1987-03-31

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 44 petitions numbered as follows: 332-1224, 332-1228, 332-1230 to 332-1240 inclusive, 332-1243 to 332-1254 inclusive, 3321260 to 332-1263 inclusive, 332-1267, 332-1270, 332-1272, 332-1274, 332-1276 to 332-1278 inclusive, 332-1299, 3321300, 332-1302, 332-1334 to 332-1336 inclusive, 332-1530 and 332-1531.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMISSION


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1986, pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Official Languages Act.
Pursuant to Standing Orders, this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present in French and English a unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on the review of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response within 120 days.
This report is unanimous and contains 108 sensible recommendations which will lead to the second generation access law and the third generation privacy law in Canada. It is also historic in that this is the first example of a statutory review clause inserted into the laws of Canada. We conducted our review pursuant to the clause which was inserted in 1982 into the then Access to Information Act.



STRIKING-EIGHTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Eighteenth Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor' Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106, which petition is signed by a number of residents who are very concerned about the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act with relation to prescription drugs. They believe this will severely increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and restrict the ability of Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs.

March 31, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a different topic, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106, signed by fishermen on the East Coast of Canada who are very concerned about an indication that the Government may be changing the Unemployment Insurance Act. They are concerned because many fishermen on Canada's East Coast as well as the West Coast depend on the provisions in the present Act.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from approximately 50 Canadians, most of whom reside in my riding of Erie. They are concerned about the killing of thousands of unborn babies each year for reasons of convenience, and for such babies, capital punishment exists for the crime of being unwanted. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Motion M-37 and allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by several constituents in my riding, which says that the monopoly position given innovative pharmaceutical companies will preclude competition from less expensive generic drugs, resulting in increased drug prices for the Canadian consumer and making it increasingly difficult for many people to purchase the drugs they need; that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act will have a direct impact on all Canadians not covered by public or private health insurance plans; that the Government's proposals will add to the already high cost of provincial health insurance plans; and that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act are one more example of concessions being made by the Canadian Government to the United States in the context of free trade negotiations, to the detriment of the average consumer.
Therefore, my constituents humbly pray that Parliament reject the proposed amendments which will otherwise increase the price of drugs for Canadians.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I would like to present a number of petitions. The first is from residents of British Columbia and the Province of Ontario, particularly Brampton, and concerns their opposition to amendments made to the Patent Act. They call upon the Government to withdraw this legislation. They believe very strongly that amendments to
the Patent Act will cause the price of prescription drugs to rise dramatically.
I have another petition signed by residents from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, who, like the previous petitioners, are opposed to the amendments to the Patent Act which they believe will cause prescription drug prices in this country to rise to an unprecedented level. They call on the Government to withdraw the legislation.
I have another petition signed by residents from Saskatoon, other parts of western Canada, and Windsor, Ontario. They are also opposed to amendments to the Patent Act. They call on the Government to withdraw this legislation because they believe it would negatively affect senior citizens and their ability to buy prescription drugs at a reasonable cost.
The final petition comes from residents of my constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond who are opposed to amendments to the Patent Act, precisely for the reason I have outlined, that prescription drug prices in this country will rise to a dramatically high level. They call on the Government to withdraw this legislation in order to protect the disabled, elderly, and poor in this country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 81 will be answered today.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Since September 17, 1984, did the Department of Public Works award contracts to Brikon Masonry or Franco Trinci and, if so, how many and, in each case, in what amount?
2.	For each contract, were public tenders called and (a) if so, were they the lowest bidder and if not the lowest bidder for what reason were they hired (b) if not, for what reason were they hired?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: 1. On
March 6, 1985, one contract was awarded to Brikon Masonry in the amount of $56,000. No contract has been awarded to Franco Trinci.
2. No. Public tenders were not called in order to meet a tight construction schedule. Consequently, tenders were invited from five contractors. Brikon Masonry submitted the lowest of four competitive bids received.
[ Translation]


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
March 31, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Elon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to return to this debate. Last week, the debate centred on the question of pensions and the desire of the employees of this company to have an agreement prior to their accepting employment with the new corporation. They want such an agreement because of the potential difficulties which may face Teleglobe in the future, as well as Memotec, as its owner, due to its heavy reliance on the large loan capital on which it has based its purchase of Teleglobe.
In the materials supplied to us by the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), there is great emphasis placed on the benefits for employees which will result from this sale. In fact, highlighted within those points are the tremendous benefits which are supposed to be received by Teleglobe employees in the transfer. Yet, it has not been possible to arrange an agreement between the Government and the employees of this company, despite the fact that they have requested meetings, suggested compromise and laid out possible alternatives they might be prepared to accept. It is a crying shame that a government which makes a commitment to privatization cannot follow that commitment through by ensuring, as is done in most parts of the world where privatizations have occurred, that an agreement has been reached with the employees of the company concerned.
In this case, the employees are prepared to take on good faith the probability of the remaining points being worked out. They have suggested to us that they would, therefore, like to see this legislation put through before the end of the present fiscal year in order that the company will have a good start as a private enterprise and not have to face significant difficulties which might arise because of complications if the sale itself were delayed.
I think that is a tremendously generous attitude on the part of the employees involved. I compliment them for putting their interests secondary to the survival of this new company.
Teleglobe Canada
However, that, of course, still leaves in front of us a great many questions with respect to the viability, sensibility, and sensitivity of the privatization of this company. We could take Hon. Members in the House through a great many different documents which raise questions, documents from disinterested parties who are not anxious to attack the Government on ideological grounds, yet see in the case of this sale a foolish step being taken which can result in some very damaging effects for the company and for the country.
I would like to put on the record some of the perceptions which I think the Canadian people should have in mind as they judge this privatization over the years ahead. I think, for instance, they should know the views of one of the employees of Teleglobe who has written to us. He writes:
I work for the time being for a Crown corporation, Teleglobe, which is about to be privatized against the good advice of many people and sectors of the economy.
He goes on to say:
I am not very optimistic about the "benefits" that this will bring to anyone, the Canadian public, employees, the telephone users, et cetera, except perhaps one or two large corporations.
That is the view of an employee of this company who has put long term service into building up the corporation and who sees it now as being sold off to the private sector without a sense of logic ever being presented by the Government as to why this corporation, with its important role, should be part of the private sector as opposed to the public sector.
I said at earlier stages in this debate that this particular privatization demonstrates as well that the Government, having decided to act, could not even get its act together and do the job properly. We have enquiries taking place about insider trading with respect to Memotec's stock. This is taking place not only in one stock exchange. It is being looked at in the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Montreal Stock Exchange by the Ontario Securities Commission. We also have investigations undertaken by the federal Government itself with respect to insider trading. It has been a botched privatization in which clearly there have been people who seem to have had prior knowledge that Memotec, very much an outsider, would receive the right to purchase Teleglobe and, as a consequence, would see its shares go up significantly. That is what insider trading is all about, the purchasing of shares prior to a public announcement such as this. When Memotec was announced as the purchaser, of course, its shares did go up and those people benefited significantly.
I think as well we have to look at the question of Memotec itself. Memotec is not a large company. It is not a company which is experienced in telecommunications. Independent analysts in Toronto such as Nigel Allen suggest that if interest rates were to increase by even a quarter of a percentage point it could take a big chunk out of Memotec's equity. Other people have made the same point. This is an important public firm which handles our telecommunications with the entire world, and which works not just with other private companies but very much with public agencies in other countries. A private purchaser will, in a curious way, sit as our public

March 31, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
representative, despite the fact that it is a private firm, and as part of many of these international agencies which govern telecommunications. Despite that public role, the company has been sold to the private sector.
I refer Hon. Members to the assessment of The Globe and Mail of the process by which this sale was initiated. Lawrence Surtees writes in the business section of The Globe and Mail that the Teleglobe Canada sale is a question of act first and think later. I think that anyone who has sat through, some of the sessions of the legislative committee which heard witnesses, as I did, would have to say that there are a great many questions which remain unanswered with respect to this sale. There are questions, for instance, which were brought to us by the head of the CRTC. I tell Hon. Members that it is a pretty rare occasion when the head of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has to come to a committee and publicly criticize a Bill which deals with telecommunications, first, because he has not been consulted sufficiently and, second, because the context of the Bill and the content of it are, in his view, dangerous to the future of CRTC regulation in Canada.
Teleglobe Canada is a company which in 1986 made for the people of Canada almost $32 million, which is a great deal of income. In 1985 it made over $33 million. This is money that went directly to the taxpayers of Canada to reduce what they had to contribute and pay to the Government. Teleglobe is a company which all taxpayers have paid for over the years. Despite having listened to witnesses, I cannot see the logic of selling this company off and making what should be a public firm serving Canadians, a public firm giving income back to the Canadian taxpayer. 1 cannot see the logic of selling it off except for the logic of an ideological commitment which bears no relationship to practicality, need or the concerns of the country.
As I think back to the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee it seems to me that the thrust of the arguments which they brought forward, especially those brought forward by the employees of the company, were that they hoped very much that the company could stay public so that they could continue to do the excellent job which they have done for Canada. I would have hoped that that logic, that sense of commitment with respect to the desire of the workers to keep a good company going and to return benefits to the taxpayers would have eventually won out. It did not win out in the legislative committee. It has not won out with respect to government thinking. I think it will win out eventually with respect to the thinking of the people of Canada as they assess this faulty, botched privatization Bill which is before us today.


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read into the record a letter that was sent to the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougal!) just a couple of days ago. It states:
Madam Minister:
The Telecommunication Technical Services Association has learned that a motion on Bill C-38 was proposed to the House which implies that Teleglobe employees would have to negotiate a "compensation package" with the new employer prior to Bill C-38 coming into force.
Our Union does not support this motion and strongly opposes such irresponsible action as it may jeopardize the interests of the TTSA members and ultimately cause delays in the adoption of the Bill resulting in serious consequences for all concerned.
They go on to state that they hope that the meetings will take place in the meantime but that the Bill should certainly pass.
The amendment which is referred to in the letter was moved by the Liberal Party. In the legislative committee all along members of the Liberal Party attended and expressed their concern about one aspect of the actuarial assumptions, and so on, as part of the pension issue. So they were on to this issue early. Members of the New Democratic Party came onside later in an attempt to catch on to the coat-tails of the Liberal Party, so to speak.
In the meantime, members of the union are telling us in letters which they have sent to us that we should not do what members of the Opposition are asking us to do. Members of the Opposition now make long dissertations about many and varied aspects of the Bill. Under the protection of past service, Teleglobe employees have a wider range of options than what is generally available in the private sector; notably, normal PSSA options are, first, return of contributions; second, immediate pension; third, deferred annuity at age 60, or annual allowance at age 50, depending on the age or service; as well as a transfer of prior PSSA service to a new plan on a going-concern basis. For example, there is full provision for future salary increase, indexation and survivor benefits versus the private sector practice of transfer on a termination basis only. There is also a guarantee of maintenance of the full body of accrued pension benefits which are in place. There is also the option of accrued benefits with respect to leave in the PSSA under the continuity of employment option, which is similar to the private sector practice. The pension transfer provisions that these employees are looking at are tremendous. They know it. They want the Bill passed before the end of the month. The employees are telling us that we should pass this Bill, and we should heed their words.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) was here for the beginning of my speech. Had he been here he would have noted that I too received a copy of the letter to which he referred and that I complimented the employees on their generosity and, frankly, their acceptance of the goodwill of the Government. I must say it is more than I would be willing to bet on these days.


Mr. Boyer:: Why is that?


Steven W. Langdon: The point I make to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) is that to believe in the goodwill of the Government it would take a miraculous wiping clean of the slate of the over two-and-one-half years of
March 31, 1987

disastrous government. This would include wiping clean the slate with respect to privatizations which, to my mind, like this privatization, have been badly botched and have been most unfortunate for Canada, not just for the employees involved.
If the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton had wished to give the full flavour of the letter to which he referred he might have read it all. In the letter it is indicated that there are still some points of disagreement that the employees of the company have with respect to the pension arrangements which have been made.
I wish to point out to the Members of the House, and to people across the country, that we are not simply talking about minor issues here; as we heard from the Treasury Board officials who appeared before the legislative committee, what we are talking about is a difference of approximately $7 million insofar as the funding of the pension plan is concerned, and that amounts to something close to $10,000 per employee. So, it is a significant factor.
As a last point, let me say that while I respect the generous decisions which the employees of the company have taken- and we shall not be holding the Bill up-that is no reason not to put before this House and before this country some of the botched efforts which have gone into privatization in this particular case and some of the sad results which may well ensue for taxpayers right across this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) on a question or comment.


Mr. O'Neil:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a brief comment on the remarks made by my colleague.
I could not help but reflect upon the discussions and debate that took place some time ago when the Government was in the process of privatizing de Havilland through a sale to Boeing Corporation. At that time, both in the House and in committee, there were many bleak predictions about what the future would be for that corporation, what the future would be for its employees, and what the future would be for the technology involved.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, all of those predictions have proven to be incorrect. All of those predictions appeared at the time-and I think events have proven this-to be based upon adherence to ideology and a resistance to change, and the desire to make all Canadians public servants of one sort or another. I think today in this debate we are witnessing more of the same. Were we to go back in Hansard and take out some of the speeches made at that time and read them into the record today, the flow would not be all that much different.


Steven W. Langdon: Our argument, of course, with respect to the privatization of de Havilland was that Boeing itself was getting a Christmas gift because of the very low price which it was
Teleglobe Canada
having to pay and because de Havilland would prove to be extremely profitable and extremely beneficial for Boeing.
The money of which the Member speaks so glowingly could be money coming back to the people of Canada, to the taxpayers of Canada, who put so many billions of dollars into de Havilland. Instead it is money which is going to the United States in the form of yet further benefits for Boeing.
It would seem to me in fact, Mr. Speaker, that the member's argument proves our point and not his point, our point being that Boeing Corporation was going to get a Christmas gift with bells on it and keep receiving benefits of immense proportions for years on end. That is precisely what has happened because this excellent company, de Havilland, was sold to a private U.S. company, a company which is now benefiting so tremendously.
As a last point, Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the letter with respect to the pension plan. I shall put on the record the sentence which the Member for Sarnia-Lambton did not. It is as follows: "Some issues relating to transferring values for past service, in our opinion, are still not resolved." That is the reality. I think it is a sad reality. Privatization is taking place without a key question such as that being resolved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a very brief question or comment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A very short question, Mr. Speaker. It deals, again, with the pension issue.
As we know, there was something of a precedent set in the Canadian Arsenals Limited transfer to the private sector, a precedent which was not followed in the Memotec-Teleglobe transaction. There are distinctions and differences between the two plans. One is a money-purchase plan; the other is a defined-benefits plan. I am wondering whether the member has a preference for either the money-purchase plan or the defined-benefits plan?
As a person who has, at this time, in the Public Service of Canada a defined-benefits plan, would he like to carry that forward to his job with the new company? Or would he perhaps like to take the risk of the money-purchase plan?
I am just wondering what he thinks about that.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is of course not for me to make judgments on behalf of the Teleglobe employees. They have made their judgment, and they will live with it-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They don't like it.


Steven W. Langdon: I think it is very important to recognize that one of the major reasons the Teleglobe employees were in favour of a fully funded money-purchase plan is the great uncertainty that hangs over the future of Teleglobe under this privatization plan, an uncertainty that is there, first, because there is no guarantee that provincial telephone companies will not bypass through the United States, thereby reducing the

March 31, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
revenues of Teleglobe; and, second, there is a considerable possibility that Memotec itself, because it has had to take out so many loans to make this purchase, may end up in severe financial difficulty and have to cut back its pension plan, as it has reserved the right to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House now ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is as follows: Mrs. McDougall moves that Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, be now read a third time and passed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mrs. McDougall) which
was agreed to on
the following division: {Division No. 85)
 YEAS Members	
Andre	Clark	DommAttewell	(Yellowhead)	DorinBeatty	Clark	EllisBernier	(Brandon-Souris)	EppBertrand	Collins	(Provencher)Blais	Comeau	FennellBlenkarn	Cook	FontaineBlouin	Cooper	FraleighBoyer	Corbett	FretzBradley	Cossitt	GassBrisco	Cote	GerinBrowes	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	GirardCadieux	Crofton	GottseligCaldwell	Crombie	GriseCardiff	Crosbie	GustafsonChampagne	(St. John's West)	Hamelin(Champlain)	Crouse	HamiltonChartrand	Daubney	Hardeyde Cotret	HawkesHockin	Martin	ShieldsHowie	Mayer	SiddonJames	Mazankowski	SparrowJohnson	McCuish	Speyer(Bonavista-Trinity-	McDermid	StackhouseConception)	McKenzie	StevensKilgour	McKinnon	StewartKindy	McKnight	TardifKing	Merrithew	(Charles bourg)Ladouceur	Minaker	TowersLanthier	Mitges	TurnerLeblanc	Nickerson	(Ottawa-Carleton)Lesick	Oberle	Van De WalleLewis	O'Neil	VankoughnetMacDonald	Oostrom	Vezina(Kingston and	Peterson	Vincentthe Islands)	Plamondon	WilsonMacDougall	Plourde	(Swift Current-(Timiskaming)	Price	Maple Creek)MacKay	Redway	WilsonMailly	St-Julien	(Etobicoke Centre)Malone	Schellenberg	WinegardMarin	(Nanaimo-Alberni)
NAYS Members	Witer-108Baker	Gray	NystromBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Orlikow(Brant)	Guilbault	ParryBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	PennerBroadbent	Heap	Prud'hommeCaccia	Henderson	Riisde Corneille	Hopkins	Rodriguezde Jong	Hovdebo	TurnerDingwall	Isabelle	(Vancouver Quadra)Epp	Killens	Young -34(Thunder Bay-	Langdon	Nipigon)	Malepart	Gagliano	Manly	Garneau	Marchi	Gauthier	Mitchell	
And the Clerk having announced the result of the vote'.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we were in opposition I recall the Government bringing to the attention of the House a certain member who was in the House without a tie. I notice today that the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who was part of the former Government, came into the House without a tie. I suggest that his vote not be counted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker,-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw. Out!


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will first look at his side of the House he will notice that there are many members on his side who are not wearing a necktie. Second, I have come from a committee meeting where the way I am dressed is acceptable. Since the committee is an extension of the House and allows members not to wear a tie, it seems to me inconsistent to have two different sets of standards in both places.
March 31, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Out!
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an important question to be settled, and 1 would not want to minimize the fact that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is not wearing a necktie. However the fact that you gave him the floor-he was recognized-would seem to confirm that you did not object to his presence and his being seen tieless.
In my opinion, the question as to whether a Member should be denied the right to vote or have his vote struck out after the division is a matter to which we should perhaps give serious consideration. The fact the the Hon. Member was here, that he voted, and that you recognized him, Mr. Speaker, just might point to a more contemporary approach concerning the way we dress. As the Hon. Member for Davenport said, and I repeat, there are people in this House who do not and probably will not wear a necktie ever, yet that does not prevent them from voting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on the same point of order.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the words of our distinguished Whip for the Official Opposition. Government Members do not recognize that a number of their group are in the House without wearing a tie. I think I can identify the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina)-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I can identify a number of others who are not wearing a tie.


An Hon. Member:: Don't be silly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think the right to vote in the House should not depend on whether one is wearing a tie. The Member for Davenport is dressed neatly and in a way that cannot be considered disrespectful of the House. Certainly the right to vote in the House should be considered on the basis of something more serious than whether or not a member is wearing a tie. I am very surprised that the chief government Whip thinks that the right to vote should hinge on something as irrelevant as whether or not one wears a tie.
I believe we have reached the point where we should not approach these kinds of matters on the thesis of deux poids, deux mesures. I ask you to take a moderate, enlightened approach to this matter and recognize the right of the Hon. Member for Davenport to vote, failing which one must strike from the record the votes of all Conservative Members who are not wearing ties, and there are quite a few of them.
Teleglobe Canada


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: What about Therese? Do you count her vote, too?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I will relent on my argument the day the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) comes into the House wearing a dress.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Broadbent:: Go for it, Herb.


Thomas Scott Fennell: The opposition Whip, my colleague and friend, in quieter times would probably agree with me that it is important to retain dress in the House. I repeat that 1 would relent on my argument if the Member from Windsor would do as I request.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope that not all Hon. Members want to speak on this question. However, I would like to hear the opinion of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who is a member of important committees concerning the House.


Mr. Shields:: We are getting into jeans next.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, lest the wrong impression be left, I want Hon. Members to know, particularly the government Whip, that many male Members of the House of Scottish origin, have often appeared in the House wearing a kilt and that has and should continue to be regarded as appropriate dress.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to rule. There are two matters to this issue. First, with regard to the right of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) to vote, the vote will stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Second, with regard to the dress of Hon. Members in the House, there is nothing specific in the Standing Orders. However, Citation 244 of Beauchesne states quite clearly that Speakers should enforce what is described as conservative, contemporary dress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In light of that citation, as far as men are concerned, I would ask members to please wear ties in the House, possibly with the exception of the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille).
I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.

March 31, 1987
Canagrex


CANAGREX DISSOLUTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There were six minutes remaining in the question and comment period on the excellent speech of the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) a question concerning Canagrex. First, I point out to you that one of the requirements for being allowed into the Speaker's Gallery in the House is that one must wear a tie.
Does the Hon. Member for Windsor West believe that the Conservative Government perhaps made a mistake in 1984 when it cut all funding to Canagrex? Did it make a prejudgment on the results of the work commenced by the Crown corporation? Does he think that is what happened? Or does he think that this was an intentional move by the Government to try to satisfy, perhaps, some objections from the United States with respect to Crown corporations in Canada? Why does he think the Government cut off its funding in 1984 and only two years later tried to do away with the Crown corporation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do want to answer the question. However, I also want to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether I should raise a point of order about the lack of a tie being worn by the Speaker when occupying the Chair. I will seek your guidance about this very interesting point because one cannot say that the tabs worn by the Speaker are the equivalent of a cravat. I will seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and reserve my right to raise a formal point of order on this subject.
Dealing with my hon. friend's question, one would have thought it would have made a lot more sense for the Government to give Canagrex a reasonable period of time to see just what kind of business it could generate for the Canadian agrifood sector, which would not otherwise have been there, before it proceeded to choke off its funding and rush legislation into the House to kill Canagrex.
It is my information that at the time the Government withdrew funding from Canagrex, it was in the process of formalizing some $100 million in export sales of Canadian agricultural products, both processed and unprocessed. These sales would not have been there had Canagrex not been able to step in and seek out opportunities in world markets. There is no doubt in my mind, therefore, that the foolish step taken by the Government to eliminate the funding of Canagrex and to kill that organization was done prematurely. It would have made more sense to respond to the views of many in the private
sector and give Canagrex a chance to show what it could do before making a final decision about its future.
The decision the Government did take was not only premature, it was foolish. The result was to lose opportunities for sales of Canadian agricultural products abroad in the area, initially, of likely $100 million, and over time perhaps in the billions of dollars. The effort by the Conservative Government to kill Canagrex has been another $1 billion mistake. The way the Conservatives bungled the matter of the failures of the two banks has cost taxpayers $1 billion. This Bill with which we are being asked to deal today represents another mistake which may well cost taxpayers, the Canadian private sector and the agri-food business perhaps another $1 billion or $2 billion.
It is a shame that the Government has taken this action. As I said before in answer to my hon. friend, we are going to make sure the Government's action is not forgotten by the voters. They will have the final say. I am confident their say, through their votes, will be that the Government made a terrible mistake, but the voters will not be making a mistake in getting rid of the Government for this $1 billion error.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that this will be another $1 billion bungle by the Conservative Party. It is amazing to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) sit back and allow his Government to shaft the farmers of Canada. I cannot understand that. I was in his riding on Friday night and people there are wondering why he does not stand and defend Canagrex. I was in Kindersley and the people there are so angry that from a small New Democratic Party fund raiser of 120 people we raised over $5,000. That shows you the concern those people have that the Cabinet Minister is not doing his job, and we have many good farmers who want to run in that riding. I think the only people who will win in the west now are New Democrats. I am just reading the polls.
It is very important we keep Canagrex because of competition now between the Europeans, the EEC and the Americans with their farm Bill. It is very important that we get out there and hustle to find markets for Canadian food products. I cannot understand why the Government would get rid of an agency which could do just that. The Hon. Member for Windsor West was a member of the previous Government. He and his Government knew a number of years ago that there was getting to be more and more competition in terms of sales and markets for Canadian farm goods. Why on earth did the Hon. Member's Government take so long to bring in Canagrex in the first place? Why did it wait until the dying days of a Liberal regime, until the last gasp for breath, before it introduced Canagrex to try to get a few more votes from Canadian farmers? Why was the Liberal Government so slow. It was almost slower than the Conservative Government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the original concept, I have to admit, created some controversy. There
March 31, 1987

were concerns in the private sector, both on the part of producers and processors of agricultural products, that the original concept would overlap activities already going on, and would take away opportunities which could be carried out by the private sector.
I think the parliamentary process did its job. Through the debate on the Bill at second reading, through the committee hearings and through consideration of the report of the committee, we were able to develop a concept which eliminated almost all of the concerns of the private sector and there was as a result a consensus that Canagrex, as it was passed by this House, was a good idea and deserved the support not only of this House but of the agricultural sector of Canada generally. I, therefore, say that I do not think that we took too long. The parliamentary process did its job, eliminating issues and problems which the community outside of Parliament saw in the Bill.
I think the real mistake is the mistake we are now trying to stop the Government from making by proposing this Bill. It is a mistake of the Government to try to kill Canagrex. If there was any mistake on the part of the previous Liberal Government, it is that we could not see how such an obviously good idea as Canagrex would not be accepted and would be rejected even by a Conservative Government. We thought that if it happened that we would not be returned after the next election, even the Conservatives would be able to see what a good idea Canagrex was. We could not anticipate they would be so foolish as to reject this very good idea.
In this respect I have to admit we were wrong. However, I am sure the Canadian people will assist in helping make sure these kinds of mistakes are not made again, and I refer to the mistake in judging just how foolish and lacking in understanding and intelligence Conservatives can be. I am sure that after the next election they will not have the same chance they have now to do the damage they are doing to the Canadian agricultural sector and to the Canadian economy.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to say a few words about Canagrex because I was very closely involved with the development of Canagrex. As the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) suggests, it was a product of the past Government. It was also a product which was supported by the Conservatives in opposition. In fact, during the time of the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) brought in legislation almost identical and was ready to have it pushed through the House. Somehow between that time and when it finally got to the House four years later, the Conservatives had decided they could make it a political football. What they did was-and I can only think of one word-disgusting in its approach. They took what was a good idea, what they themselves had supported, and made it look like something which was not worthwhile.
Canagrex
Canagrex was born out of neglect, out of the neglect of many Byears of governments which did not put into place the type of marketing and exporting system which would work well for the agricultural producers of Canada. It was created because a developmental policy that would allow the continuing increase of exports around the world was not forthcoming. It was built to fill a vacuum, in spite of the fact that the Department of External Affairs said that it had in place around the world agents who would do the type of work that was necessary to increase the agricultural export market. They had not done it, and they did not do it. Consequently, Canagrex was created to fill a vacuum.
It would be of interest to review for a few moments exactly what Canagrex did put in place in its short life span of eight months. Canagrex was born on July 3, 1984. Immediately, it set out a corporate plan which touched on those areas in which it thought it could be the most effective in terms of the export of agricultural products around the world. This plan was approved by its board of directors and by the Minister of Agriculture of the day. The plan included a great number of developmental ideas. By June its plan was pretty much under way. It had a team of people in place which was working not only in Canada but around the world to develop markets and to establish a basis for realistic proposals which were put forward in the corporate plan. It found a tremendous amount of interest in the agricultural community for its plans. Producers of almost every type of product other than those already handled by marketing boards, such as wheat and grains, were interested in having for themselves some type of an agency which would develop export markets for them.
Canagrex did not go out to sell goods or to buy goods. In fact, it did not have the right to do so under the legislation. What it did was leave buying and selling to the private sector. Its objectives were to facilitate sales and to provide information to the producers and shippers of agricultural products. It surveyed Canadian commodities and found that many of them could be produced in surplus and could be sold on the world market. It also went out into many countries to find out what products they might want to buy. In the process, a source list of Canadian products, of commodities, was developed. It is probably the most comprehensive and most up-to-date source list of agricultural products that are available in Canada for sale even up to this date. I point out to Hon. Members that Canagrex was created about three years ago.
The next step Canagrex took was to develop a market survey program. This program entailed in-depth research of specific markets around the world, markets which were considered to be promising in countries which were most interested in buying Canadian products. When Canagrex went out to investigate these markets it took with it producers from each of the product areas concerned. For instance, when it went to Singapore it took pork producers along. When it went to Cuba it took potato producers along. When it went to Egypt it took along tobacco producers. In each case Canagrex used the

March 31, 1987
producers and the distribution industry in such a way so as to give them direct contacts with buyers. Many countries in the world have central buying systems. These countries practically demanded a central selling system from Canada. That is a role which Canagrex could have fulfilled, although it was not the basis of its initial mandate.
Canagrex also developed programs for the Philippines, Colombia, Panama and other South American countries. It prepared a comprehensive study that identified the markets for a number of commodities that were available. For example, it prepared a comprehensive study of markets for pork, a study which was developed in conjunction with pork producers. Commodities were listed and a potential sales list was sent out to producer organizations around Canada.
In the short time in which I have been speaking I have mentioned a number of countries. I wish to point out that if we take a look at a list of those countries to see which ones have so-called agricultural people in our External Affairs offices in those countries we will find that a number do not have any agricultural people. Consequently, nothing has developed since the days of Canagrex in terms of sales to these countries.
Canagrex was developed in such a way that most of its operation costs would be defrayed by the sale of products. The only costs of the operation of Canagrex which would be referred back to the Government, or which would become a government expense, were those with respect to the employees on its staff and the sending out of information.
After Canagrex had surveyed the markets and pin-pointed them, it then went out to stimulate export sales in the countries which it identified. It did this in a way which no commercial officer who has been posted abroad could possibly do. No agency of the Government which is not specifically interested in agriculture could have done this. To illustrate my point, Canagrex transported high quality breeding swine stock to Italy for show to ascertain whether or not Italy was interested in that type of market.
Mr. Speaker, I see you indicating that it is almost one o'clock. I will continue my remarks later on today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada had an excellent idea last week when it held a public forum on March 25 and 26, on restraint systems in cars.
I attended the forum and was delighted to see the positive attitude shown by all parties either directly or indirectly concerned with finding better ways to protect automobile users against highway accidents.
A number of participants stressed the importance of educating the public to increase the rate of seat belt use. A coroner who spoke to the forum pointed out that there was a right way and a wrong way to wear a seat belt.
Finally, car manufacturers announced that installation of rear shoulder belts in the back and air bags in the front would be complete by 1990.
Much remains to be done, and we will have to keep up the pressure, Mr. Speaker. The organizers are to be commended for the tremendous success of this forum, and I am anxious to see the measures the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) will introduce to ensure that the Canadian car user will have maximum protection against highway accidents.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Calgary Sun had a write-in campaign for the reinstatement of capital punishment, entitled "Let Brian Know".
As the Calgary Sun promised the petitioners, it would be hand delivered to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). After finishing my statement, I shall do so on behalf of the petitioners.
I feel more confident now that we have the promise of the Government to have a debate and a free vote on the reinstatement of capital punishment before June 1. I feel more confident, too, that this issue is going to be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of Canadians.
March 31, 1987



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this week Pope John Paul II visits Chile, where he will become familiar with the terrible human rights situation in that country.
The Vicariate of Solidarity, sponsored by the Catholic Church, has documented hundreds of cases of torture, kidnapping, and murder. Sadistic torture methods sometimes reach new levels of technical sophistication. At other times, as in the burning of Carmen Quintana, who came to Canada for healing, they reflect old fashioned brutality.
During his visit the Pope will see a fascist Government, will see all of the trappings of power; but he will also see the courageous spirit of the Chilean people, who refuse to accept dictatorship and who continue to work and struggle for a return to democracy and freedom. I say, let the spirit of the Chilean people live and triumph.



PETRO-CANADA PRIVATIZATION RECOMMENDED BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration and detailed study, the Economic Council of Canada, under the eminent chairmanship of Judith Maxwell, has concluded as follows:
We recommend that Petro-Canada be privatized. The corporation should be
sold through a broad share offering, made initially only to Canadians, but no
specific legislative restriction should be placed on individual shareholdings.
Since the passage of the Petro-Canada Act in 1975, this Crown corporation has become the largest refiner-marketer in Canada. But there is no indication that the public is better off by one cent than had previously been the case.
It is time that this most sensible recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada was acted upon by the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain has urged Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to press, at next week's summit, for more substantive American actions to fight acid rain.
The Prime Minister "should ask U.S. President Ronald Reagan to submit a formal legislative proposal to Congress that would actually reduce acid rain emissions", the Coalition said in a telegram to the Prime Minister.
The telegram, signed by the Coalition's 55 member groups and 900 individual supporters, was sent Monday. A copy was released today. Coalition Co-ordinator Michael Perley said that the Prime Minister's statements on acid rain have indicated Ottawa is satisfied with Reagan's commitments, which amount to little more than research. "This impression needs to be corrected and a clear message sent to U.S. legislators and the American public that nothing short of emission reductions will solve the acid rain problem", Mr. Perley said.



LIBERAL PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday morning in Quebec City, Liberal Party Members had the honour and the privilege of brunching with their Leader, thanks to modern computer technology.
Initially, the organizers were going to set up 100 tables, but because of low attendance, they reduced this number to 60.
Subsequently, they decided to seat two or three people per table, because it is a problem to fill 480 seats with 250 guests. Mr. Speaker, some of the guests felt rather uncomfortable attending such a lavish event with so few people present.
Finally, the guests who were present and, we assume, listened to the Leader's speech were very disappointed since it contained no definite program worthy of a political party.
Did the Liberals hand out cassettes of their Leader because they were afraid the cameras would show a lot of empty tables?
Is this a ploy on the part of the Liberals to obtain a consensus among all dissidents? Or was it to avoid fortuitous contradictions by their Leader?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of last week CNR announced that it was laying off some 47 employees in the city of Melville, which represents

March 31, 1987
about 11 per cent of its workforce in that city. The payroll of CNR in the city is around $12.5 million. It will be a tremendous cut-back and hardship, not only for the families working with CN but for the business community and for the city as well.
CN is downgrading the car shops from repair shops to cleaning shops. What makes me angry as the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is that some months ago, or a little over a year ago, CNR announced that it would not be cutting back on personnel in Melville, that indeed it would be maintaining the workforce and perhaps even expanding it.
I call upon CNR to keep its promise, to rehire the people it is laying off in Melville, and to expand the car shops not just to cleaning shops but to repair shops as well.



AEROSPACE INDUSTRY


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government decided to sell de Havilland, the opposition Parties predicted that privatization of the corporation would result in the loss of jobs. Further, they argued that the Government had destroyed a major portion of our aerospace industry.
The doomsayers on the opposition benches have been proven wrong again. Since the sale of de Havilland to Boeing, employment has risen from 4,400 people to 5,200 people, an increase of 800 jobs.
For the first time orders for Dash-7 and Dash-8 aircraft exceed production. The new management, coupled with the world-wide network of Boeing Corporation, has led to this excellent increase in orders for these fine aircraft.
This success has allowed de Havilland to produce a new series of aircraft, which will allow de Havilland to increase its penetration in the short-haul commuter field and will mean a further increase in jobs and technology. No wonder the Opposition now avoids the issue altogether.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 23, more than 1,000 early
retirees attended an information and consultation meeting in Montreal.
On Friday, in Quebec City, over 600 early retirees went to a similar meeting and today we have the visit of Coalition and ARSAC representatives who came to protest against the Conservative Government decision to take a harder position concerning elderly workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Sad to say, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Members of the House do not seem to be overly eager to defend the interests of elderly workers.
Today the Minister of Employment and Immigration is attending a federal-provincial conference with his provincial colleagues responsible for employment, and I happen to know that some of the provincial Ministers will request the federal Government to play fair with elderly workers because the Conservative Members simply will not come to their defence.



PATENTS


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the results of a nation-wide poll show that 80 per cent of respondents support the adoption of federal legislation to protect pharmaceutical discoveries, with the guarantee that drug price increases will not exceed the inflation rate.
Bill C-22 now before the House provides for the creation of a patented medicine prices review board. Canadians think this is a good idea. Only price increases lower than the inflation rate will be authorized.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians hope that intensified research will lead to better medical treatment in this country. I would stress that if the Bill is adopted, over 10 years the industry is committed to double its biomedical research and development budget, as a percentage of its sales. In Canada this will translate into new investments of $1.4 billion, for a total of $3 billion.
This also means jobs for young people joining the labour force. The Liberals are against that. The New Democratic Party is against that.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has both hands deep in Shirley Carr's handbag. Both of them will quickly waste the Canadian Labour Congress membership funds on the election campaign.
March 31, 1987



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain has rightly sent a message to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) critical of the impression he has given to the American administration, the Congress, and indeed the American public that Canada is somehow satisfied with what President Reagan has committed himself to do so far. But things continue to go from bad to worse. We learned yesterday that Democratic House Leader Robert Byrd from Virginia is intent on weakening what is already an abysmally weak proposal by the President. Mr. Byrd is a Democrat, and so with respect to our hopes that action will come from the United States on acid rain we find that we have staunch opponents on both sides of the Congress, something that all members should regret.
I asked the Prime Minister yesterday whether he would consider asking President Reagan to assure us that he would veto any such congressional action. That kind of action has become less likely as a result of Senator Byrd's statements. I wonder whether the time has not come for all of us here in the Canadian House of Commons and in the Senate to get together to pass a unanimous resolution sending a message to the United States Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, saying just how unanimous we are that the United States must take real action to reduce acid rain emissions and become the good neighbor that it says it is.



CHILD CARE


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Special Committee on Child Care presented its much awaited report to this House yesterday. The committee was asked to report on three related subjects: the needs of children being cared for inside and outside the family, how best to define a role for the federal Government in child care, and what steps the federal Government could take to fulfil this role.
The federal Government has 120 days to give a sensitive, caring and thoughtful response to the committee's report and its 39 recommendations. I am confident that most Canadians will be supportive of the Government's response. On the other hand, I believe the knee-jerk reaction by some Members of this House and leaders of other groups in the public sector is irresponsible and smacks of blatant political posturing.
I intend to read the entire report over the next few days, and I would encourage some of the most vocal critics to do
likewise, unless they fear that a more thorough understanding and knowledge of the facts, the intensive research and well thought out recommendations, including an appreciation of the funding requirements, might alter their preconceived opinions.

CLOSURE OF A. GOLD & SONS-EARLY RETIREES-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of letters from people in my riding who are aged 55 and who lost their jobs because A. Gold & Sons have closed their doors. In their situation they were entitled to early pension benefits until August 17, 1986. Once these employees have used up their 52 weeks of unemployment insurance they will be without jobs or early retirement benefits, and they are now wondering how they will manage to keep their children in university and provide for family needs.
The Conservative Government put the axe to the early retirement program and today still, after many months, it has not announced a replacement project. These people are quite worried, Mr. Speaker, and we urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to unveil his program immediately.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier), I would like to draw to the attention of this House a recent Decima poll, released yesterday, which shows that 82 per cent of Canadians support the principles of Bill C-22.
In fact one of the questions asked was whether or not Canadians would be willing to pay higher prices for their prescription drugs if more research and development were done here in Canada. Sixty-five per cent of respondents said yes.
Bill C-22 is good for Canada, and Canadians support it. The opposition Parties are basing their politics on unfounded fear of vastly higher prices, but they have failed to address the important issues of better health care and intellectual property protection, values that Canadians support.
This poll indicates that Canadians do support research and development and Bill C-22. It is a Bill which, with the establishment of a drug prices review board, will provide

March 31, 1987
Oral Questions
Canadian consumers for the first time with monitoring and regulation of drug prices. Canadians like that.



FISHERIES


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere disappointment with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) for his decision to close down the marine ecology lab at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia. There can be no sensible reason to dismantle this world-renowned facility, a facility that has proven its worth many times over since it was created.
How can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with the silent approval of the Government of Nova Scotia, make this decision? Time and time again the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made decisions that have impacted negatively on the fishing community and industry of Nova Scotia. It is about time the Government of Nova Scotia and members of the Cabinet from the Province of Nova Scotia make it clear to the Minister that this decision is completely unacceptable to the people of Nova Scotia.
I call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Member of Parliament from Halifax to stand up for the constituents of that particular region of Nova Scotia and to have the Government reverse its decision and maintain the marine ecology lab at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's defence yesterday of the proposals of his caucus members on child care was about as irrelevant as those proposals themselves. The Prime Minister either misrepresented the facts or does not understand those facts. Does the Prime Minister understand that if the proposals of his caucus members are accepted, they will be breaking the major campaign promise made by the Prime Minister for a national child care program?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition must recognize that this report was presented to the House. The Prime Minister said very clearly yesterday that he as well as other members of Cabinet would be studying the report. The Leader of the Opposition also knows that, under the changes to the parliamentary rules, the Government has 120 days from yesterday to respond to the report. I think that is very much in keeping with the negotiating timetable the Ministers of Social Affairs, both provincial and federal, have set for themselves for finalizing these plans by the middle of this calendar year.


LACK OF MODERATELY PRICED PLACES IN DAY CARE CENTRES
John Napier Turner: Well, I believe that under the circumstances I should direct the following questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does he know whether the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that his own Members have failed to understand the biggest problem, which is the very severe lack of places in day care centres? Is the Minister aware that there is a very severe shortage? And what is he going to do to meet the needs of Canadians, to have enough places to meet the demand of Canadian families, particularly lower income families?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister as well as members of the Cabinet and Canadians who have looked at the child care issue know that there is a need for more spaces. The Prime Minister has said that right from the beginning. He said that during the election campaign of September, 1984, and he repeated it in Vancouver at the First Ministers' Conference. He mentioned it again as recently as Saturday night when he addressed a group of women delegates to Impact 87. Quite frankly, that point is not the issue.
I think the issue is what kind of a mix we should put together in child care so that there will be more spaces and so that those parents who choose, for whatever personal reasons, not to access the so-called formal day care system will also get some recognition, either financial or otherwise, from the Government of Canada and from provincial Governments.


POSITION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course we paid due attention to the Prime Minister's speech to a very carefully chosen and culled audience. When the country as a whole seems to be taking a more mature and progressive approach toward child care, why is the Minister's Party moving backward? Could he explain to the House why his colleagues on the committee are so opposed to setting national standards for quality child care? Why are they so opposed to meeting the immediate need of lower and middle-income families? Why do they resist fulfilling the immediate need for spaces for Canadian children who do not
March 31, 1987

have access to quality child care? Why did his colleagues react in this way? Could he explain that to the House so we know just where he and his Party stand?
[DOT] (M20)


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I addressed the matter of spaces in my second answer to the right hon. gentleman. The Progressive Conservative Party is not moving backward. The parliamentary committee has put forward recommendations to Parliament. The Government has not yet either endorsed or acted on them. I think the right hon. gentleman should be fair and recognize that this is a federal-provincial area with primary responsibility in the provinces. I am not saying that to deny any federal responsibility.


John Napier Turner: Let's see a little leadership.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are willing to give leadership. It is a given that, if there is public money put into a system, there must be standards. As an example, under the Canada Health Act the Government of the day set standards and, if those standards were met, funding was provided to the provinces. That model could also be used in a national child care system. The Right Hon. Member should not jump to conclusions which may be of short-term political gain but may not necessarily be of the greatest benefit to child care.


IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the answers so far the Government has shown no recognition of the compelling need to have a comprehensive national child care system set up right away. Some 1.2 million Canadian children live in poor families which have problems earning an adequate income due to the lack of adequate day care. The lack of adequate day care means that single mothers do not have an equal opportunity to earn better incomes for their children.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister put aside the scatter-gun approach of the Conservative Members and tell us how the Prime Minister will keep his promise to provide a comprehensive national day care system for Canadians, or is he asking Canadians to wait another two and a half years for the answer?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member really amazes me. I thought he was in the House yesterday. I am sure that if he had been paying attention he would have heard very clearly the words of the Prime Minister which are reported at page 4687 of Hansard as follows:
We know that a comprehensive child care system will require significant
resources, and we are going to have to find them. For I want to state clearly
that our commitment to a child care program is real and that Canada shall
have an effective national child care system.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the glib answer of the Deputy Prime Minister, if he accepts the proposals of the Conservative members of the committee, in the year 2000, which is less than 20 years away, we will still be more than one million child care spaces short.
Why will the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government not show leadership today and tell us how they will meet the need of Canadians for an adequate comprehensive child care system?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, why does the Hon. Member not start paying attention? The Minister of National Health and Welfare just answered that question. The report presented by the parliamentary committee will be studied, considered, and responded to, as the Minister indicated.


PROVISION OF SERVICES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, virtually every expert in the country who knew something about the need-no one on that side of the House I assure you-and knew anything about the almost 2 million Canadian children who need child care services, condemned the Conservative majority report for being totally inadequate in terms of increasing services.
I remind the Minister that on page 41 of this Conservative document there is a recommendation to spend a mere $10 million in increasing the services for children. The whole country knows that the Government will spend $40 million to move an unneeded prison into the Prime Minister's riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Minister a serious question-


Mr. Crosbie:: Get serious!


Mr. McDermid:: You want to ask a serious question? Get serious!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has some responsibility for this. Does he believe that it is the right priority for a Government of Canada to spend four times the amount of money on a prison for the Prime Minister's riding than for all of the children of Canada? Is that the right priority?


Mr. Siddon:: Don't be ridiculous.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are being ridiculous, Ed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there are two responses to those comments. First,

March 31, 1987
Oral Questions
the Leader of the New Democratic Party used the figure of 1.9 million-


John Edward Broadbent: No, I did not. Where did you get that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: One point nine million as the number of children, for example, who should have child care. He knows full well that the figures he and his members use include children from 18 and under. When you talk about universal systems, you put all of this together and come up with a large figure.
When one considers the amount of money the committee recommended yesterday, the member was again very selective in his figures and gave the figure of about $10 million in new services for the children of Canada. That is simply not what the committee recommended. The committee is recommending that the federal Government expend approximately $700 million in programs. You might disagree with the mix; I might want a slightly different mix too. However, I am telling the member to start using all the facts rather than selectively, as you always choose to do.


PROVINCES' REACTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: I was quoting from the document and the Minister knows that the figures he has just given mostly are in the form of tax breaks which have not worked in the United States, which have been rejected by every country in Europe that has effective day care, and have been rejected by church groups in Canada and every expert. You are a disgrace in terms of providing child care, and you know it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Shame on you!


Mr. Holtmann:: Ask Howard Pawley.


John Horton McDermid: There is a clip for The National.


An Hon. Member:: Grandstanding again.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Stomp all over Parliament.


Jack Wendele Shields: Ed makes The National again.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask all Hon. Members to respect the right of the questioner to put a question. I would ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa not to use the personal pronoun "you". I remind all Hon. Members that if preambles are argumentative there will, of course, be a response. The Hon. Member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, after this report came down the Government of Ontario said it is inadequate in terms of services, the Government of Manitoba has said the same thing, and the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia has condemned it as being inadequate in supplying services for Canada's children. Three Governments have responded-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is always very reluctant to interrupt the questions, but the Hon. Member for Oshawa has already had a long preamble and seems to be on a second one. I would ask the Hon. Member to put the question.


John Edward Broadbent: 
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first, the date we have given in terms of June was agreed to by the federal Government, the provinces and the territorial Governments, and I think the Hon. Member should respect that. Second, the Leader of the New Democratic Party tells us to listen to the Government of Ontario. The Government of Ontario also has approximately 40 per cent of its spaces commercial and it wants to continue the commercial side of child care. But the Hon. Leader's Party objects to that totally. So what part does he want me to take? What part does he want me to leave out? I really think what is needed is a lot less heat and a lot more study on this subject, and that is what we are going to do. In June we will be ready, we have said, with the federal, territorial and provincial Governments.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this is another subject where the Government has shown a complete lack of understanding with respect to low-income Canadians. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. There are Coalition representatives who object to the cut in unemployment insurance benefits for the early retirees we met this morning. These people would like to hear from the Minister of Finance what kind of social justice the Government had in mind when it decided to penalize elderly workers who had opted for a group pension plan as opposed to the elderly worker who has to set up his own pension plan. Why the double standard? Why penalize elderly workers for having saved to contribute to a group pension plan?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I caught the thrust of the Hon. Member's question. I think the translation of the words was not accurate in terms of the thought the Hon. Member is trying to get across. However, if I can assume what I thought he was trying to say, I can tell him with regard to the basis of pension funds there is a clear connection in the contractual arrangement
March 31, 1987

between the employee and the employer. That is the basis on which the decision was made.


INQUIRY WHY THERE ARE TWO CLASSES OF ELDERLY WORKERS IN CANADA
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows perfectly well that in his statement on November 8, he said he would subtract pension income from group plans from the unemployment insurance benefits paid to these people, even to people in the armed forces who have to pay unemployment insurance premiums and whose benefits are now being cut. These people, who are here today, want to know what kind of social justice the Government had in mind when it decided to penalize people who opted for saving part of their wages to contribute to a pension plan and who also paid unemployment insurance benefits. When they took early retirement, the Government cut these people off. A person who has to contribute to a RRSP can draw on his RRSP without having unemployment insurance benefits cut off. Why the double standard for elderly workers in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the question was very convoluted. I am not sure that I got the sense of the question. Possibly the Hon. Member could put the question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration because I believe the Minister has responded specifically to that question, if I can understand what I think the Hon, Member said.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there may be a problem with the translation. Perhaps the Hon. Member would care to put his question again?


INQUIRY WHY CERTAIN CATEGORY OF ELDERLY WORKERS IS PENALIZED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that I put this question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who answered at the time that it was the Minister of Finance, in his November 8, 1984 statement, who decided that from then on, payments from a private pension plan would be subtracted from unemployment insurance. Why has the Minister decided to subtract group pension plan payments from unemployment insurance benefits, while people who contribute to a registered retirement savings plan are not penalized? Why the double standard? Is that clear enough?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is the answer I gave in my response to the Hon. Member's first question. It is very clear and very easy to make the link between savings and the contractual arrangement between an
Oral Questions
employer and employee. It is not so easy to make that link in relation to RRSPs.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Witnesses told the Special Committee on Child Care that the lack of rural child care is causing accidental deaths. Native children are dying while white people talk. Teenage moms need school-based child care. Poorer communities need special resources. These are urgent needs. They need action now. Will the Government immediately allocate $26 million for a community initiatives fund which will allow parents and communities to develop innovative programs to meet these special child care needs?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member checks the report-she was a member of the committee which tabled the report yesterday-she will know there were recommendations respecting the matter of the federal Government's direct responsibility in respect to native children and to child care based on reserves and specifically directed to native Canadians. I think she should also keep in mind that there have been agreements. I do not think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would say it is sufficient, but steps have been taken, for instance, in a number of provinces where agreements have now been signed not only with a number of native organizations in Provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, but also with some tribal councils.
I think that initiative which is being taken by the Minister, along with some of the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee, could at least address in part some of the problems which the Hon. Member has raised and of which I am aware as well.


REQUEST FOR DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not seem to be aware that the committee did not ask for any extra funding for native children. The Special Committee's inadequate recommendations will only cause further delays. Will the Minister establish a community initiatives fund, a direct fund of the federal Government, which does not require cost sharing, so that native communities, rural communities and others can apply directly with innovative projects to meet local needs? The Minister could do this immediately. He does not have to wait for the provinces.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that representation from the Hon. Member if she wants to add that to her minority report. As I

March 31, 1987
Oral Questions
said, the recommendations the Government is accepting from the Hon. Member, from the parliamentary committee and from others will be put together with a national plan to which the Prime Minister has committed his Government and himself personally well before the Hon. Member had risen in her chair today or some other day.


CARE OF NATIVE CHILDREN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister who I know is concerned about native children. We were talking about a $26 million community initiatives fund, which he missed in my first question. Coming back to native children, will he personally take responsibility to see that more substantial money is available, if necessary through DIA if not directly to native bands, so that native children will have some alternatives and their children will not be taken away from them, which is happening over and over now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with respect to additional funds and programs for native people, there is no question in my mind, when one takes a look at what is happening, and has happened in native communities and on the reserves, that the points that the Hon. Member makes, and I have made myself, both as Minister of National Health and Welfare and formerly, are a correct reflection of what is taking place.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and my cabinet colleagues in terms of the agreements which are being signed, as I mentioned to the Hon. Member before, with tribal councils and native leadership and with the provinces, take us some distance along the lines the Hon. Member recommends. If there is additional work which should be considered, that is fair comment, and I said to the Hon. Member that the Government is willing to do that.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On November 19 of last year in answer to a question which I raised in the House of Commons the Deputy Prime Minister outlined the bare bones of a northern Ontario recovery program. Since then the economy of northern Ontario has continued to decline. In northeastern Ontario the unemployment rate is well above the national average, and more jobs are being lost every month. When, if ever, will the Deputy Prime Minister put some flesh on those bare bones with respect to a northern Ontario recovery package? I especially wish to ask him about item number four, his promise to bring in a stabilization program for forestry and mining.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE JOBS QUERY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, while the Deputy Prime Minister is getting his act together I also want to ask him to pay attention to promise number three which is: "to transfer some federal agencies and services to northern Ontario". Why, instead of keeping that promise is the Government cutting staff in northern Ontario unemployment insurance offices, shutting down northern Ontario customs offices, and relocating northern Ontario immigration officers to Ottawa?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this Government and this Party are recognizing the unique problems of northern Ontario-


B. Keith Penner: What a laugh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -after 25 years of Liberal neglect. The Hon. Member should not get too excited over the delay of a month or so, after he was a member of a Government which ignored the economic problems of northern Ontario for over 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF RURAL, AGRICULTURAL AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Robert Aylward, Member of the House of Assembly, Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHILD CARE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
March 31, 1987

The spokesman for Canada's Catholic bishops has just said that child care is too important to be left to the private sector.
As requested by Canada's bishops, will the Minister now give the regions and small communities in Canada the necessary funding to create the new day care centres that are needed today across Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that child care is too important to be left to the private sector. How does the Hon. Member define the private sector? Does he define the private sector only in the commercial sense when, in the Province of Alberta, over 70 per cent of child care spaces are now located in that sector, or in the Province of Ontario where over 40 per cent of the spaces are located in that sector? Is the private sector the home? Is the private sector the family? Is the private sector relatives? Is the private sector maybe a church day care centre? What does the Hon. Member mean by the private sector?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Catholic bishops of Canada said that child care is too important to be left to the private sector.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL FOLLOW ADVICE OF CANADIAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is the Minister prepared to take the advice of Canada's bishops and provide the necessary funding to create day care centres across Canada? Is he now prepared to take the advice of Canada's Catholic bishops?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is asking whether I will endorse a program of child care which is only in the public sector, which is only non-profit and which leaves out the family, then the answer is an unequivocal no.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary. As the Parliamentary Secretary is probably aware, the current agreement with Japan under the import restraints program ends today. Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate what the Government intends to do to
Oral Questions
replace this agreement? In the meantime, can we expect a flood of Japanese imports into Canada which will hurt our domestic industry?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as was reported in the press this morning, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is conducting a complete review of the auto policy of our Government. Of course that includes the regime with respect to imports. I might say that the report is expected within the next couple of months. In the meantime, our Government expects the foreign countries which do ship autos here to respect the system that was in place before. There will not be a surge of imports into the country.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is not only the airline pilots but also the people who are disabled and handicapped who are shocked by the fact that the Minister has reduced the required number of fire-fighters at our major airports from seven to five in order to save $1 million. How can a person who is visually impaired, or a paraplegic, slide down an emergency chute or get off that chute without assistance? Even worse, what if the flight crew is overcome by smoke inhalation? If it takes all five fire-fighters just to operate and man the vehicles, I ask the Minister who is left to help the passengers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I might start in answering this question by saying that the present CFR policy was adopted in 1982. If it was good enough for the Government of the hon. gentleman then, one would think it would be good enough even today.
With respect to this service, the first point that must be realized is that it is the job of the CFR people to provide foam and a passageway out of an aircraft if there is an accident at an airport. They are not targeted, and it is not their duty, to try to get on to aircraft to assist passengers coming off. It is their duty to provide protection so that the crew, the passengers, and others, can assist them in getting off. That is their primary task, not to go on to aircraft and get in the way of passengers who are trying to leave the aircraft. I would ask the hon. gentleman to try to understand that.
There has been no reduction in the number of fire-fighters. I said that a week or 10 days ago. I do not know why the hon. gentleman wants to misinform the House about that. There has not been a reduction of one in the number of airport firefighters across Canada-not one. There have been some changes with respect to overtime rules, and that is all.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sit down!

March 31, 1987
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. Members opposite should listen and get the facts. It is they who ask the questions. They do not like the answers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's an abuse of time.


John Carnell Crosbie: If Hon. Members want the answers, we have the answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Minister's response. Obviously he is not even familiar with his own guidelines. The Minister maintains that the job of fire-fighters is limited to putting out fires. His own Transport Canada Fire-fighters and Rescue Standard-and since he has not read them I will give him the number-TP3660-provides-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All of the matters referred to by the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence are important. However, I think it is appropriate for him to put his question.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister insist that his own Transport Canada regulations which require that if the flight crew is unable for any reason whatsoever to give assistance the fire and rescue team will force entry to the aircraft and provide assistance in the evacuation and rescue of the occupants, if the job of the fire-fighter is merely to fight a fire, as the Minister claims-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member had completed his question. If not, I would ask him to
do so.


Roland de Corneille: If the job of the fire-fighters is merely to fight a fire, as the Minister claims, why are the trucks equipped with ladders, axes, and jaws of life? Why is that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, for each airport there is an emergency plan for use in the event that an aircraft is damaged on landing, or there is an impact, or a fire, or whatever. It is the first responsibility of the CFR crew to provide a corridor through the use of foam, so that anyone left alive on the aircraft can be evacuated. The standards for that are set by ICAO.
If there is no fire, or once they have cleared a corridor to the plane, they are then to assist in the evacuation of those on the aircraft. There are other personnel then involved. There is a complete plan of emergency action to be taken in the event of an accident.
I do not think anything can be plainer than that, but if-


An Hon. Member:: It is not true.


John Carnell Crosbie: -if the Hