly addresses the needs for adjustment that the Hon. Member is seeking.
We do not expect that there will be those needs for adjustment because we believe that in a growing economy we will be able to take advantage of these programs and, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, increase jobs in this country during the period in which we move into the free trade arrangement.
Let me add one other point to the second part of the Hon. Member's question relating to the impact on women. The
Oral Questions
study for the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women stated that the free trade agreement will be beneficial to women in Canada. The Economic Council also came to that conclusion. Again, the Leader of the Opposition is off base on this particular comment.


John Napier Turner: Again, I based my question on the testimony of Mr. Gordon Ritchie before the committee last night where he said that the Government is only now planning programs for adjustment for workers who are to lose their jobs. He said that last night. He also said that new programs would be necessary to cushion those workers who are going to lose their jobs.
[ Translation]


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EMPLOYMENT-WOMEN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance or the Deputy Prime Minister.
Can the Minister comment on the statement made by his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration to the effect that half a million jobs will be lost as a direct result of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement? Or perhaps the Minister might comment on the Maryland University study which indicates that 77 per cent of Canadians who will be laid off in the textile sector will be women? Should he want to consult his Cabinet colleague responsible for the status of women, how can one contradict a study specifically related to the textile industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is distorting what the Minister of Employment and Immigration said. Let me remind him again of the various programs that are in place now to help those people who lose their jobs today or in a free trade environment. Industrial adjustment programs are in place now. Community futures programs are in place now. Skills investment programs are in place now. Restructuring assistance is in place now. There is product improvement and plant modernization. All these programs are in place now.
However, the key to this is that in a growing economy, which is creating more jobs, this adjustment is much easier to accommodate and will certainly be far less than the adjustment that is taking place in the country today.
Again, I draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the Economic Council report which points out that yearly some 4.5 million people change their jobs from one company to another. We have a growing economy that has created 959,000 jobs in the last three years. Because we have a growing economy we are able to accommodate this adjustment. What we expect in the free trade agreement will be far, far less than that which is happening right now.

November 3, 1987
Oral Questions


COMMENTS MADE BY TRADE AMBASSADOR
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. There is a report in today's news that Bruce Phillips, Director of Communications in the Prime Minister's Office, has now said the Prime Minister will not seek a retraction from Ambassador Reisman of the maladroit and unfortunate remarks he made last week.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister said he would report to the House on that matter. We now have a comment from his Director of Communications.
Considering the transcript is very clear that Mr. Reisman said that those who oppose the free trade deal are using the big lie techniques that were used in Nazi Germany, why is it that the Prime Minister and his Government are condoning those kinds of remarks? Does he not believe that that will now give licence to other spokespersons of the Government to continue to use that kind of insulting language that all Canadians find reprehensible?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. I am surprised the Hon. Member would raise this matter when it is a question of privilege raised by Members of this House which has not yet been disposed of at this particular time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the Deputy Prime Minister that it is not I who raised it. It was a spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office who has now issued a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister saying they would not issue a retraction. We believe this is a matter before the House. We expect the House to be treated with dignity and respect. Ambassador Reisman did not even bother to show up at the committee last night to issue any kind of apology or show any example.
We want to know why the Government is treating this Parliament with disdain. Why is it condoning these kinds of remarks? Why is it giving licence for this kind of low-belly response and debate it is sponsoring on the free trade issue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are not treating the House with disdain. I need only remind the hon. gentleman that when the Auto Pact arrangement was put in place the Government of the day, which was a Liberal Government, chose to exclude the House of Commons-


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -any committee debate, any provincial involvement or any public involvement.


Lloyd Axworthy: Did I ask about the Auto Pact?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I find it rather strange today-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: What about the Nazis?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -that the Hon. Member is trying to deal with something which is currently before the Speaker for adjudication. But if the Hon. Member wants to bring forth quotations, perhaps he might be interested in this remark that occurred in the committee, since we are allowing committee proceedings to be debated on the floor of the House-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which is somewhat irregular. Mr. Reisman said this:
I warn to say that I have the utmost respect for every Member present in this room who I believe is approaching their task and their responsibility in a conscientious and sound manner. I intend to answer questions in response to their queries in that spirit. That is the way I am going to conduct myself at this meeting.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL'S STUDY-CREATION OF JOBS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, all 1 would say to Mr. Reisman is you don't show respect for Members of Parliament by comparing them to Nazis. That is the point.
1 want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister another question. It has been said by the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade a number of times that this trade deal the Government is negotiating with the United States will lead to the creation of some 350,000 jobs. They base this on the Economic Council of Canada study. The Minister of Finance just a few minutes ago referred to the same study.
Considering Mr. Ritchie in committee yesterday explicitly acknowledged that the Economic Council model is totally inapplicable to the agreement that has been entered into-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: -will the Minister tell us where they get this 350,000 figure? Is it based on studies or is it just another example of Government propaganda?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I was at the committee hearings last night, and the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party was not there. I think that he is quoting a little out of context.
Let me say that the best evidence that was presented to the Government, not only by the Economic Council of Canada but by the C.D. Howe Institute, by the Royal Commission on the Economy of Canada led by Donald Macdonald, by the Fraser
November 3, 1987

Institute, and all the legitimate studies that were done looking into the free trade issue, all stated that there will be net increases in jobs in this country. There is no question about that.
What Mr. Ritchie stated last night was that now the deal has been struck there will be further studies which will show conclusive evidence that this is a positive job-creation vehicle for Canada.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT STUDIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am informed-


Mr. Shields:: By Bob White.


John Edward Broadbent: -and the Hon. Member replying did not deny this-that Mr. Ritchie acknowledged in two key assumptions made by the Economic Council that it is totally inapplicable to use that as a model for job forecasting. That is what he pointed out. The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have been using that model.
Since Mr. Ritchie also stated that not a single study has been done yet on the basis of this agreement, will the Government produce those studies before it signs a final agreement so the people of Canada will know what we are getting into?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that this Government used the International Trade Advisory Committee, which was made up of Canadians from all walks of life; it used 15 sectoral advisory committees, which were made up of some 500 Canadians from coast to coast representing all areas of the economy. It was their recommendations, support, and advice that drove our trade negotiation team. They are very happy with the result of the trade negotiations. They are telling us that it will be positive for the economy, positive for their sectors in the economy, and it will create jobs-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Based on what evidence?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Where is the hard data?


John Horton McDermid: [DOT]-and we take their advice over the Hon. Member's, that's for sure.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, both the Government of the Province of Quebec and the Government of Ontario carried out studies in the past and their findings with respect to new job creation were negative, not positive at all.
My question to the Minister is simple: Will the Government guarantee that the committee will have the studies made by the federal Government concerning this agreement before a decision is made? Yes or no?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I spoke with a former Minister of Industry in Ontario today
Oral Questions
regarding the study referred to by the Hon. Member. He stated that they were not jobs that were going to be lost, but that they were sensitive jobs in the economy. I can tell the Hon. Member that that study was done two years ago. Let him do a study now-


John Edward Broadbent: You do one and give us the study.


John Horton McDermid: -and I think he will find that it will be very positive for this country.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, with the acceptance by the Government of the Burns report last week, some 4,400 managers in the Public Service now qualify for so-called productivity bonuses over and above their present salaries, and each person is being asked to judge the manager below them to see if they qualify for a cash bonus.
The biggest cash bonuses are being awarded by this Cabinet to the heads of our Crown corporations, 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 25 per cent over and above their present salary, as Christmas presents.
1 ask the President of the Treasury Board and Deputy Prime Minister, does this not really mean, for example, that Mr. Donald Lander, the head of Canada Post, will be rewarded with a $51,000 cash bonus as a Christmas present for closing rural post offices right across the country? And Mr. Ron Lawless, the head of Canadian National, will be given a $81,250 cash bonus as a Christmas present for closing down rail lines across the nation. Are not those so-called productivity bonuses just pay-offs for lay-offs?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation was established by the previous Government in 1968, and it has provided a guide and recommendations to the Government of Canada to provide salary ranges-


Jacques Guilbault: The lay-offs and the closings are now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -for the executive level of the Public Service, as well as Crown corporations.
I think the Hon. Member knows that the principle used is that the Public Service should not be a salary leader, but rather a salary follower. It was in that context that the adjusted ranges were proposed.

November 3, 1987
Oral Questions
I am not sure where the Hon. Member got his figures. My understanding is that for the two individuals he mentioned in particular, the maximum salary levels have not changed in the recommendations in the Burns report.


APPROVAL OF SALARY INCREASES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, what the Government forgets is that while the shareholders in the private sector demand first and foremost profit, the shareholders in the public sector, that is, the people of Canada, demand first and foremost service. That is the difference.
The Government has to answer now how a cabinet Minister can ever again be at arm's length with Crown corporations- that great principle of arm's length. How can the Minister of Transport be at arm's length with the President of CN when the President of CN could be up for an $81,250 cash bonus to be approved by Cabinet?
The President of CN will not be at arm's length from the Minister of Transport. He will have his arms around him, if he can manage it, with a back-scratcher in one hand-scratch for cash-and his other hand in the Minister's pocket.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather surprising that the Hon. Member would now seize upon the opportunity to take exception to the system, because it has been in place for quite a number of years. What was good for the Liberal administration does not seem to be good for this administration.
The fact of the matter is that the board of directors do make recommendations for any increases in the salary levels of their executives. Then it is processed through Order in Council.
Hon. Members opposite are very quick to seize upon some of the horror stories so-called in the Auditor General's report. I would invite the Hon. Member to read Section 17 of the Auditor General's Report where he talks about the delays and the difficulties with regard to salary inversion and compression, and the need for ensuring that the executive level have an appropriate compensation as compared to their subordinates. Perhaps the Hon. Member might then have a more sympathetic point of view.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-STUDIES ON POSSIBLE JOB CREATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He
will recognize that all of the studies that have been referred to so far today were studies conducted on the concept of a free trade deal. Now we have before us a Mulroney-Reagan trade deal which is quite different.
The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that the Government has studies that clearly indicate there will be a significant increase in jobs. Were those studies done based on the present trade deal that we have before us today? If so, will he table those? If not, will he explain why the Government is taking this decision without doing any in-house study in terms of the impact on jobs in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Starting with the Macdonald Royal Commission, which spent in excess of $20 million in public funds, it went out and criss-crossed the country and talked to ordinary Canadians-


John Edward Broadbent: It didn't have anything to do with this deal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -to businesses, to unions, to a broadly based cross-section of the Canadian people. It came forth with some very firm recommendations. On many occasions Canadians accuse Governments of not dealing with Royal Commissions in an effective way. The clear recommendation was there.
Every study that has been undertaken by groups, independent of government, have indicated that the free trade arrangement is going to create jobs, and create a lot of jobs-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: In the United States.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and improve regional equity in this country. That is something that I think every individual would want to applaud.
The New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways. I ask the New Democrats "what is your option?" That is what I ask them. When we started on our economic renewal program the NDP were quoted as saying that our spending cuts would kill 100,000 jobs. New Democrats have consistently said there would be job losses following every economic initiative that we have taken. They were wrong then, and they are wrong today.


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF DEADLINE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the difference is that we are interested in making a decision based on facts, facts before us and a deal before us, and we do not have that deal before us today.
November 3, 1987

So far all the Deputy Prime Minister has discussed are studies done on the theory of free trade. We are talking about a specific deal the details of which are still not before us.
Since this is, by his own admission, the biggest trade deal in Canadian history, would the Minister not agree that it would be appropriate to approach the Americans to put off that January 2 deadline so that the Government can carry out specific studies and so we will understand clearly what the impact of this new deal is on jobs in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians would be interested in knowing what kinds of studies the NDP engaged in when the Leader of the NDP said on November 9, 1984, after the Minister of Finance brought in his Economic Statement, that that would cost 100,000 jobs. The Member for Hamilton Mountain said 100,000 or 200,000 jobs would be lost. The Member from Vancouver East said 150,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the May Budget. The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition said 125,000 jobs would be lost. Where were their studies, Mr. Speaker? It is now time to start testing the credibility-


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are the Government.


John Edward Broadbent: Let's have a debate in Alberta.
*	* V


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the Members' attention the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. Dr. David J. Carter, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF JOB-CREATION STUDIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of International Trade my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that when the Minister of International Trade was travelling in Atlantic Canada she surpassed most of her colleagues by insulting members of the United Church, and then went on to tell the people of Atlantic Canada that thousands of new jobs would be created as a result of consummating this agreement with the United States.
Oral Questions
In view of the very serious statement made by the deputy negotiator, Gordon Ritchie, last night that there are not studies available to support that contention, why should the people of Atlantic Canada believe the Government when there are no studies whatever to support the comments? The fact is that people in Atlantic Canada will suffer greatly as a result of consummating this free trade agreement. Why does he not produce those reports?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are taking our information from the people of eastern Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: -who are advising the Government, who work there, who provide the jobs, who have the industries and who say that this deal will be good for them. Certainly we are taking their advice. Those are the people of eastern Canada. The Hon. Member says the deal will be bad for eastern Canada. Where is he getting his reports from?


Mr. McKenzie:: Shirley Carr.


Lloyd Axworthy: You negotiated the deal.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON ATLANTIC CANADA
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that you refused to answer specific questions-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: -regarding government policy, let me ask him are we in Atlantic Canada, are the fishermen in Atlantic Canada, to depend upon the voices at National Sea-which, by the way, is owned 20 per cent by the Government of Canada-who say that free trade is somehow good for Atlantic Canada, when policies supporting inshore fishermen are due for countervail by the United States? Why don't you come clean and tell us the specifics in the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is fully cognizant of the fact that in Question Period a Member rising to put a question wants to put it with as much vigour as possible. It is putting the Chair in difficulty when Members break the rules. The Chair will then, of course, have to interrupt the Hon. Member. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep in mind that there are rules in this place. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member would have difficulty digesting good news about the free trade arrangement, but a well known economist, the chief economist for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council- which Council, incidentally, is funded by the Atlantic Provinces-Elizabeth Beale, said in referring to the free trade arrangement that "it

November 3, 1987
Oral Questions
won't eradicate our economic problems but it is the best opportunity we have. You can tinker with regional development programs but in the long range we need basic economic changes. The status quo has not been good to us."


John Edward Broadbent: That is true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That very clearly summarizes a very positive endorsement of what we have been trying to do.
While we are challenging each other on figures, may I ask the Hon. Member what studies he had when he, his Leader, and the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East said in May, 1985, that the Minister of Finance's Budget would cause the loss of 150,000 jobs, or the Member for Hamilton East who said it would cause the loss of 100,000 to 125,000 jobs?


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is answer period now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We know that they were wrong then, and they are wrong today.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Today it is reported that South Africa has launched another, this time quite heavy, attack into Angola. What will be the Canadian response to this situation in which South Africa, in alliance with UN1TA, uses Namibia, which should by now have been freed and is therefore illegally occupied, to launch attacks continually on a sovereign nation, one of the front line states that presumably we are trying to support through SACTU?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, while taking nothing at all away from the gravity of the question that was raised by the Hon. Member, I have to say that we have no absolute corroboration of the rumours. However, on the basis of what we have heard, we are very troubled that this action has been taken.
We have condemned and continue to condemn the aggression of South Africa with respect to Angola. We believe that the occupation of Namibia, as the Hon. Member knows, is illegal. We believe that that question should be resolved in accordance with the Security Council resolution with which the Hon. Member is well acquainted.
It is part of a pattern of violence in South Africa that will continue so long as the apartheid system remains in place.


UNITED STATES ROLE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter that has been well corroborated, namely, the involvement of the United States in arming
southern African style Contras who are in alliance with the South African regime. When will the Canadian Government protest this complicity of the United States in undermining the Angola regime?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, again without commenting upon some of the assumptions in the question, I think the Hon. Member would agree with two things. One, there has been some movement away from the thesis of constructive engagement in the United States. That is a welcome development, a development of which evidence was given in the speech made in New York a month ago by Secretary of State Shultz.
Second, if we are going to have the kind of impact we want to have as a result of economic and other sanctions against the South African Government, we will require the active participation of American authorities. The question has to be raised, are we more likely to achieve that kind of co-operation on the part of American authorities by taking the kind of action recommended by the Hon. Member, which, in my judgment, would have no constructive impact?

[ Translation]


TAX REFORM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Conseil des affaires sociales el de la famille, a Quebec advisory agency, submitted its brief on tax reform to the Minister of Finance. That council indicates that the proposed tax reform of the Conservative Government is a real attack on families and a substantial regressive step for the Canadian society in terms of equity, rln addition, the council deplores the fact that the Conservative Government has eliminated the $1,000 exemption for dependent children over 18 years of age with no compensation whatsoever. My question to the Minister, and thousands of Canadian families are also asking it, is the following: Is the Minister prepared to change his reform proposals and grant families with dependent children over 18 years of age a tax credit equivalent to the $1,000 exemption which he eliminated, so that the Canadian families affected get at least some compensation from the Government?
November 3, 1987


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must understand when he puts that question that eight out of 10 Canadians will be better off as a result of tax reform and that, by changing exemptions to credits, we are able to help those people in lower income brackets. If he looks at the impact tables I set out with the tax reform work, he will see that married people do better out of tax reform than singles, so that I think we have addressed the importance of tax reform for families and for married people.
Having said that, as the Hon. Member knows I am awaiting the report of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee which is studying the tax reform proposals. When I have received its report, I will be better able to comment.


POSSIBILITY OF PROGRESSIVE TAX CREDIT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of Finance has not listened to those groups of Canadians, which clearly demonstrates, following a comprehensive study of the report on tax system as it applies to families-as you know that study clearly shows that those families with many children are penalized compared with single persons. Also, those groups would like a tax credit of $65 per child. Does the Minister not believe it would be better to grant a progressive child tax credit which would increase with the number of children in a family, and to give back that refundable tax credit to low income families?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 repeat what 1 said in my earlier reply to the Hon. Member. Eight out of 10 people, 80 per cent of Canadians, will be better off as a result of tax reform. I believe the social groups to which he is referring will find that they are all, by and large, better off as a result of tax reform with the exception of those who are making pretty full use of tax preferences. Those tax preferences, as he knows, are being cut back, and I think he would support them being cut back, but the bottom line is that the large majority of Canadians are better off as a result of tax reform.


SOCIAL BENEFITS FOR FAMILIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who should know that a tax reform is no reform at all when it goes against the family's interests. What is the response of this Government to the Conseil des affaires sociales et de la famille regarding the erosion of family benefits? Will the Minister assure the House that those social benefits will not be further eroded?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is essentially the same question as those asked by previous questioners. I would point out to the Hon. Member that we have, during the life of this Government, increased the child tax credit and introduced and increased, as a result of tax reform, the refundable sales tax credit. These are beneficial to families and to people with children, and these are things that are very indicative of the directions we are going in tax reform and will continue to go in as we move into the second phase of tax reform.


Lynn McDonald: Will the Minister not admit that while there have been increases in some measures, there have been decreases in others, and when we add it all up the result is negative?


ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: In
principle, does the Government recognize that families need more assistance rather than a net reduction of the social benefits they enjoy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific numbers with me here today, but I think if the Hon. Member will check the impact tables that are in the tax reform documents, she will find that people with children benefit more out of tax reform than single people. We obviously have a difference in points of view here, but I will abide by the facts set out in the tax reform proposal.


CRIMINAL CODE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The Minister is aware that very recently the State of Florida amended its gun control legislation, dramatically loosening its gun control laws. I am sure he will recall as well that one year ago, in fact on October 14, 1986, in response to a question I put in the House, the Hon. Minister advised the House that he was reviewing our own gun control legislation and expected to have recommendations very shortly. How soon is shortly? Can the Minister assure the House that his recommendations will not follow the example set by the State of Florida?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want at the outset to assure the Hon. Member that we in this country do not propose to emulate the law change that took place in the State of Florida which clearly has the loosest gun law in the civilized world, as far as I can make out.

November 3, 1987
Oral Questions
I think the people of Canada want a balanced, effective set of gun control laws. They want laws that in fact will meet their expectations with respect to public safety yet will allow for the legitimate use of rifles and guns for sporting and other legitimate purposes. Accordingly, I do not propose to make any very substantial change in the direction of the present gun laws.
In fact, as I indicated to the Hon. Member last year, I am reviewing the laws in order to clarify situations which were not contemplated when the Bill was originally passed some 10 years ago. "Soon" means before too long.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is about the Government's contribution to Fantasyland in the West Edmonton Mall. Can the Minister confirm that the Government has failed to comply with the Industrial and Regional Development Act which has required, since November, 1984, that no contribution can be made to any project in the service sector unless a specific Order in Council is passed declaring that the project is eligible under the Act?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in the House quite fully. There was a "Late Show" question on it last night. 1 invite the Hon. Member to read the answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I read the answer.


ORDER IN COUNCIL QUERY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: If the Minister feels the law was complied with, I would like him to tell the House when the Order in Council was passed and when it was Gazetted because I have found no record of it at all in the Gazette. I would ask him, if in fact it has not been properly passed and Gazetted, will he recognize that that contribution was a loan, and will he agree to undertake to get that contribution paid back?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the same answer.


THE CENSUS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the census. Will the Minister order an RCMP inquiry into allegations that his departmental staff passed confidential medical information about census respondents to drug company sales representatives? Will he direct the RCMP to investigate in particular the complaints of the Young family of Powell River, British Columbia?
[ Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, of course we have been made aware of the problem raised by my colleague and, according to the information we have, I must tell my colleague that all standard procedures were followed in this case.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF CENSUS FORMS-RIGHT TO REFUSE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister guarantee this House that Canadian families who do not wish to participate in in-depth interviews concerning personal medical problems will not be exposed to continuous harassment in violation of their basic rights? Will he guarantee that the census forms will be amended so that respondents can exercise their right to refuse such interviews and that right will be respected by census employees?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer I gave my colleague: all standard procedures have been followed. I did respond to the allegations brought to my attention. Should my colleague have additional allegations or claims to make, I will be pleased to entertain them and act accordingly, Mr. Speaker. But until I get proof to the contrary I hope the credibility of the Department and the census or those who are responsible for these procedures will be maintained in all fairness.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be two more questions, by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, followed by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East. That will close off Question Period.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-COMMENTS MADE BY TRADE AMBASSADOR
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister
November 3, 1987

and concerns the statement today in The Toronto Star by Bruce Phillips, the Prime Minister's spokesman, that indeed the Prime Minister has reviewed the transcript of comments attributed to Ambassador Reisman in which he on at least two occasions compared some critics of free trade, presumably both in and outside this Elouse, to the Nazi propaganda machine run by Joseph Goebbels. The Minister knows that Members of the House and, I suspect, Canadians no matter which side of the debate they are on, reject that kind of language and insult as a legitimate defence for the Government or any of its official spokesmen.
Does this statement by Mr. Bruce Phillips represent the end of the Prime Minister's commitment to check the record and report back to the House, or can we expect to hear from him when he is back here again?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a repeat of an earlier question and I have already provided an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary because the question has been asked.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know whether or not it is the official position of the Government that it is acceptable for a Canadian Ambassador to describe Canadians concerned about free trade as Nazis? Is that the position, yes or no? If it is, it is not acceptable in a civilized society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, that accusation, as he phrased it, was never made.
When we look at the question of public debate on the trade agreement it is important to come back to the point made earlier by the Deputy Prime Minister. When the Liberal Party brought forward the Auto Pact agreement they refused a Conservative request to have the matter referred to a committee of this House. There was not one word of testimony. There was not one witness heard. There was not one moment when an examination such as has been proceeding under this Government was allowed by that Government. The public was shut out. The provinces were shut out. Parliament was shut out.
Question of Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais MARINE SAFETY


SAFETY CONDITIONS ON FISHING VESSELS-TASK FORCE REPORT
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. While we know the majority of fishermen operate within safety standards and have operated for years without any problems, there is serious concern regarding safety on fishing vessels. Can the Minister tell us what action his Department is planning in order to improve safety on fishing vessels and when such action might be implemented?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear a serious and responsible question for a change. Some months ago I appointed a task force from the Coast Guard to review the issue of safety in the fishing industry. That group travelled widely throughout Canada and on both coasts. They have now made a report to me with 41 recommendations. The report will be released today. The recommendations will be followed up and there will be a working group that will see that they are implemented. This has been done with the co-operation of the Department of Fisheries.
I should note that the conclusion is that human error is responsible for many of the accidents in the fishing industry, and that the main action recommended is education and a greater communication of information, because it is the skippers and owners of these vessels who have to take the greatest responsibility with respect to perils at sea.
I am also happy to say that statistics show-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: -that the record in Canada is better than that in the U.S., Norway, and some other maritime countries.


John Napier Turner: Finish it in caucus, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is too bad that the Liberal Opposition is not interested in anything but vituperation and contrived hysteria.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders, I gave you notice of my intention to rise on a matter of privilege and to introduce a motion of referral to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges

November 3, 1987
Question of Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais
and Procedure. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I could proceed immediately.
The House will surely know that the election of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration was quite an exciting and even very noisy event on Wednesday, October 7, 1987, around 3:30 p.m. The officers to be elected were the chairman and vice-chairman of the committee. The minutes and proceedings are to be found in Issue No. 42 of the Minutes of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, page 4212, where the qualifications of the nominees, namely myself, the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Jourdenais), and the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), were discussed.
During the sitting, a member of the Committee asked Mr. Lanthier whether he was parliamentary secretary. Another Member, Mr. John Oostrom, took his defense, stating-excuse me, the Member who sponsored Mr. Lanthier's nomination, in reply to Mr. Warren Allmand, had this to say: To my knowledge, Mr. Lanthier is no longer a parliamentary secretary. Another Member, Mr. Rodriguez, asked him: Is Mr. Lanthier parliamentary secretary at this point or not? Mr. Lanthier answered: I am not, at least I do not think I am. Mr. Rodriguez: You do not think your are, well are you or are you not? Mr. Lanthier said: I am no longer, at least I do not think so. I said goodbye yesterday to the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Public Works. Please note that this happened on October 7, 1987.
Now, at the end of last week, the Government tabled the Public Accounts of Canada. I examined them in detail on Friday, especially Volume II, and the additional information and analyses on page 1209 of the Public Accounts, 1986-87, where the salaries of parliamentary secretaries to Ministers are listed, and there I saw the entry: Lanthier, C-which means Claude-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works-October 15, 1986, to October 16, 1987, with a $9,450 salary.
Mr. Speaker, I was taken aback because I remembered vividly the answers given by Mr. Lanthier on October 7.
Mr. Speaker, ever since I was elected to the House of Commons, I have always assumed with humility my role as a Member of this House and I have a great deal of respect for this institution. Since last Friday, I have made inquiries and even went to the Privy Council Office where Mr. Chasse confirmed that the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) had not resigned as a Parliamentary Secretary and that he still held that job on October 14. All other Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed on October 14, with their appointment effective on the 15th. Therefore, Mr. Lanthier was still a Parliamentary Secretary and he was still paid accordingly.
I had consultations with parliamentarians and experts in different Parliaments and even in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. I quote a committee chairman, who
should be, like the Speaker of the House, above all suspicion, partisanship, and conflicts of interest and who should be straightforward.
Mr. Speaker, I hasten to add that I raise this issue which is so essential for the proper functioning of the House as a good parliamentarian who seeks to uphold the respectability of this House, of its members and Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is probably the first time such a question of privilege is raised by a Member on the Government side about one of his colleagues in the same Party. As recently as last week, all those present in the House heard the Prime Minister confirm the importance of the McGrath reform.
On October 7, when the election was held, the presence of shock troops, of groups that have been called "goons" could be noticed. Even the assistant Whip for the Government, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) was there to lead the Government troops with his advisers. It is impossible to plead ignorance or forgetfulness. The Hon. Member for LaSalle is a well-known professional engineer. Precision and accuracy are part of his psychology. He made a false statement and the election is therefore invalid. Members of the Committee and of the House have been misled. The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) should resign immediately as chairman of the Committee. I urged him to do so honourably in a letter I wrote to him today, and I quote:
Dear Mr. Lanthier,
In the speech you made in support of your candidacy as Chairman of the
Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This letter does not need to be read. The Chair has received the complaint of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member could perhaps take a few minutes to conclude his remarks.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, I want to read the letter advising him to resign-
-and Immigration. Twice you hid the truth concerning your status of
Parliamentary Secretary. I checked your statements and I am convinced that
you misled the committee and the House. If you respect your honour as a
Member and the honour of this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am very sorry, the letter may be very interesting but it is a serious attack against an Hon. Member. I think that for the reasons I have just indicated it is not necessary for me to hear more of the letter. Perhaps the Hon. Member might give it to me once he has completed his remarks.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to read certain citations from Beauchesne's?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked whether he may read certain citations from Beauchesne's. Of course, his argument is a procedural argument. Please.


Fernand Jourdenais: So here is Beauchesne's citation 231, page 77:
November 3, 1987

Personal Interest
231.	(1) The personal interest of a Member in a subject before the House must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, not in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy.
(2) Disallowance of a vote, on the score of personal interest, is restricted to cases of pecuniary interest and has not been extended to those occasions when the dictates of self respect, and of respect due to the House, might demand that a Member should refrain from taking part in a division.
Citation 232 reads as follows:
232.	(1) A member's right to vote on a question in which he is personnaly interested is one of those matters that must be decided by the House and not by the Speaker.
(5) The principle of the rule which disqualifies an interested Member from voting must always have been intended to apply as well to committees as to the House itself.
Mr. Speaker, I have several citations to read, but still I will make my point. I believe a person seeking to obtain a position in the House or in committee must be frank and honest. And in this case we saw a person who came in, was pushed, coming from I do not know where, but who indicated three times in a row that he was not chairman. It is not because he is Parliamentary Secretary that he has or does not have the right to become chairman. I am told it is not the tradition. But what concerns me most is that he resorted to an argument which is not really the right argument. Had he told us he was Parliamentary Secretary the tradition would probably have been mentioned and he would not be the chairman.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 move the following motion: That the question of the behaviour of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, and in the meantime I would ask you to invite the Hon. Member for LaSalle to relinquish the chairmanship.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move a motion of nonconfidence at the next committee meeting and recommend that a new election be held.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two or three points, if I may. As part of parliamentary reform the Opposition requested, and the Government agreed, that the Parliamentary Secretary reporting to the Minister, the Estimates of whose ministry were being reviewed by a committee, should not sit on that committee. It is my understanding that at the time about which my hon. friend complained the Parliamentary Secretary was not the Parliamentary Secretary to that particular Minister.
In any event, I am advised that the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) did resign in writing, which resignation was in fact accepted in writing prior to the date of the election to which the Hon. Member refers. That is obviously something we can check and we will be pleased to provide
Question of Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais
Your Honour with that information so that it can form part of your judgment.
I suggest that under those circumstances you may wish to stay the matter until we can provide you with that evidence.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to address the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). This is yet another indication of what has gone wrong with the immigration committee. It is evident that parliamentary reform lives only in theory and not in practice.
We experienced the John Quigley and Georges Grossmann affairs. We saw the chairmanship questioned. In addition, there was a motion put forward by government Members at the committee that the research director should be fired.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has a very great interest in this committee which is respected in this place, and certainly by the Chair. However, I must once again remind Hon. Members that the task of the Speaker is to listen to the exact procedural point as that is what I have to resolve. I think I understand the exact procedural point which the Hon. Member has brought forward.
The Hon. Member for York West might address that, keeping in mind that the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has indicated that he has some information which might be of vital interest to the House, although it is not yet in front of us.
I would ask the Hon. Member for York West to continue but to stay off the other matters, some of which are before me for consideration, as the Hon. Member knows.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to place before the House and Your Honour the perspective of the last meeting that took place on October 7. It was a meeting that was somewhat difficult because of these other events.
When we came to the election of the chairperson for that committee, we had the candidacy of the Member for LaSalle(Mr. Lanthier), a Member who had never attended one meeting of the immigration committee and had never put forward his agenda for the committee.
When there is an allegation, on top of those variables, that the Member for LaSalle also misled the committee in terms of his office of Parliamentary Secretary, it becomes very serious indeed. If it is found to be true that on October 7 the Member for LaSalle said quite clearly two or three times to members of that committee that he was no longer Parliamentary Secretary yet received funds as a Parliamentary Secretary until October 14, then he is taking unfair advantage of members of that committee who had been frustrated, angered and disappointed with the shenanigans that had taken place on that committee-

November 3, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
If Your Honour finds that the Member of Parliament for LaSalle was a Parliamentary Secretary as of October 7 and beyond, I hope that the Member for LaSalle would come forward and resign his chairmanship, because he has abused the confidence of Members. If he did not enjoy the confidence of my support, he surely will not have it now if, in fact, he was a Parliamentary Secretary as of October 7.
In conclusion, I suggest that if the Member for LaSalle was Parliamentary Secretary he does not deserve the confidence of the committee and surely not of this House. He should do the honourable thing and resign and try to regain integrity and the confidence and respect of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is rising. I ask him to keep strictly to the point. The Chair cannot settle all of the questions of argument that take place in a committee which may or may not concern matters that ought to be discussed here or, if they are, perhaps at some other occasion.
The point that the Chair must consider, because I know the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt realizes it full well, is strictly the one that the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) has raised. I would ask him to stick to it. Obviously there are disagreements within that committee. Quite frankly, right now I do not want to hear about them. I already have some of them before me for consideration.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was extremely concerned at that particular meeting. First, 1 was aware of the fact that the Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), who is now Chairman, had been a Parliamentary Secretary. That is why I wanted to clarify in committee exactly what was his status.
I will not go into the background of what we knew was taking place in that committee when certain Members were showing up to do a specific job in the committee.
I put the question to Mr. Lanthier, as appears at page 42:16 of the committee hearings on October 7. I asked: "Is Mr. Lanthier a parliamentary secretary at this time or is he not?" The Hon. Member for LaSalle replied: "No longer, I do not think". I asked: "You do not think so? Well, are you or are you not?". The Hon. Member for LaSalle replied: "No longer.
I do not think".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has the point that is being raised. The Chair is in some difficulty because I have just been handed a letter dated October 7-

-October 7, 1987, and addressed to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada.
I will read the letter:
"Mr. Prime Minister:
I hereby advise you of my resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works. This resignation is effective today, Wednesday, October 7, 1987.
Sincerely yours,"

It appears to have been signed by the Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).
Some Hon. Members are asking questions. As I say, I only have the letter.
I think it would be appropriate if the House heard from the Hon. Member for LaSalle, and this is not the place to hold a trial, or what may certainly seem to some to be a trial.
I think there are certain facts which the Chair must have. I think this letter clearly makes it incumbent upon the Chair to adjourn the matter until I can hear from the Hon. Member for LaSalle. I would ask Hon. Members to co-operate with that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly want to hear the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), but I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin). If the point of order is short, I might ask the Member for the Yukon for the courtesy to wait for a minute or two.


Ms. McLaughlin:: Agreed.
* * %


POINT OF ORDER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it will be a short point of order. Today I received a letter from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), on behalf of the New Democratic Party, asking me for money.


An Hon. Member:: What?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: For money to support the efforts of the NDP in spreading fear and hysteria among the Canadian people.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How much are you giving, Don?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is really taking a lot for granted. To suggest that I could support that group over there is really the height of-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said that it would be a short point of order, and indeed it is. If it is any comfort to Hon. Members, I might advise the House that the Chair received one, too.
November 3, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my point is simply this: There is enclosed in the envelope a statement saying: "You can afford to be generous". That is somewhat offensive because, quite frankly, I have difficulty supporting my own Party, let alone supporting the NDP. That is really taking a lot for granted and being presumptuous.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has the floor.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain why the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) received the letter. If you check the results of the last provincial election in Alberta, Vegreville went massively for the Party of light and goodness, the New Democratic Party, with a tremendous MLA, Derek Fox. This is the Minister's last chance to get re-elected, by crossing the floor. He is a good red Tory and he has a chance to do it.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 suppose that in purely procedural terms there may be those who think that we ought to proceed to something else. However, I cannot let the opportunity go by without hearing what my long-time colleague and friend, the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), may have to contribute.


PRIVILEGE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed that the issue raised by the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) was overrun as quickly as it was.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. It was not overrun and I did not mean to overrun it quickly. I said that in view of the fact that I have that letter, I think before we proceed any further we ought to hear from the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier). In other words, it is only adjourned. I do not want to carry on with it now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), in spite of what I said, is still seeking the floor. I will hear him in case I have not fully appreciated what he is saying.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for La Prairie indicated that the Parliamentary Secretary and Chairman of
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
that committee had received payment to October 14, and it is in the records.
Second, if I might just have one minute-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member when the matter comes back to the Chamber. That is what I intended. I have not given any indication that I would not hear Members further. However, in view of the comments that have been made, which I think are serious, and in view of calls for resignations and other things, I felt that given the fact there is now a letter which, I think, is of intense importance-there may be questions of when it was sent or when it was received-I have asked Hon. Members to co-operate in adjourning the discussion until we can come back to it again with the Hon. Member for LaSalle here. At that time I certainly will hear the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.
I apologize to the Hon. Member if he thought he was in any way being removed from having the right to comment on the matter.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now infringing on the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) who has a question of privilege. I think that does take precedence. Perhaps it might be more convenient to listen to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who is indicating to me, and I accept it at face value, that it will be a very short intervention.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Speaker could advise us today, with the greatest of respect for the Speaker's ruling and the wisdom of the Chair which he has exhibited consistently, when we could expect some decision with respect to the comments attributed to Ambassador Reisman and whether or not they affect the privileges of Members?


Mr. Speaker:: I will do everything I can to bring it in front of the House soon, and as the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said in Question Period, that is, without too much delay but very quickly. I am conscious of the fact that after this week there will be the usual adjournment. I am doing the best I can to meet the needs of Hon. Members. I thank the Hon. Member for his request.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short point of order, taking up from my hon.

November 3, 1987
Privilege-Ms. McLaughlin
friend, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), when he raised his point of order. I have been waiting for some time. I have a desk full of letters from my friend, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), who has been sending out letters to various, I guess, random Members from northern Alberta. I just want to congratulate him on identifying a critical trend in Canadian political history. He said in his letter: "The mood of the electorate is changing". I think he needs to be congratulated. He is right on. The mood of the electorate is in fact changing.


Mr. Speaker:: I think everyone has been treated fairly on that very interesting point of order the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has raised. As the Chair has remarked, I am glad I was not left out.


PRIVILEGE
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the question of privilege raised with Your Honour earlier today, it has come to my attention that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade is planning to go to all of the 10 provinces to seek the views of provincial residents on the trade agreement and perhaps through an oversight, it is not planning, or has not planned at the moment, to go to either the Northwest Territories or the Yukon.
By not travelling to the territories, the ability of the committee to fully understand and to hear from all the residents in the territories is greatly diminished, in my view, and 1 feel once again northerners would see this as being locked out of a major Canadian political debate. Therefore, I believe that my ability to represent my constituents has been compromised because the committee will not be giving all territorial residents an opportunity to express their views.
If you find that this is a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may be of assistance to the Hon. Member, I would not normally be prepared to suggest on the floor of the House what House Leaders are discussing, but I think in this case, in the interests of the point my hon. colleague made-which is a valid point. I take it as given-I would advise the House that we are presently discussing among House Leaders a draft travel order, the wording of which is to adjourn from place to place in Canada. Therefore, at our level there is absolutely no intention of excluding anywhere in Canada.
We appreciate that Canadians want to have an opportunity to appear before this committee, given, of course, that this is the first time in history that a treaty of this nature has been
exposed to committee hearings and will get proper discussion coming forward.
There is absolutely no question that this is to be in any way exclusive and we will certainly bring it to the committee's attention.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I find it very regrettable that the House Leader of the New Democratic Party has not spoken to the Member to explain to her the discussions that are currently taking place in this regard. The feeling is that this intervention is exclusively to try to gain some political points and I regret it very much.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one to suggest that this was a place to talk politics, the floor of the House of Commons, and I do take some exception to the intervention from the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).
There has been considerable discussion between myself as House Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin).


An Hon. Member:: Why did she ask such a dumb question then?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. Conservative friend asks why she would ask such a dumb question. I would suggest that asking why the committee is not travelling to the Yukon is not a dumb question. Perhaps that is more of a reflection on the Hon. Member.
Let me make it perfectly clear-


André Ouellet: Why ask the question if it is already known that the committee is going there?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The point is that I want to simply confirm what the Hon. Member has indicated. There have been some discussions and the discussions with the House Leaders have included the fact that the committee would be eligible to travel to various points in Canada. It was during discussions at the committee level that it was decided they could perhaps avoid travelling to the territories, including the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I think all my hon. friend from the Yukon is saying is that since the Yukon was left out of the Meech Lake discussion, she is concerned it is going to be left out of the free trade discussion. She is simply doing what her constituents have asked her to do, and that is to represent the people of the Yukon and ensure that when the biggest trade deal in Canadian history is going to be examined by the people, the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will also have that opportunity.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on that same point, I think we are seeing an example here of negotiating across the aisle between the different Parties. I would like to remind Members that whatever the three House Leaders decide among themselves, they must come to the House to ask unanimous consent to put these motions, and if
November 3, 1987

the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) does not agree with the motion to the effect that the committee will not travel to the Yukon, all she has to say is no, and then the committee does not travel until she is satisfied that the committee will go to the Yukon. Therefore, I cannot see the point.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has perhaps added something helpful. I have to say to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) that while she may very well have a complaint, it may not be as great or as severe a complaint as she may have thought, in view of what has been said by the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) on behalf of the Government. However, it is not a question of privilege. It is a matter arising out of a committee. As I say, the Hon. Member may now have received a response from the Government that may in fact be satisfactory. In any event, there are other remedies available to the Hon. Member, as has been pointed out. It is a matter of concern, of course, to this House, and the Hon. Member might take some comfort from the fact that Members on both sides have indicated the importance of the committee, of where it goes and the matter which it is discussing. I thank the Hon. member for her intervention.
*
* *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Deputy House Leader will be aware that yesterday business of the House of Commons moved particularly quickly. We were able to complete examination of a number of Bills somewhat unexpectedly because of the expeditious nature with which the various debaters addressed those Bills.
In all corners of the House it is recognized that Bill C-77 is an important piece of legislation. Because of the fact that the Minister was unable to make the presentation on behalf of the Government, the spokesperson for the Official Opposition was unable to respond, and the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party still had some remarks to make at the end of his presentation, I would suggest that the Minister consider reintroducing Bill C-77 to facilitate the consideration of that Bill as we would normally approach it. In other words, have the Minister introduce the Bill and provide ample opportunity for the opposition spokespersons to respond. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is item No. 2(1) on the agenda for the House Leaders' meeting which will start immediately after the House moves to Orders of the Day. I am perfectly prepared to entertain some rearranging of that debate immediately. We will take care of that.
Patent Act


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto; and the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 10664).
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, after we left the debate this morning we were on a point of order considering a couple of very serious matters. One of them was an attempt to make a request of the Government House Leader to provide the House with an explanation of what the House will do as a result of the Senate refusing to pass legislation that came out of the House. This is an extremely important matter.
I would ask for unanimous consent to permit the Government House Leader to stand up and explain exactly what the House can do, as elected representatives of the people of Canada, to ensure that an unelected group of people in the other place do not override the legislation passed by the elected representatives.
With unanimous consent will the House Leader explain what progress has been made on the proposal submitted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to use the time before the passage of Meech Lake, when only seven provinces and 50 per cent are required, to eliminate the powers of the Senate, so that it will not again interfere with the legitimate passage of legislation by the elected people in the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member rises on some matters of importance. He asked for unanimous consent to get into a discussion. It seems to me to be a long way from the matter that is presently before the House for debate. The House is the master of its own procedure.
The Hon. Member has asked for unanimous consent to hear remarks on behalf of the Government by one of the Ministers concerning the situation with respect to the views of the other place on a piece of legislation which is presently before this House.
I have some difficulty with that procedurally. I would probably have to consider it. I will not have to consider it at all if there is not unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 3, 1987
Adjournment Debate


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 must inform the Hon. Member that there is not unanimous consent.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is seeking the floor?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 was going to offer some remarks because I thought that you were asking for comments or advice on this point.
Indeed, I think it would prejudice the decision of this House to anticipate what is going to happen. 1 do not think it would be proper for us to entertain such a statement at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier who does, I might say, bring considerable helpful advice to the Chair. The Hon. Member was anticipating my own comments on my concern about the procedural validity of the motion, even if there was consent. However, there is not consent, so 1 think that we should revert to Orders of the Day.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate. I say at the outset that I can understand and appreciate the fact that the Minister responsible for this particular piece of legislation is away from the House on important government business. 1 do wish to take this opportunity to share with you some of the various happenings that have taken place earlier today regarding the insensitivity and incompetence of the Department of the Minister responsible in providing a motion in both official languages. I would hope through you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps as we progress a little in the debate, you would indicate as to whether or not copies have now been made available to all Members in both official languages.
I see that you are nodding your head expressing that that is the case. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We can make sure that any Member who wishes a copy of the French text will receive a copy. They are on the table.



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 Edmonton West (Mr. Lesick)- Financial institutions-Principal Savings and Trust- Reimbursement of investors; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental affairs-Introduction of pollution control legislation; the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner)-Free trade-Softwood lumber export tax-Effect of agreement on pulp and paper industry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto; and the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 10664).
David Charles Dingwall: should remind Members that in his opening remarks, the Minister indicated that the $300,000 that was spent by the special Senate committee to hear the views of Canadians with regard to Bill C-22 was somehow a very drastic and inappropriate expenditure of federal funds.
While he stood in his place, the Minister failed to tell Canadians the amount of funds that were used for the defence of a senior Minister in the present Government under a conflict of interest. Millions of dollars went to the defence of a Member of Parliament who was a cabinet Minister and a former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister failed to say anything about that.
On Bill C-22 the Minister tried to give the impression that what was happening at the present time was unprecedented. That is not the case. What is happening now is unprecedented as to what the Government is doing. When disagreements like this one occurred in the past, conferences were held between the Senate and the House of Commons, and they were held at this stage, that is, when the Senate has twice sent back a government Bill. Instead of following the normal procedure and holding a conference, as has been done in the past, the Government of Canada has acted on its own, proposing new amendments without any consultation whatsoever.
The Minister responsible for this piece of legislation ought to have his facts straight before he attempts to delude Canadians as to what is going on in regard to this piece of legislation.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), who has now left the Chamber, attempted to portray in the House of Commons this new-found sense where the NDP now supports the thrust of Bill C-22. It does not want the Upper Chamber to try to make improvements to Bill C-22. I find that change of heart with regard to this particular piece of legislation to be rather telling of the New Democratic Party and the position that it has taken on social policy. In fact, I suppose Members of the New Democratic Party are doing this on a daily basis, checking to see which way the winds will blow. One day they are opposed to Bill C-22, the next day they wish to make amendments to Bill C-22 and now, today, we have a senior Member of this House from British Columbia, a Member of
November 3, 1987

the New Democratic Party, saying to the Canadian people that the Upper Chamber ought not to improve upon Bill C-22, thereby supporting the over-all thrust of increases in drug prices for Canadians. That is the position of the New Democratic Party. I say it is a shame that the NDP Leader, for whatever reasons, is not here in the Chamber to address those concerns as evidenced by the comments of that Member.
In order to give effect to the statements made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that prices of drugs will not increase faster than the increase in inflation, Bill C-22 was amended to reflect the Minister's own words. I must point out that the Minister responsible has been telling Canadians from coast to coast that the Prices Review Board will keep price increases at less than the cost of living. When he appeared before the special Senate committee on Bill C-22 on April 14, 1987, the Minister said:
Under the legislation, the Drug Prices Review Board will have a mandate to examine the prices of all drugs and to keep the prices less than the rise in increase in inflation.
That is found at page 28. On August 20, 1987, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs told Members of the House the following:
The Drug Prices Review Board will be in place and mandated by law to keep those prices increases at less than the cost of living. Thus for the first time we will have those drugs for which there is no generic competitor being held down in terms of price increases by the Drug Prices Review Board.
That is found at page 8249. On the following day the same Minister repeated the same message to the House. He said:
This package. Bill C-22, provides consumer protection ... It provides that drugs will not increase more than the cost of living.
He went on to say:
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.
That was the Minister responsible in this House and across the country for consumers.
The amendment which was suggested by the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee provides that the Consumer Price Index should be the primary factor which the Prices Review Board considers rather than merely one of many factors. The thrust of the amendment of the Upper Chamber is that the primary consideration be the Prices Review Board and that is in accordance with the Minister's own statement. Should the price of a drug increase faster than the Consumer Price Index, the manufacturer would then lose its period of exclusivity on that drug and at the board's discretion, its period of exclusivity on any additional drug. This amendment is in total conformity with the Minister's own words. If he will not agree to this amendment or to the thrust of this amendment, perhaps he could explain to Canadians and to Members of this House why he refuses to include in the Bill guarantees that reflect his very own words. If he does not accept this amendment, which is evidenced by his comments here, let him
Patent Act
then confirm that price increases in excess of inflation will be permitted.
I suggest to the Minister, to his Cabinet colleagues and to the Members of this House that the Minister responsible for consumers cannot and should not have it both ways. He has to choose.
The second area of substantive amendments deals with research and development. At second reading debate in the House of Commons on November 20, 1986, the same Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated:
We have received commitments from the industry to invest directly in research and development $1.4 billion and to create 3,000 jobs between now and 1995. The commitment is worded so that 10 per cent of sales will be invested in research and development.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, those words, those commitments are found nowhere in Bill C-22. They are not in the Bill. They are not in an exchange of letters as was the case, if you will, with the Auto Pact. These commitments are contained in what? In press releases. What Canadians are asked to put their reliance in is the promise and the weight of a press release. The Government seems to talk with perverse pride in the fact that it has not obtained a firm undertaking or guarantees from the very companies which would so handsomely, and I underline the word handsomely, profit from this legislation. This approach in my view is both naive and unacceptable.
In 1985 the Government of Canada introduced a 10 per cent sales tax on non-prescription drugs such as Aspirin and cold remedies and even poison ivy treatments. Now, the implementation of a tax on medicine is in itself scandalous. Does an individual who falls ill not face enough adversity without being taxed on the very medication he or she must purchase to treat his or her ailment? Apparently not in the view of the Government. When it comes to collecting additional revenues from the ill, the sick, the Government has absolutely no hesitation in codifying such measures in the very law of Canada to ensure that it collects its own reward in the form of a sales tax. There is no hesitation, no doubt. It is a clear unequivocal desire to implement sales tax on the sick and on the elderly.
Contrast this approach to the one being taken in the legislation before us. The Government of Canada assures us that the pharmaceutical manufacturers will increase research and development expenditures by a total of SI.4 billion over the next 10 years. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, not a comma, not a sentence, not a reference, not an amendment, absolutely nothing in the Bill that requires the Government to do so. Over a billion dollars is reportedly at stake. The Government and, indeed, right now the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) laugh. They hold up press releases and then they cry victory. It is shameful, shameful behaviour on the part of a national Government which is supposed to take its responsibility both seriously and sincerely.

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs went on and stated before the special committee on Bill C-22, "1 prefer a carrot to a stick. I don't think a stick is necessary". He said that on April 14, 1987. No, Mr. Speaker, one would certainly not want to use a stick on the multinational pharmaceutical interests. When it comes to taxing Canadians who fall ill, this Government apparently has no hesitation in holding the stick over their heads. I ask government Members where is the fairness, where is the social justice, where is the dignity? I suggest it is highly lacking and that is evidenced by their actions.
Is the goal of the Government to promote research and development in Canada? The people in the Senate did their best to further that goal by providing amendments to Bill C-22. They recommended that a pharmaceutical royalty fund be created, the same recommendation that was made by one of Canada's most distinguished authorities, Dr. Harry Eastman. Drug companies would receive additional monies in direct proportion to the amount of research they conduct. The Government found this unacceptable. It prefers to give a blank cheque to the pharmaceutical giants to be paid by the sick, the elderly and the infirm of Canada.
The Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, in the spirit of compromise, now recommends that at the very least, the promises of the Minister and of the pharmaceutical companies be placed in the legislation itself. Surely if the Minister believes in his own words, if the industry, as evidenced by the press releases of the pharmaceutical multinationals, believes in its own words, what do they have to fear? If what they have said will be realized, why would they be afraid? What do they have to hide?
The Senate did not ask for any additional commitments. It is not substituting a totally new scheme in place of that proposed by the Government. The Senate amendments simply ask that the promises made by the industry be contained in the legislation and nothing more.
The amendments would require the drug companies to actually spend the funds they have promised to spend on research and development. If the drug companies are serious about the commitments they have made in Quebec, Ontario and other parts of Canada, they should have no reason for concern because this amendment would never, ever come into effect. It would only come into effect if those companies and the industries at large reneged on their promises and failed to live up to their commitments.
This amendment is obviously unacceptable to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would ask the Minister to take the time to explain to the employees of the pharmaceutical industry why he refuses to put into the Bill a guarantee that research and development will actually increase as promised by the industry and now by the Minister.
As introduced by the Government, Bill C-22 does not even require pharmaceutical companies to maintain their present levels of research and development and employment, let alone increase them. That is shameful national social policy. What kind of Government would be that irresponsible to the people it says it represents and wishes to represent?
If the Government says that research and development will increase to 10 per cent of sales, and if the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada is making the same commitment, why is there hesitation about putting it in the Bill? Let me use this analogy. If a consumer went to buy a car, a fridge, a stove or any other commodity and the salesman made all sorts of promises about the vehicle, the fridge or the stove, but then at the end of the day when the consumer went to pay for that particular commodity, the salesman refused to put any of those promises in writing, would the consumer not have some serious concerns and reservations about the promises? I think the answer is obvious to most Canadians.
If the Government refuses to put into writing its own words, then all Canadians have good reason for concern. It is not fair, it is not good public policy, it is not in the interests of Canadians, it is not in the interests of trying to maintain reasonable prices for prescription drugs for the Government to give away without receiving anything in return.
I underline again and again the unfairness, the incompetence, the give-away, the walk-away about the objectives of social policy. Why is the Government afraid to put into legislation things it has been telling Canadians from coast to coast? Unfortunately, the reasons for the Government's refusal are what we in the Opposition have been echoing for quite some time.
The Minister may say, as he attempted to say in committee, that for certain technical reasons, this amendment cannot be accepted, but it can be accepted. It only requires the political will to do so. There could have been that will, as evidenced by the suggestions we made in committee and in the House and our colleagues made in the Senate. If there was one iota, one teensy little bit of political will on the other side to protect Canadians from the harshness of this particular Bill and to give us guarantees for research and development, jobs and the protection of the consumer, the Government would have moved on those suggestions.
Canadians now hold the position, as evidenced by opposition across the country, that this Government does not really believe what it has told us. It is a smoke and mirrors game. Say one thing, do the complete opposite. The Government did it on free trade. In 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said no way to free trade. Now free trade is here. The same thing was true with the sacred trust. He put legislation in to deindex pensions for senior citizens. The list goes on and on.
Who have been hit? Who pays for these unconscionable acts of the Government? It is the Canadian consumer who pays.
November 3, 1987

The third area of amendment deals with the retrospective operation of Bill C-22. We heard today a litany of words and sentences piled up on top of one another by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. One would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer, a medical surgeon and a Ph.D. in biochemistry to understand what he was talking about. He did not know what he was talking about.
As a matter of principle, legislation with a retrospective application is highly objectionable. Bill C-22 is no exception. The committee found that the use of June 27, 1986, as the operative date impairs the rights of certain licensees and of those who have applied for but have not yet been granted compulsory licences. The Minister tries to weave, bob, stand on this foot and stand on that foot to justify using the date of June 27, 1986.
Some have said the Minister is on drugs. I do not believe that for one moment. I think he has taken the drug and right now he is coming off it. That is why he is making such silly, stupid and irresponsible statements as he made here this morning. I wish we had the opportunity to have him in the Chamber in order to have a frank and free-flowing debate on some of those irresponsible and somewhat incompetent statements regarding the retroactivity of Bill C-22.
Generic companies have expended time and money under the present legislation. They have applied for compulsory licences and notices of compliance in good faith. We are now told by the Government that those efforts are to be of no avail because the law is to be changed as of June, 1986. Where is the fairness? The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kem-pling), who sat on the committee studying this Bill, referred with great eloquence to the generic companies as nothing more than rapists. That was his understanding of the contribution generic companies can make to the pharmaceutical industry. Members opposite have a very narrow view of the industry. It is based on one foundation, that of the multinational corporation. We in this Party believe it is more than just that group. It is the generic industry, the Canadian consumer, provincial Governments, and other interested groups across this country.
The unfairness of the retroactivity involved in this legislation is without parallel. What is particularly disturbing is that the companies which will be harmed are in the main Canadian generic companies. Not only do we bring in harmful retroactive legislation, it is most harmful to the Canadian generic industry. So much for helping Canadian business. So much for trying to facilitate expansion of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. The Government is doing everything but.
I want to underline that the obvious beneficiaries of Bill C-22 are foreign based multinational companies. Let us be clear. It is one thing to say, as the Minister said, that new jobs will be created, research and development will take place, and prices will be maintained in line with the CPI. It is quite another thing for him to say, because of a magical process called the press release, that we should place our faith in multinational corporations with respect to creating jobs, increasing research and development, and maintaining
Patent Act
reasonable prices. The Minister is out to lunch, he does not know what he is talking about, when he relies solely on the press releases of multinational corporations.
There is of course an argument to be made that all firms operating in Canada should be treated equally. In this instance the Government seems to have gone out of its way to hinder development of a Canadian controlled pharmaceutical industry. What the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee has done is to recommend that the Bill be amended to provide that the new regime would only come into effect on the date the Bill is proclaimed. It says that this new regime would apply only to brand name drugs that received their notice of compliance on or after that date. In this way new drugs would be afforded the increased protection of Bill C-22, while drugs now on the market would continue to be governed by the old rules.
What is so earth shattering about that suggestion? Why could the Minister not accept the thrust of that amendment? Has he made a side deal with the multinational corporations which he refuses to inform Parliament about? That is the conclusion Canadians are coming to. The Minister refuses to codify his own words in this legislation. Surely any fair, reasonable and objective individual would have to conclude that there must have been some side deal in order that we revert not to June of 1987 but June of 1986.
That is a long period of time. 1 am sure even you, Mr. Speaker, reasonable and objective man that you are, coming from that great Province of Alberta which is opposed to higher drug prices, can see the insensitivity on the part of the Minister regarding the Senate's amendment concerning retroactivity. Who is it going to hurt or hinder? Canadian consumers? The generic industry? The employees of those generic firms, a point which has not been mentioned in this House as of yet?
There are other objections to this Bill. The amendments proposed by the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee are reasonable and deserving of our support. There is nothing in these amendments, absolutely nothing, to cause any discomfort to the Government, particularly since they mirror the Government's own words. I would like to draw to the attention of Members of this House comments made in a Financial Post editorial on October 26, 1987. If anything, that paper has not been overly fair, understanding or sensitive to the views of opposition Members about this Bill, nor to the Senate's view, nor indeed the whole issue of intellectual property rights. However, for the edification of Members opposite I want to quote what The Financial Post had to say. It says in part:
The Government seems determined to manufacture a constitutional impasse over its drug patents law, Bill C-22. It was one thing for the Senate to alter fundamentally the nature of the bill, as it did in its first round of amendments. It is quite another when, the bill having been returned to the upper house, a Senate committee suggests the most moderate, sympathetic amendments, wholly in keeping with the spirit of the legislation and respecting every constitutional precedent-only to meet with brusque dismissal from Consumer & Corporate Affairs Minister Harvie Andre.

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
The Senate banking, trade & commerce committee's recommendations only sharpened the bill's purpose, that it might at least achieve what it intends. One sets explicit guidelines for the new drug price review board. A second established R&D commitments in law, on a company-by-company basis, rather than industry-wide. And a third merely cancels the bill's retroactivity, in accord with natural justice. In every essential, including the 10-year monopoly for new drugs, the bill is intact. Consumers, taxpayers, and economists might have complaints at this, but the minister should have none.
Finally, it says:
-the government should surely be able to accept the Senate amendments and spare us a constitutional showdown.
Mr. Speaker, that was in the The Financial Post of October 26, 1987, in an article entitled "Drugs and trade", commenting on the amendments which have been referred to us in this Chamber for our	consideration-reasonable, objective
amendments being put forward, not to lessen the government thrust of Bill C-22 but to improve it and to codify and confirm the words of the Minister responsible.
The Minister has come into this Chamber and insulted my colleagues from the Province of Quebec. He has made reference to opposition Members using stalling tactics. On a previous occasion this Minister accepted amendments of the Senate and then went on to make two additional amendments himself.
I do not know whether the Minister was speedreading, talking in his sleep, talking as he was coming off drugs, or what, but he seemed to suggest in his motion that he was accepting one of our amendments and some other amendments, the full impact of which we are in the process of examining. The Minister has certainly not gone far enough in my view.
In this debate we must emphasize the position which our Party has taken from day one. It was the NDP which said "no amendments to Bill C-22, none whatsoever". That was a couple of months ago. There was then some wavering and then they wanted some amendments, in fact they even suggested some amendments. When the standing committee met, some amendments were brought to Parliament but they were rejected by the Government. Today the senior member of the New Democratic Party from British Columbia says that we should do away with the Senate, that it should have no right to improve Bill C-22.
I am not suggesting that that is hypocrisy. I am not suggesting that they are sitting on the fence wavering back and forth, waiting for a political opportunity to jump in or jump out. I would not say that about the members of the New Democratic Party. They do not know where they are at. If the convention is in Montreal, they are against Bill C-22. If the convention is in Atlantic Canada, they are probably against Bill C-22.
It is clear to Members in this Party that the New Democratic Party has been, as I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will agree, inconsistent throughout this entire debate. That ought to be brought to the attention of the House.
I know that my colleagues across the way are very much aware of their inconsistency, of the way they change their feet, pulling one foot out and putting the other foot in to meet the political whims of the day, whatever they may be. First they wanted no amendments, then they wanted amendments, and now they want no more amendments. Are they in support of Bill C-22 or are they against it? I think Canadians should know where they stand. We have seen in this House a terrible display of inconsistency by members of that Party. They do not know where they are at and I suppose they never will.
We, however, have been consistent throughout. We have said since day one that there must be amendments to the Patent Act. The Government has advocated a 10-year monopoly period for the multinational corporations. The Minister of Justice has a social conscience and I know that he agrees with me-although he cannot say anything because of cabinet solidarity-that that was the wrong way for the Government to proceed. I know that my good friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, also agrees that it was a Draconian measure taken against the consumers of the country to include a 10-year period of exclusivity. The Minister of Justice shakes his head. I do not know whether he is blowing his nose or what.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You remind me of Allan MacEachen. I don't know why.


David Charles Dingwall: We have been very clear that there must be amendments to the Patent Act. We have adopted as our position the recommendation of Dr. Harry Eastman, a distinguished authority in Canada who made very sound and reasonable recommendations to what is now known as Bill C-22. That has been our position and we have not wavered one iota, unlike the NDP which is all over the country saying one thing to one group and a different thing to another group. We have been consistent.
Our Leader has gone to western Canada and stated clearly and unequivocally where we stand as a Party. He has done the same thing in the Province of Quebec, including in the City of Montreal and particularly to the Montreal Board of Trade. He has clearly spelled out the position which we have adopted since day one.
Members ought not find it difficult to understand that we would look upon the amendments sent to us by the Upper Chamber with great sensitivity and great understanding for they, too, have had the objective of improving the overall being of this piece of legislation. That ought to be clear to all Members.
What are Canadians saying about Bill C-22? I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what some Canadians are saying
November 3, 1987

about Bill C-22. I have a letter from Regina, Saskatchewan, dated August 13, 1987. It reads:
It is a saddening situation that the present Government should show a contemptuous and uncaring attitude towards its citizens. Most hurtful of all is the position that they take in believing most of us are stupid and believe their propaganda that the Bill will create jobs and add to a better business outlook in Canada. This is nothing but an aberration on their part. Since when have European and U.S.A. States multinationals given the slightest consideration to the well-being of the citizens of Canada?
Trusting that we may depend on your continued opposition to the passage of Bill C-22 in its present form.
That is from Regina, Saskatchewan. Canadians are speaking out on legislation that they know will affect them dearly.
A physician from London, Ontario, writes:
As a physician, I am aware of the difficulties some patients are having paying for drugs. It is important that we take whatever steps are necessary to keep drug prices lower .. . The Government has done the country a disservice by implying that the drug Bill will not push up drug prices. I applaud you in your efforts to amend the drug Bill. Keep up the good work!
That is another Canadian who is concerned about drug cost, and knows something about it.
I have a letter from another individual from British Columbia. Perhaps this explains the irrational and inconsistent behaviour of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River when he makes his change of heart as to what the position of the New Democratic Party really is. No one really knows what their position is, depending on the day and how the winds will blow.
This person writes: "Like many Canadians I strongly support the Senate for its stand on this issue. Competition not regulation is the best means of price control and a healthy domestic generic industry has been providing this since 1969. Sick Canadians require protection, not the foreign pharmaceutical industry which has been enormously profitable for many years. In Canada unique drugs such as insulin have almost always originated in universities, seldom, if ever, by industrial research, and legislation is unlikely to change this. The Government is getting seriously out of touch with our citizens who are having to look elsewhere for protection. I hope the Senate will stand its ground in the interest of Canadian consumers and our domestic industry".
That was written by a doctor from British Columbia. Canadians are voicing their concerns about the thrust of Bill C-22.
I also have a letter that was sent to the Minister, to whom I have referred in a very kind way. I refer to him as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but from time to time I do make mistakes. My mistake is that I have been generous and kind. I have called him the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but I tell you that he is the Minister of corporate affairs.
Patent Act
He will go down as a great Minister of corporate affairs, manipulating, conceiving, facilitating, expediting secretly and every other way the interest of multinational corporations while he does not respond to the real people, the individuals who need the protection of the Minister. When he does respond to them, it is without any degree of political will to assist and facilitate them in achieving the objectives that they believe are important.
The Minister of corporate interests received a letter on August 19, 1987. Part of it reads:
As a Chairman of a Department of Psychiatry which deals with hundreds of individuals who require certain medications to get through life, 1 am constantly reminded of the need to keep drug costs at an absolute minimum. Of the more than 60,000 patients which we at Queen's are seeing during the year, two-thirds are individuals who have serious financial constraints and whose day-to-day emotional survival depends on cheap medication. Your wish to counterbalance these benefits with increased research commitments appears rather vague to me.
That is from the Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, Professor of the Department of Pediatrics, Queen's University. It is another Canadian who is expressing his view with regard to this legislation.
Many other Canadians are opposed to Bill C-22. I do not wish to reiterate all of those groups and organizations who have opposed it, but it must be said for the benefit of Members and indeed the Canadian public that six provincial Governments are opposed to Bill C-22. Yet we only hear from the Government benches that one government, the Government of Quebec, supports Bill C-22.
I have stated in this Chamber on several occasions that we support research and development, we support jobs, we support the lessening of price increases and the maintenance of reasonable prices for prescription drugs. That is why we have attempted both in the House of Commons and in the Senate to effect amendments which would serve that purpose. Yet the Government has chosen not to do that, for whatever reasons.
Let it be said clearly and unequivocally that the amendments which have been put forward by our Party and our colleagues in the Senate have been made to strengthen the Bill and provide Quebecers with those assurances on jobs, research and development and a guarantee with regard to the cost of prescription drugs. That has been the primary consideration.
The Minister began by telling us that there will be all sorts of benefits for all Canadians, those who live in western Canada, Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Quebec. The Minister then said that perhaps he should change that to mean the capitals of the various provinces would benefit. Now he has sliced off the Atlantic, thrown out western Canada. Nothing going to Brandon, Manitoba.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, there is, $30 million.


David Charles Dingwall: The Minister says $30 million. Why do you not have the courage of your words and put it in writing in the

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
Bill so that Canadians will have confidence in what you are saying?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Do not use arguments that are not true.


David Charles Dingwall: What is the Minister of National Health and Welfare afraid of? Why does he refuse to put his words into writing?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am afraid of the kind of comments you make which are unfounded.


David Charles Dingwall: He is not a chameleon. Prove it and put it in writing in the Bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Your association with the truth is unfounded.


David Charles Dingwall: What will be going to Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Shediac, New Brunswick-


John V. Nunziata: Or Revelstoke, B.C.?


David Charles Dingwall: Or Revelstoke, B.C.? What will go to Portage la Prairie? The Minister knows.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Stay with the truth, David. It will be a new experience for you.


David Charles Dingwall: The Minister talks about truth. I challenge the Minister to put up or shut up.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You said there was nothing in Manitoba, until I corrected you.


David Charles Dingwall: If you believe in your words, why do you not place it in the Bill?


Mr. Grise:: Very decent. Very high profile argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has the floor.


David Charles Dingwall: I ask the Minister simply to put his words in writing. The Minister talks about truth. I would not want to say that we must question the truthfulness of the Minister.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You said nothing in Manitoba, until I corrected you.


David Charles Dingwall: What is going to Brandon, Manitoba? Put it in legislation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You said nothing in Manitoba.


David Charles Dingwall: The Minister said $30 million. 1 say to the Minister, put it in writing. Codify it into law. But the Minister says: "No, I shan't do that". So who is being untruthful?


Charles Joseph Clark: You are.


John V. Nunziata: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


David Charles Dingwall: 1 suggest the Government is being untruthful.


John V. Nunziata: I distinctly heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), former Prime Minister of
Canada, accuse another Hon. Member of being untruthful. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is unparliamentary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we will wait until I see the "blues". I do not believe I heard that. 1 can wait until tomorrow. However, if the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs would like to comment, I would appreciate hearing from him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was uncharacteristically correct and I withdraw.


David Charles Dingwall: We are getting places today, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare would accept the challenge to take the truthfulness of the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as well as the truthfulness of the multinational corporations, and take that truthfulness-if he believes so strongly in their truthfulness-and place it into law so that all Canadians can see and recognize that their words really mean something, that they do not have to depend upon the mere words and weight of a press release that may have been issued from the head office of the multinational corporation or, indeed, from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I think the Minister might want to do that for Canadians if he is so concerned about truthfulness.
We have heard the Minister talk about the great benefits that would be bestowed upon Canada with Bill C-22. The area now being concentrated on is the City of Montreal. We are told all sorts of benefits will go to Montreal. I am not against benefits going to Montreal. My colleagues are not against benefits going to Montreal. I just ask the Hon. Minister to put it into law. Why does he not put it into law and reassure the people, as we have suggested in our amendments, that what he is saying will be realized, as opposed to this smoke and mirrors game the Government is playing with the Canadian people? After all, it is Canadians from coast to coast who will have to pay the lion's share of the increase in the costs of prescription drugs. Canadians across the country, the elderly, our senior citizens and the sick will have to pay.
Of course, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of all people, should be all too aware of what effect increases in the cost of drugs will have on our provincial Governments. He knows that when the costs of prescription drugs go up, it is not directly seen by Canadians because most Canadians, yes, are under a drug plan or program sponsored by their provincial Government. However, where do the provincial Governments get their money for health care? It is through the taxation system. The Minister knows that smaller and poorer provinces, even his own Province of Manitoba, are going to have to pay
November 3, 1987

higher drug prices. Costs are going to go up and someone has to pay for it.
We are not asking for something we have contrived or stirred up at the drop of a hat. We are just trying to put into law the words of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


John V. Nunziata: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to interrupt my colleague and friend in the middle of his remarks, but he has been indicating for some time now that certain promises made by the Government ought to be entrenched in legislation. Is he suggesting that Canadians do not believe promises made by the Minister and the Government? Is that why he wants it in legislation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is not the time for questions and comments. The Hon. Member has the floor in unlimited debate. If the Hon. member for York South- Weston would like to write his colleague a little memo to tell him exactly what is happening, that is fine, but I would hope that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond could carry on with his debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can you handle it on your own?


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to say a few words in this debate and I will wait with great anticipation to hear what he has to say about some of the recommendations which have come forward from the other place.
The word we have received to date has been a mere statement of intention. I think the price Canadians have to pay in terms of higher drug costs, no guarantees for jobs, no guarantees for research and development, is a pretty big price. If we are going to give the multinational corporations a free monopoly for a 10-year period, surely it is a measure of good public policy to have some clear legislated commitments in order to ensure Canadians jobs, expenditures on research and development, as well as reasonable prices for prescription drugs. But the Bill is completely devoid of that, and for that reason I have urged the Government time and time again to take its words and put them into writing. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare has a little difficulty with this. This is where we may depart company. If the Government says something and is not prepared to legislate it on such an important measure as this, Canadians quite rightly are going to conclude that perhaps there is something wrong, perhaps the Government is not going to deliver on its commitments.
I go back to what I said in my opening remarks when I referred to the car salesman or the salesperson selling a stove, refrigerator or microwave. They make all sorts of grandiose promises about that particular product but when an individual goes at the end of the day with money to purchase the item and have it delivered, the salesperson says: "Well, I cannot put those things in writing". Quite rightly an average reasonable
Patent Act
Canadian consumer would conclude there is something wrong and more than likely would not purchase the item. They would want to go home and reflect upon the fact that the salesman was not prepared to put in writing or give a guarantee of what he said the item would do.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows only too well that we have heard there are going to be jobs, expenditures on research and development and all Canadians are going to benefit. If the Minister believes that, why does he not put it into law? What is he afraid of? The only time it will trigger into effect is if the multinational corporations do not live up to the sentiments they have expressed.
Therefore, I say to my colleague and friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he cannot have it both ways. He cannot speak out of both sides of his mouth. When he is enacting social policy in this country, he ought to do the decent and honourable thing and come clean and tell Canadians exactly what is going to take place.
If the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment put forward by my colleagues from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, York South-Weston, and from Windsor, that we have made repeatedly in the House, the only thing that we can conclude, as reasonable objective consumers and opposition persons, is that the Government does not believe that what it has stated will materialize.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that the hour is approximately 4.51 p.m. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has now spoken for some 50 minutes. 1 understand the House will be adjourning in eight minutes. Can the Chair indicate whether the Hon. Member has unlimited time, or whether his remarks might be restricted by any rule of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is well aware that he has unlimited time. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has the floor.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you clarified that for my colleague, who, as you know, is a new Member to the House of Commons, but a very able and distinguished Member of Parliament.
That is the issue here today. There is no hidden agenda. Opposition Members do not have something that they are attempting to pull out of the hat at the last moment. We are looking for improvements to Bill C-22. I thought as legislators it was our job to improve upon the legislation. As other Members have, I took an oath with regard to the constituents whom I represent. Surely, in a free and open society when we rise to speak in this Chamber, we have to accept that sometimes there are suitable, concrete, good amendments and suggestions that can come from other corners of the House.

November 3, 1987
Patent Act
The Minister has left the unfortunate impression that there may have been a side deal, therefore they cannot agree to put their words in legislation in terms of the retrospectivity going back to June, 1986. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, it is November, 1987 and the Government wishes to have a Bill retroactive to June, 1986. That will not favour the generic companies in this country. It will not favour Canadian consumers. It will not favour the senior citizens who live on Minto Street in Glace Bay in my constituency. It will not favour the senior citizens in Dominion in my constituency. It will not favour the senior citizens in North Sydney and Cape Breton. It will favour one particular group, the multinational corporations.
While we are on the point of multinational corporations, let us review in summary fashion the financial health of those corporations. As they would say in some quarters of this country, if they were crawling along their way in terms of financial viability, one would have to scratch their head and look at this legislation in a different light. In looking at the track record of the multinational corporations, as was done by Dr. Eastman in his report from 1968 to 1983, there is conclusive evidence that that sector of the pharmaceutical industry did better than any other manufacturing sector on job creation, on profits, and on return of investment. So as they say in parts of this country, "They ain't no poor people there. There ain't no poor people running the multinational corporations".
Let it be clear, which we do not seem to get from our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, that we are not against businessmen or businesswomen reaping a reasonable profit, a return on their investment to their shareholders. We are not against that. We never have been against that, and hopefully we never will. Surely, as individuals who are elected to serve-and I underline the word serve-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Don't forget about honesty now.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member mentions honesty. Perhaps we can hear another flip-flop from the New Democratic Party. We have heard one today, perhaps we might hear another one.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to the Hon. Member for one hour and 15 minutes, and on a number of occasions he has implied that members of the New Democratic Party are flip-flopping, inferring that we are no longer opposed to this Bill.
I wish to make it very clear, and the Hon. Member knows that what I am going to say is correct, that we have opposed this Bill from the beginning. We will continue to oppose this Bill.
The question of the rights of the Senators is another question, which we can debate if the Hon. Member would give
other Members a chance to speak, which he has not done so deliberately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member, who has been here for many years, knows that that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has the floor.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness. The Bill and the position-


John V. Nunziata: Of the NDP is hypocritical.


David Charles Dingwall: Well, I do not wish to get into that now. We can do that later, perhaps tomorrow or next week.


David Orlikow: You have made sure that we cannot do it today. You have made very sure of that.


John V. Nunziata: They are very self-righteous talking out of both sides of their mouth. Tell it the way it is, David.


David Charles Dingwall: I think that they have been very consistent in that they have been very inconsistent.


Charles Joseph Clark: Getting some help again, David? Can't you handle it on your own?


David Charles Dingwall: I invite the Hon. Member to participate and ask a question, if he so deems.


Charles Joseph Clark: Watch, John, he is behind your back.


David Charles Dingwall: You should know something about being behind your back.


Charles Joseph Clark: He's never behind mine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It has been a quiet afternoon. I have enjoyed the debate, and I would hope that the Hon. Member would carry on for the next minute or so.


John V. Nunziata: Without interruption, please.


David Charles Dingwall: It has been very clear that, in this debate with regard to the thrust of Bill C-22, amendments have been put forward and rejected by the Government. Although some of those amendments may have come from the two different opposition Parties, the Senate of Canada, individual citizens and different groups across this country, the Government has refused to accept or entertain the bulk of those amendments, notwithstanding the sound advice, and the reasonable, articulate, objective suggestions that have been made by all of those individuals.
In conclusion, the amendments that have been put forward by the Senate in no way derogate from the over-all thrust of Bill C-22. It is a mere attempt to improve upon the Bill, to codify into law the statements and sentiments expressed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). That has been its thrust.
I now wish to call it five o'clock.
November 3, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideratin of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PARLIAMENT HILL

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED ERECTION OF STATUE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH II The House resumed from Friday, October 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Tupper:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I count it an honour indeed to have the opportunity to speak on the motion introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil). The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill, in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
I strongly support this motion, Mr. Speaker. Over the years in my public life I have had the opportunity of watching, seeing and speaking to Her Majesty the Queen. The first instance I had of meeting the Queen was before her ascension to the Throne when she was still a princess. She toured Canada and came to Edmonton. A reception was held in the Banff Springs Hotel and 1 remember the next day the Premier telling us that the Princess had a real sense of humour. He had his speech written on cards. While having dinner he was looking over these cards and the Princess said to him "What would happen if I took those cards and shuffled them? What kind of a speech would come out then?" The Premier remarked that it would have been a very odd speech if she had shuffled the cards. I was very impressed with her way of meeting people as though they were members of her family. She has a tremendous love for people.
I have met the Queen on other occasions. Every time I have had the opportunity of meeting her, seeing her or listening to her my affection and my loyalty has increased.
When I was in opposition 1 had the opportunity of spending a week or two in London with the Parliamentary Association. During the week Commonwealth Day occurred. There were 23 of us from various Commonwealth countries at the meeting. We were invited by Her Majesty the Queen to have tea with her and the Duke. People were there from China, Hong Kong and the various islands. We were a group of Commonwealth
Statue of Monarch
members of all colours, creeds and political Parties. I will never forget the tea we had with Her Majesty. She took the opportunity to speak to every one of the delegates. She asked people about their countries and how conditions were. When she spoke to the Liberal Member and myself, she told us she was interested in the Canadian youth. She seemed to be dedicated to doing something for youth, which made me very pleased.
A few days later we celebrated Commonwealth Day. We ceased our studies that day and went to Westminster Abbey where a beautiful service was held. It was a lovely tribute to Her Majesty. Representatives of every Commonwealth country were there with their flags. As the various people came in following Her Majesty into the Abbey she said how proud she was to be the Queen of such a tremendous group of people.
I kept a copy of the speech Her Majesty gave that day.
I would like to refer to a few things she said about the people of the Commonwealth. Speaking about Commonwealth Day, she said:
First and foremost, it is about people, and particularly about the young. In many countries they make up nearly half the population. At its most spectacular and exhilarating it is about athletes such as I saw last year competing brilliantly in the unique atmosphere of the Commonwealth Games; at its most enchanting it is about the children who gave me such a welcome on my first visits to some of the island nations in the Pacific Ocean; but fundamentally it is concerned with all those who in their early years have to learn how best to meet the challenges of living in the world today.
As I heard Her Majesty say that, I thought here is the head of a wonderful group of nations who is down to earth and knows how to express the feelings of the people over whom she reigns. She did not tell them what was good for them. She was trying to assist them in meeting their challenges. The Queen went on to say:
This is why, through its youth program, its technical and professional programs, and its work in the field of health and education, the Commonwealth helps to tackle the problems of underemployment and undernourishment and to provide opportunities for millions of families to achieve the fulfilment in life which is their natural right.
As the Queen talked about undernourishment, I thought what a challenge it is that she is giving us to help those who do not get enough or the wrong kind of food and to help those who are not educated. I thought how often in Canada people reluctantly go to school wondering why they have to spend so much time there. Yet almost half of the boys and girls of the world today would give their right arms or anything they have of value just to know how to read.
It made me think of when I was a young Grade 12 student in the Drumheller Valley. A coal miner asked me to teach him how to read. He must have been a man of 50 or 60 years old. I said "Yes. Sure, I will be glad to". It was my first attempt at pedagogy. I had a little old primer which had "This is a flower. This flower is red. This flower is blue". I went over this book with him day after day. One day he was reading to me and said "This is a flower. This flower is black". It struck me funny when he spoke about a black flower. I guess there are

November 3, 1987
Statue of Monarch
black flowers but I did not think there were in those days. 1 did not withhold my laugh. I looked at him and saw how I had hurt him. I told my mother about it when 1 got home and she asked me if I had apologized. She said that I should never say anything like that because he was learning how to read. I apologized all right. It was the first lesson I had which I have practised many times since, when teaching school. One should never do anything to hurt a youngster and stop him or her from developing in his or her own way. The coal miner eventually learned how to read and could read pretty well. I was very proud of that.
Here we had the Queen telling her subjects to help those who could not read and those who are undernourished. 1 admired that. The Queen concluded her address with:
The Commonwealth cannot of itself solve all the problems of the human race but as a world-wide community it works for peace and for the elimination of poverty.
Through the ready sharing of ideas, experience, skills and resources between governments and between people in all walks of life it seeks year by year to enrich the world in which its young people are growing up.
That was the Queen of Canada speaking. Yes, I think we should have a statue of Her Majesty the Queen. She has been a wonderful sovereign. She has set an example in living, in helping others, in sharing. I think we could do no better than to have a statue of Her Majesty the Queen on Parliament Hill here in Ottawa.
I see my time is up. There are many, many other things I would like to mention about Her Majesty but I have to stop now. I want to say that I count it an honour to be a subject of Her Majesty the Queen and I look forward to seeing, I hope before too long, a statue on this Hill put up to remember this wonderful woman for many, many years to come.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by my hon. colleague. I listened very intently and it occurred to me that it is more than appropriate that we take some time to consider the role of the Queen in respect to our nation and the Commonwealth to which this nation belongs.
A very interesting comparison can be made between this country and the United States. In contrast to Canada, they have in the United States in the same person the head of state and the head of Government. We know what great difficulties and confusion are caused by that state of affairs. That can be exemplified by the Watergate era. The then President of the United States, Richard Nixon, being both head of state and head of Government, caused a great deal of concern throughout the nation as to how to deal with the question of his actions as head of Government while at the same time he was symbolic of the American nation as a whole.
If we give a little thought to it, I am sure we would realize that there are a great many Canadians who would be very upset if our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were at the same
time head of state and head of Government. It is convenient to have a clear separation.
Of course, in addition to being the head of our state represented by the Governor General, the Queen is also the symbolic head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Nations met in Vancouver not very long ago. At that time, I was pleased to have the occasion to meet the Queen under conditions in which we were able to exchange a few words as one person to another. I must say that I was quite impressed by her basic humanity and with the way she was able to converse with common people. In the final analysis, she has blood as red as ours flowing in her veins, and on that basis, with the exception of the symbol she constitutes, she is no different from the rest of us.
1 think it is important to talk about the Queen's position with respect to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a group which shares the legacy of the British Empire and has eschewed the chains of imperialism to constitute a collectivity of nations which are bound together by their common heritage across racial, religious and ethnic lines. It is a voluntary grouping of nations.
If there is any other characteristic that ought to exist in the Commonwealth of Nations, it is that there should be an absence of any element of racism. Its mission should be to ensure that in this world, and certainly among the Commonwealth nations, there be no truck with racism.
Being aware of the Queen's position on the Commonwealth's treatment of the issue of apartheid, I was very pleased to learn that she is very concerned about the refusal of the British Government led by Margaret Thatcher to join with the rest of the Commonwealth in dealing with the issue of apartheid by making it possible for this noble collection of nations to exert its power and influence upon that dreadful regime to ensure that racism be eliminated there as it must be eliminated throughout the world. We are left in a rather curious situation. The Queen, the symbol of our nation and of the Commonwealth, resides in a country whose Prime Minister refuses to act in accordance with the traditions and concerns shared by so many of this great group of nations.
Rather than constructing a stone statue of the Queen, I think the greatest monument would be a Commonwealth which has been successful in establishing unity on this very serious problem which concerns so many. If the Commonwealth can act as Canada would lead it to act, then of course the greatest monument to the Queen would be a Commonwealth that is characterized by having taken for the first time effective actions to ensure that this legacy of racism colonialism has been left behind and will be eliminated once and for all. That is the kind of monument to build to the Queen.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased, as are others, to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I want to compliment my colleague from Nepean- Carleton who brought this private Member's motion to the floor for debate. I would like to put it on the record again:
November 3, 1987

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
I was not known in my earlier years as a strong monarchist.
I had neutral feelings on it, but I have to admit that the older I get and the more experience I have in this place, the more attached I am to the monarchy, recognizing its advantages and the good it does for us as a country, for the Commonwealth and for the world in general.
I must also say that in preparing for this short presentation this afternoon, I read through the record of Hansard for the last time this motion was debated on October 2, beginning on page 9623. I note something in the speech made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) when he introduced his motion. He answered a question that immediately came to my mind when I was first approached about speaking on this Bill this afternoon and that was, is it indeed appropriate to honour a living monarch. My assumption was that because we did not honour a living Prime Minister in such a way, we similarly would not honour a living monarch. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton has put that problem to rest by explaining how protocol has been set forth by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) in a recent statement. There is no problem as far as that goes at all.
I kept on reading Hansard and I came to the second speech made on that occasion by my own Member of Parliament here in Ottawa, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I was very disappointed by his speech, I have to say. If I could summarize his speech in a few words, I would have to say that he raised all the points he possibly could as to why it would not be appropriate to have a statue of Her Majesty at this time on Parliament Hill. He asked a number of rhetorical questions but did not answer them in discussing whether or not this was a good time to do this. He said, and I quote from page 9626:
But should we do this now? If we should do it now, on what basis should we make the decision?
The Hon. Member never did answer the question. He never did say whether or not he thought it was a good idea, he just raised all these questions that would put doubt in someone's mind. I was disappointed that he as the first speaker for the NDP would take such a nihilistic attitude toward having this statue on the Hill.
The third presentation the last time this motion was up for debate was made by the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins). Again 1 thought he at least would be more favourably disposed to the monarchy. However, when I go through his speech he never does say he is in favour of it. He says nice things about Her Majesty, but as he got on to the topic of the statue he, as did the NDP Member, raised the spectre of the partisan debate here about the statue for former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. To start talking about Prime Ministers is a partisan issue. Both
Statue of Monarch
the opposition Members chose that as a reason to be less than positive about the statue for Her Majesty. The very important point raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) and many others is that the Queen is nonpartisan. Yet for some reason we had to get into this partisan discussion and use it as an argument against a monument to the Queen.
I have to say that I am disappointed with the lead speakers from the other two Parties who were less than enthusiastic about the idea of having a monument to the Queen.
Other speakers, including my hon. friend from Bow River, gave excellent speeches. That Hon. Member was able to interject a lot of emotion into his presentation. He also made some personal comments which I want to have the privilege of doing as well.
I happen to be a little bit proud of the fact that the Queen is less than two months older than I am. She and I are contemporaries. I followed her career with some interest partly because of that.
There is a second reason. As a young boy I began collecting postage stamps. The first Canadian stamp she appeared on was issued in 1935 to honour the Silver Jubilee of King George the Fifth, her grandfather. If memory is correct, she appears on the one-cent green stamp. The interesting thing about that stamp is the fact that on one stamp out of a plate of 100 stamps, there is a tear in her eye. That particular stamp is known as the "weeping princess" stamp. That is just a little anecdote about her first appearance on a stamp of Canadian design and it is certainly of interest to those who collect stamps.
I have a couple of other personal attachments for Her Majesty which make me very much disposed to support this motion. When she was here a few years ago my first wife and I were able to meet her in the halls of the Centre Block. There was a great gang of people there but when she saw my wife, who was in a wheelchair, she quickly moved from one side of the corridor to the other side to shake her hand. She was that kind of person. As the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said, she has a warmth and feeling for people and she has shown it on many occasions.
Finally, I had the honour some years back to exchange honours with her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, when I was a practising physician. He and I exchanged honours at a general practitioners' meeting in the United Kingdom. Again, that makes my attachment to her and the Royal Family that much closer.
When I have occasion to speak to children in high schools I like to raise five words with them. The first three are "representative parliamentary democracy" and I go on to explain those words. They have a very intense meaning for me as a

November 3, 1987
Statue of Monarch
Member of Parliament. The other two words are "constitutional monarchy". I take great pride in explaining to those children the importance of the word "monarchy". It was alluded to by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville. Our monarch is the head of state, quite contrary to a republic or presidential system. I take great pride in explaining the advantages of a monarch who is not a partisan politician. Unfortunately, the Americans have a system where only approximately half the people have respect for the head of state. In a monarchy, 100 per cent of the people can have respect for the head of state because she is non-partisan. It is very much to her credit the way she has fulfilled that role during the last 35 years.
There are a lot of good things which have been said about the Queen and a lot of reasons why she should be honoured at this time. It is the thirty-fifth anniversary of her ascension to the throne. I was also interested to learn that she is now the longest reigning monarch we have had since Confederation. More important, since she became officially the Queen of Canada, she is the only Queen we have had as a country. That is another good reason to honour her in this way. She was the first Queen of Canada.
I see my time is coming to an end. We have a lot of buildings and hotels and other institutions which are honoured by having the Queen's name attached to them. It seems to me not unreasonable that we should consider that here on Parliament Hill. Surely there should be something on Parliament Hill to identify her in that way. I was interested to read an excerpt from the issue of Monarchy Canada of the spring of 1982. It said:
A country, to have any kind of national feeling, must have a national
memory.
Is there any better way of having that national memory of our present monarch than to erect an appropriate statue to her on Parliament Hill?


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and participate in this debate. It is very commendable that the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) saw fit to put this motion forward. I would like to take a few minutes to outline what I consider to be a very difficult job which has been handled very ably by a very classy lady.
The Queen is the head of state of a great collection of widely diverse countries with widely diverse systems of Government. As was so ably pointed out by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), she handles the problem that the Commonwealth has with South Africa with a lot of class. There is a great variety of other Governments that she has to handle just as tactfully. The Commonwealth contains a large number of countries that do not practise the same kind of democracy that we do, and she handles herself well in that respect. If you examine the make-up of the Commonwealth I am sure you will agree with that.
The most important thing for us as Canadians, the reason we should be supporting this motion, concerns her relationship with us as our head of state. She also happens to be the Queen of England, Australia and New Zealand. By act of our own
Parliament in 1953, by our own deliberate decision, she is officially and explicitly Queen of Canada, the first of many monarchs who have reigned over our territory to bear that title.
[DOT]	(1730)
The monarchy itself is also ours by free and deliberate choice. When the Fathers of Confederation set about framing our Constitution they chose to make the new nation a constitutional monarchy. Indeed, they wanted to call it the Kingdom of Canada. The British Government was afraid that would upset the Americans and so asked the Fathers of Confederation for an alternative title. They replied with the old anglofrench word "dominion" which seemed to fit their creation like a glove. "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth".
The Fathers of Confederation did not choose constitutional monarchy only because they were used to it or because they were too stupid, too ignorant, or too much afraid of the British. They chose it in ample knowledge of the republican system which covered almost every country of the Americas. They did it deliberately and with their eyes focused not only on Canada and its position in the Commonwealth, but also taking into account the problems which it might raise with our neighbours.
I would like to relate to you, Mr. Speaker, what I see as the benefits which our nation derives from our relationship with the Queen and the Commonwealth. Our school system teaches our system of government and our relationship with the Queen. Most, if not all, Canadians treasure that system.
My relationship with the monarchy extends back to when 1 was a child and the Queen's mother and father first visited Canada. I will never forget the thrill of that first view of the Queen's mother and father. That was followed by several visits of the Queen to Canada. With each visit the thrill is not diminished but increased.
I certainly agree with the Member for Nepean-Carleton that rather than waiting until the Queen has passed on it would be a tremendous tribute to her while she is still alive for this House to authorize the erection of a statue in her honour. 1 fully support the motion of the Member for Nepean- Carleton.
[DOT]	(1740)


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak on the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). Naturally, as a French-Canadian from Quebec, I do not personnally identify with royalty as closely as my Englishspeaking colleagues. For us, the Queen of England was never considered the perfect incarnation of the French fact in Canada. She is certainly a gracious Queen and we would never question her grace and the important role the British Crown has played from one generation to the next. England was a great country, and historically, it certainly gave us one of the major cultures in the world today.
November 3, 1987

Simply put, the fact is that, in my own region, we are not as thrilled by the Queen of England as people in other regions. We are not quite on the same wavelength. Naturally, a few years ago, she suddenly became the Queen of Canada. This brought her a bit closer to us. We could feel a bit more than before that she belonged to us. However, 1 believe that to motivate our young people and incite them to develop this country, we should find personalities closer to us. Such personalities might not be able to claim that their ancestors go back to the Magna Carta as does the gracious Queen Elizabeth, but they should know about the realities of this country and have lived in this British colony which we had to make our own and develop in an admittedly very hostile continent.
Once more, we are not questioning the virtues of the Queen. She has personified the respect of individual rights for an entire nation. She has personified family values, the permanence of certain values of social solidarity, but I believe that she is already ever present in Canada. She is on our dollars. She is on our stamps. She is often here in person. Her children come to see us. So do her cousins, nephews and nieces, and I believe that we always welcome them very graciously, as we would welcome our own family members. We are always very happy that they are here, but if we want to have our own personality to delevop and to define what makes our country so special and so different from England, we have to be able to identify with values which are typically our own.
Moreover, I believe that, by erecting immediately a stone statue to a Queen who is very much alive, we would be freezing her in a state from which she could no longer move. Finally, I prefer to see her here once in a while as during her last trip when she went to Saskatchewan and to Riviere-du Loup, met with the public, kissed children and spoke with adults. This seems to me much more charming and human than a stone statue on Parliament Hill.
I prefer to see the Queen as a symbol of this Commonwealth, a group of nations helping each other to develop their most democratic and humane qualities, even though some of these nations might unfortunately lag behind the others. Canada plays a very positive role in that organization. I believe that the Queen is an important symbol of the Commonwealth but, because I represent Quebec in Ottawa, I would prefer to have in this House symbols that are more representative of the French culture, which is one of the two main cultures in a multicultural Canada. I would rather have monuments that represent all of that, and consider the Queen as the symbol and the head of the Commonwealth.
I do not think that a statue of Her Majesty would mean very much for those I know in our young generation, for people in their 20's and 30's. I would rather see Her Majesty enjoy a long and happy life and keep her international role as head of the Commonwealth. Quite honestly, I do not think that a statue made of stone can play a very positive role.
Statue of Monarch
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with this motion. I hope that we will find in our midst, within our borders, symbols that will help us promote respect for the individual and for our democratic rights. We do not need one more statue of Her Majesty. We prefer to know her as a living monarch and not as a stone statue on Parliament Hill.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to take part in this debate on the motion which the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) moved this afternoon and which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirtyfifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
Mr. Speaker, being 35 years on the Throne of England is undeniably a quite uncommon achievement which deserves to be commemorated.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a monarchy and while being an independent country, we honor and respect Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, as our Sovereign because our own Parliament is modeled on the British Parliament and this is the way both Governments operate.
If we hold monarchy in high esteem, Mr. Speaker, it is because as Canadians and especially as French-speaking Quebecers, who have always been easy to indoctrinate, we have always shown respect to the various levels of authority, whether political or religious.
Normally, when one talks about commissioning the erection of a statue for someone to be placed on Parliament Hill, Mr. Speaker, it is for someone who has passed away, but such is not the case this time, as Her Majesty the Queen is still alive and well, as she clearly demonstrated during her last visit to Canada and especially to Quebec where she had not been for the past 23 years. Because of past and well publicized events, Her Majesty had not dared come to Quebec again. Thanks to the initiative of our Government, of our Prime Minister and the close ties between the Canadian and Quebec Governments, it has been quite easy this time to get together and plan-I repeat together-a visit of Her Majesty the Queen on Quebec territory.
Many Quebecers, many Canadian men and women, of course, heartily welcomed her wherever she went, but particularly, Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty emphasized herself the welcome she was given by Quebecers, by the people of Quebec City and of the area of Riviere-du-Loup and Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, which really surprised her. Of course, we should certainly not forget the impact of the personality of our Queen. Everybody will agree with that. It is of the utmost importance.


Marcel Prud'homme: She is a good mother.

November 3, 1987
Statue of Monarch


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I heard a few comments from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who, I am sure, is eloquent enough to rise and deliver them himself in this House, given his parliamentary experience. I, for one, would be quite satisfied if I could over the years acquire only half of his parliamentary knowledge. I think the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis has an unique understanding of our parliamentary system.
Speaking about important persons, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for making a digression, I was obviously referring to the Queen and 1 am now referring to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. We always refer to very important persons, Mr. Speaker, and I would be remiss, since I have the floor, if I did not say a few words about one of our great men who has just passed away a few days ago, the former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque. Again, I think that all Canadians are deeply affected by the loss of that great politician, that distinguished builder of Canada and Quebec. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to endorse his political views or his vision of Canada, but we must respect his philosophy, the way he upheld democracy in Canada and Quebec and particularly his strong will and integrity when leading his political party.
1 felt it was my duty, Mr. Speaker, under that motion to refer to the exceptional work of a great Quebecer and Canadian, Mr. Rene Levesque. I join all others who have already extended their deepest sympathies to the aggrieved family.
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I digressed somewhat, but to come back to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), it is a fact that we eagerly hope that the many personalities, the great men and women in Canadian history may some day be commemorated by a statue.
The Hon. Member mentioned that great efforts had been made in Canada to give public places the name of our distinguished Monarch. A special example comes to my mind, the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal. The Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal was built at about the same time as our Queen came to the Throne of England, the Commonwealth Throne, and it was quite logical in my view to put up what was at that time the biggest hotel in the Montreal area. The Queen Elizabeth Hotel still has a reputation of being one of Montreal's great hotels. That is true. I am sure that this reputation of a great hotel in recognition of Our Majesty will never be tarnished in the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, Montreal's great hotel always will keep that pride, that priviledge of bearing the name of Her Majesty the Queen of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, I think much remains to be said on the basic question, namely wether we should erect a statue to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada? Should we not at the same time, if we erect that statue while Her Majesty is quite alive, as a first step ask her permission to erect a statue of herself? I think that is absolutely essential and I do not know the answer, Mr. Speaker. And 1 think there should still be much discussion before a final decision is reached on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would think it quite premature to make a decision along that line, and I would invite all Members in this House-you are signalling, Mr. Speaker, that my time has already expired and I apologize for that. But 1 would invite Hon. Members in this House, before reaching a final decision on the matter, to seriously consider that possibility, that motion.
In my view, it is quite premature to come to a final decision, but I leave the floor to other Members.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I am almost in full agreement with what the Hon. Member who has just spoken has said concerning the advisability of commissioning the erection of a statue to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of England and the Commonwealth.
First of all, it is clear that reigning for 35 years over a kingdom is something very significant and admirable; yet, because she has not yet passed away, I feel it is somewhat premature to think of placing a stone figure of her on Parliament Hill in front of the Parliament Buildings.
Needless to say, I feel that Her Majesty is far more the Queen of England and the Commonwealth, but has very little kinship with Canada, and not because of her person, for her generosity, dignity, grace, perfect command of both our official languages, and unconditional dedication to the advancement of the Commonwealth are universally recognized, not to mention her tremendous support for many humanitarian endeavours which she has often endorsed. It was pointed out, during her recent visit to Quebec, to what extent in her remarks she dealt with humanitarian issues, referring for instance to people confined to hospital beds. She has never refused to get involved when the time came to help the sick, or to do her utmost to help many Commonwealth countries progress as rapidly as other countries of the world. It goes without saying that she is universally admired and praised as a person. And I suggest that all Commonwealth countries pay tribute to her in an exemplary fashion whenever she pays them a visit.
We did so ourselves, as my honourable friend mentioned a while ago, when we welcomed her in Quebec and in Canada. People were delighted to come and greet her, and to see her, but because of her person and in part because of the tradition she is associated with.
Let us call a spade a spade: Hers is only an honorary position, without any decision making responsibility attached to it. It is not a position which contributes in any way to the advancement of our society. One even wonders whether occasionally, the reference to the Queen during Royal Assent has not been a disruptive instead of a unifying factor. When I was over in England, I happened to read an editorial in the paper, and this was about 15 years ago. The author said that since the Queen was more a factor of dissent than unity in Canada and we remember the burning issues that were creating problems at the time within Confederation well, our British editorial writer said, why not get rid of the symbol?
November 3, 1987

I think that was going a bit too far. We must keep the symbol because it means so much to one of the two founding peoples of this country. It represents a great deal, and I think that after the death of the monarch, a monument would have to be considered, since it would symbolize the links with Great Britain that presided over the birth of this nation and of all the countries of the Commonwealth.
However, a statue of the Queen is also a symbol of colonialism. We must decide whether this country's links with the Queen and with Great Britain and the monarchy have been so important we should erect a statue. Did these links make Canada the great country that it is today? Or do we owe that greatness to the two cultures and origins of two of the founding peoples of this country?
Before erecting a statue that could be seen as a symbol of colonialism, I would rather consider people like Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Trudeau or the present Prime Minister. It is to them, not to a symbol of colonialism, that Canada owes its greatness.
I think we should bear all this in mind when considering the appropriateness of erecting such a monument. I suggest we wait until Her Majesty is no longer with us, and that we consider erecting a statue as a symbol of the Commonwealth. For the time being I don't think this is particularly urgent, however, and I would invite Hon. Members to consider whether it would be appropriate to put this statue or monument in front in Parliament.
That is what 1 had to say, Mr. Speaker. My time has expired, and I hope my colleagues will agree with the point I tried to make.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the minute or two left to join with those who have indicated in very eloquent terms their support for the proposal made by our colleague in the Chamber for the erection on Parliament Hill of a statue commemorating the most successful reign of our Queen, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I do so, of course, without any fear or trepidation whatsoever. I am and always have been an unabashed monarchist. I feel she has helped our country to greatness.
I see it is six o'clock.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, early in August I rose in the House and asked a question of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). It pertained to the collapse and the bankruptcy of the Principal Group of companies in Edmonton.
The Minister responded that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was already in the process of assessing matters, and hoped that the depositors would be reimbursed by the CDIC within three weeks of the date of the question. That covers the Principal Savings and Trust Company only of the Principal Group.
I wish to thank the CDIC, through the Minister, for all its efforts in assisting Albertans, and a large number of Edmontonians and constituents of mine from Edmonton East, to deal with the devastating conditions of the loss of their savings, and not of their own making.
I also wish to thank the Minister for the toll-free information line that he established to assist those who were affected. They could call and find out what was happening to their money, if they could get any money back, and what this was all about. People needed assurance, and our Government provided that assurance. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) showed great sensitivity to the needs of the people when there was a devastation of this magnitude on the financial scale.
The financial services sector in Alberta has been rocked by closures, bankruptcies, and otherwise poor performance within the past few years. Members will recall the closure of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, both in Alberta.
At the present time some credit unions are under a very severe strain and have been restructured because they have also suffered a great deal from the lack of business, and also from the loss of a great deal of business.
The uninitiated may wonder out loud if we in the west really know how to handle our financial affairs. I say of course we do, yes. We do, we can, and we will continue to do that, but

November 3, 1987
Adjournment Debate
this was an extraordinary set of circumstances which affected the regional banks, especially those in the West.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, coming from that great area of Edmonton, regional banks have filled a very important role in Alberta. Usually they are smaller institutions with a flair for serving the unique needs of a particular region.
It seems that recent history has not been kind to regional banks. For instance, the National Energy Program initiated by a federal Government completely devastated Alberta, the energy industry, and ancillary industries. In the construction industry men and women lost their jobs by the tens of thousands. Then there was a world-wide recession which also affected Alberta. Then in January, 1986, the declining world oil price caused a severe drop in the economy of Alberta, and it affected the price of land, buildings, high-rises, homes, and businesses. Alberta's economy, which was so energy dependent, and rightly so, was crushed and it has not been able to bounce back to its former level. Needless to say, many Albertans lost a lot of money. I would like to ensure that their losses were not in vain. I would support any federal initiatives that this Government may take to defend against any similar disasters in the future. It makes no difference whether they occur in Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Nova Scotia.
I feel that there is absolutely no reason why Principal's bankruptcy could not have been avoided. I am wondering whether the federal Government is considering putting in place a system of scrutinizing which would allow it to work with the provinces in order to strengthen regional banks to ensure their viability, and to preserve the very important service that they provide.
The large banks that we have, the Toronto-Dominion, Scotiabank and others with headquarters in eastern Canada have served their needs in the west exceptionally well. But there is one exception. They are not sensitive to the needs of Albertans. This is where the regional banks were able to provide excellent service and where the regional banks had the sensitivity to talk, saying "What can we do and how can we help you? We can give you money".
We in the west need the protection of the federal Government working together with the provincial Government to make sure that the people feel confident in the financial institutions so that the affected companies and the average Albertans will never have to go through this series of bankruptcies again.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting that you are in the chair tonight. Along with your colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) many of your constituents have suffered because of this financial loss with Principal Savings and Trust Company. You have shown great concern toward those constituents. That, of course, is continuing in the House this evening.
As Hon. Members know, the Principal Savings and Trust Company, an Alberta supervised trust company within the Principal group was insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. As a result, depositors in this trust company were protected up to the deposit insurance ceiling of $60,000.
The access of insured depositors to their funds has now been restored through an arrangement reached between the CD1C and Metropolitan Trust. Metropolitan Trust began operations on September 14 and has been acting as CDIC's agent in paying out the claims of insured depositors. This arrangement has helped to limit the disruption in financial services to the former depositors of Principal Savings and Trust who had the option of withdrawing their deposits or, if they wished, of redepositing them with Metropolitan Trust.
Though the CDIC is a federal Crown corporation, it should be remembered that there was no direct federal involvement in the Principal group situation since the parent company and all of its affiliates, except for an inactive federally incorporated insurance company, were under the supervision of the Alberta Government. However, the federal Government has placed a high priority on addressing the issues of investor protection and our financial regulation in general, particularly as they relate to federally regulated financial institutions.
The December 18, 1986 policy paper on New Directions for the Financial Sector, which was released by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) paved the way for a number of significant reforms of the regulatory and deposit insurance system. These measures include Bills C-42 and C-56, enacted in June, which increased the supervisory powers of federal regulators and provide the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with more flexibility in dealing with financially troubled member institutions.
In summary, I would note that the federal Government has seized the initiative in this important sector of the Canadian economy and introduced the comprehensive reform program. Key elements of the program include increasing the financial stability of our financial institutions, providing the regulatory authorities with expanded powers and improving inspection practices. I believe that the proposals represent an effective program that will enhance the soundness and competitiveness of the Canadian financial system. I share the hope with the Hon. Member for Edmonton East that this does not happen again.
FREE TRADE-SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX/EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, let there be no misunderstanding. The trade deal which Canada has negotiated with the United States does nothing to assist the softwood lumber industry. So far as pulp and paper is concerned, there seems to be no assurances that that industry can breathe more easily without any fear that in the future the United States administration may impose upon it a countervail or at least begin countervail action against it.
November 3, 1987

My question on October 8 concerned why the Government locked in the 1986 softwood lumber memorandum of understanding in the new Canada-U.S. trade agreement. The Minister replied by saying that despite the export tax Canada imposed on the industry, the industry is doing well. She spoke of record production and record profits. She did not, however, tell the whole story.

Many sawmills did close down as a direct result of the 15 per cent export tax. They were producing studding, and they were, it is true, marginal operations. Nevertheless, jobs were lost and communities were affected. Some of those were in my constituency.
The 15 per cent export tax added about $600 million to the cost of Canadian softwood exports. In the first two months after the tax was imposed, the Canadian share of the U.S. softwood lumber market dropped to 28 per cent from 33 per cent. The Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) has said, as reported in an article that appeared recently in a journal on forestry, that the chances of rebuilding the Canadian share of the U.S. market on the basis of price competition are slim.
The industry has done well in some places, thanks to its efficiency, new technology, the availability of good resources, the low Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar and the demand in the United States for a high quality product which we can provide here in Canada. Even if the industry is performing well in certain places now, it still is in a precarious position. What happens if the demand falls, and there are clear indications that housing demands in the United States may fall because of the stock market crash and cautious investment? What happens if at the same time the Canadian dollar, as a result of the Canada-U.S. trade deal, begins to rise to a par with the U.S. dollar?
The answer to the imposition of the 15 per cent tax was originally either to raise the stumpage fees where they were low in Canada or to introduce some sort of provincial levy to take the place of the export tax. In British Columbia, the stumpage fees were raised and they were raised very significantly. Hon. Members should know, however, that despite the fact that stumpage fees were raised, the 15 per cent tax is still there, albeit temporarily. The cost to the industry to produce 1,000 board feet of lumber has gone from $5 to somewhere between $80 and $90.
I said that the tax is still there temporarily. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) was in British Columbia and met with the industry. They thought she would announce that the 15 per cent tax would be lifted immediately because the stumpage fees were going up. Such is not the case. The Minister made it clear that she had to have some discussions in Washington before that could be done and I want Hon. Members to note that.
Adjournment Debate
Meanwhile, the Minister of State for Forestry is having discussions with the Council of Forest Ministers. They have a program designed to exchange the 15 per cent tax for some provincial levies. What has the Minister of State for Forestry said to the Council of Forest Ministers? He has said that on paper the plan looks feasible, it looks acceptable, but he is not sure whether the U.S. lumber industry will not prefer to keep things the way they are. Then he went on to say, however, that the details presented to him will be discussed with the United States of America in two weeks.
It looks to me as if we are beginning to have a new approach to economic decision making in Canada. It looks as if more and more questions about resource revenues will now be decided not in the provincial capitals of this nation, not here in Ottawa, but in Washington, D.C.
I am wondering, and 1 will put it in the form of a question and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will find some way to reassure me, if a new pattern is emerging in Canada whereby Canadian resource development policy is really going to have to be ratified in the U.S. If on top of everything else we have unrestricted U.S. investment in our resource economy, if we have decisions about price and marketing made in the U.S., it seems to me as an observer and participant at the very beginning of this important debate on Canada-U.S. trade, that at least a measure of sovereignty is sacrificed. It seems that some of our autonomy is being abandoned. It seems to me that our decisions about the well-being of our economy are going to be delivered into the hands of U.S. officials and politicians.
Nothing in this trade deal helps the softwood lumber industry. I asked in a supplementary question on the same day if the pulp and paper industry was safe. The Minister said I should have no fear, we now have a binational panel. What will it do for us? Will it protect us from unfair U.S. trade laws? Not at all. All it can do is see that the law is equally applied so that Canada does not suffer a greater disadvantage than someone else. Some experts have said we are no better off than we were before, and the Parliamentary Secretary will be interested in what Osier, Hoskin and Harcourt said in a preliminary analysis of the trade deal. Everything is preliminary because we do not have the details.
I conclude on this note. If these new rules had been in effect at the time of last year's U.S. subsidy case against the export of Canadian softwood lumber, the proposed mechanism would not have led to a different result for Canadian exporters than that which occurred. I say that the binational panel is not the answer to the problems of the industry as the Minister suggested in her reply to me.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have only three minutes to answer some very unsubstantiated allegations included in the Hon. Member's remarks.


B. Keith Penner: You better name them.

November 3, 1987
Adjournment Debate


John Horton McDermid: I will be happy to. First, there is not unfettered, wide-open investment in the resource industry in Canada because of this agreement. It is very obvious to me after listening to him that the Hon. Member has not read the agreement. He has a preliminary opinion from a law firm which says there would be no different decision on the softwood lumber matter. That might very well be true. However, it would be appealed to a bipartisan committee which makes a binding decision. The case is the same as it was in 1983 when the law was fairly applied, except for one thing. The political winds in the U.S. have changed rather dramatically. They have become extremely protectionist. That influenced the decision-making process in the U.S. Department of Commerce. There is no question about that. It was the same case and they did a 180-degree turn from 1983 to 1986. The only difference this time is that we can appeal to a bipartisan committee made up of two Canadians, two Americans and a neutral chairman with a binding decision-making power. If the law was applied wrongly, it can be overturned. It is binding and it is very important.
The pulp and paper industry in Canada has absolutely nothing to fear if it is a fair trader. One of the things that the Hon. Member does not talk about is that Canadian trade laws are basically identical to the American trade laws. It is how they are applied that we are concerned about. We want a fair panel to decide whether they are being applied properly or not. Canadian laws are still in place and they are exactly the same as the American laws. Where we have been having our problems is in the application and that is why this binding dispute settlement mechanism is going to be very important.
As far as softwood lumber is concerned, the stumpage fees and other arrangements being made by the provinces have now been negotiated with the federal Government. We have discussed it and now we are going to present our case to the U.S. The Memorandum of Understanding says very clearly that we must show that we have replaced the 15 per cent tax through provincial initiatives. That is what is going on now in addition to some other anomalies that were in the memorandum of understanding which we are presently trying to straighten out.
Although the tax is being collected at this time it is being placed in a trust fund and will be refunded to the people. The Hon. Member is absolutely right that stumpage fees have gone up and it looks as though a proper replacement has been made.
Therefore, the decision-making on this trade agreement is not in the United States at all. It is a co-operative thing. It is an excellent agreement. The agreement is 33 pages and may take a little time to absorb, but I suggest that the Hon. Member read it because it is very important. I think that when he has read it he will agree that it is a great deal for Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-INTRODUCTION OF POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, if you believe in public opinion polls you believe, as I do, that next to the economy and jobs the greatest concern of Canadians is with the environment. That is why the new Environmental Protection Act which the Government has introduced into Parliament, and which has received first and second reading and is finally before a legislative committee for consideration, is so important.
You know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, that that piece of legislation is only one of a good number of initiatives which the Government has undertaken in the last three years with regard to the environment. The initiatives taken include $40 million contributed by the federal Government and the provinces for the clean-up of the Windermere Basin in Hamilton Harbour as well as the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia which is reputed to be the worst toxic chemical disposal site in eastern Canada.
In addition, the Government has entered into an agreement with the United States Government, Government of the State of New York, and the Government of the Province of Ontario to reduce the toxic chemicals which flow into the Niagara River by 50 per cent by 1996. The initiatives include as well a $2.3 million increase in the budget for pesticide controls and initiatives which have been taken on acid rain. The federal Government is contributing $335 million under agreements with the five eastern provinces to reduce acid rain emissions by one half by 1994.
In addition, new motor vehicle emission standards were introduced in September. An international agreement was reached at Montreal a short time ago on reducing damage to the ozone layer. As well, there will be $1.5 billion invested in the Canada-U.S. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. There is also the $1 million endangered species recovery fund.
Those are all initiatives which the Government has taken. In addition, five new national parks have been designated including the Pacific Rim Park at South Moresby in British Columbia, the Ellesmere Island Park in the Northwest Territories, the Bruce Peninsula Park in Ontario, and the Mingan Islands Park in Quebec. All of these initiatives have been undertaken in the last three years by the Government.
The Environmental Protection Act is another step. It, of course, deals with protecting the environment from new toxic pollution. That Bill is presently in committee and I am looking forward to seeing it passed so that it can help to protect Canadians from toxic chemicals in the future.
That is only one more step, Mr. Speaker. You, I, and the Parliamentary Secretary know that other things should be done as well to clean up the environmental problems which we have now.
November 3, 1987

What we really need on top of all these other things is a superfund like the one that was created in the United States, particularly for the purpose of cleaning up the problem areas in and around the Great Lakes.
There are some 45 industries in Canada that are polluting the Great Lakes. There are some 53 industries in the United States that are polluting the Great Lakes. There are some 10 hazardous waste sites in Canada that are leaking into the Great Lakes and 105 hazardous waste sites in the United States that are leaking into the Great Lakes. There are 32 municipalities in Canada that are polluting the Great Lakes and 81 municipalities in the United States that are polluting the Great Lakes.
We need a clean-up of all those industries, hazardous waste sites and the municipalities, especially the particularly hideous hazardous chemical dumps on the south side of the Niagara River in the United States. They include the Love Canal, High Park, 102nd Street and S Area dumps. All of them are causing enormous pollution.
There is much to be done. The Environmental Protection Bill which is now in committee is one more step in getting under way to solving the problems of the environment and cleaning up pollution. I hope tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us that the Government will be pushing very hard to enact the Environmental Protection Bill into law and will then move on to these other major jobs of cleaning up the polluted areas that already exist in our environment.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say how pleased I am that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has outlined some of the excellent initiatives that this Government has put into place in the three short years we have been in office. I also want to compliment the Member himself for the work he has done in preserving the environment and for his work with the municipalities, having been the Mayor of East York, which is part of the great City of Metropolitan Toronto. I know of his concern and the work he has done.
At the time of the introduction in the House of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act on June 26, 1987, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) also released an enforcement and compliance policy for the new legislation for public comment. The Minister of the Environment invited four non-governmental agencies which specialize in environmental law to critique the compliance policy.
Adjournment Debate
Last month, the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation, the Alberta Environmental Law Centre, the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick presented their assessments of the enforcement policy at two seminars. The seminars were held in Toronto and in Edmonton, and included participants from industry, provincial governments and public interest groups. These discussions along with the briefs submitted by individuals and industry will assist in finalizing the policy document.
The new Canadian Environmental Protection legislation is the fruit of extensive collaboration among the federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as industry, organized labour, environmental groups, native and consumer groups. In the months between December, 1986, and March, 1987, Environment Canada officials participated in more than 30 multi-stakeholder meetings throughout the country. It was these consultations, plus 300 letters and briefs, that led to the refinement of the Bill about which the Member was speaking. It recognizes that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canadians.
We are the first federal Government in Canadian history to put in place comprehensive federal environmental protection legislation. Bill C-74 was debated in this Chamber at second reading for more than 10 hours, during which it was endorsed in principle by all Parties. It has now been passed to committee stage. The Chairman and the committee members have been appointed and I am very pleased that the Hon. Member for York East has been appointed as a member. We will begin our meetings and subsequent clause by clause study, with amendments being considered, and we will be doing that within the next few days.
I can assure this House that this Bill will receive a comprehensive study. The new Act, once passed, provides the basis for eliminating risks to the Canadian environment from toxic chemicals through the closing years of this century and well into the next. We are very pleased with this legislation. Indeed, I would agree with the Hon. Member for York East. We want to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
[ Translation]


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, November 4, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers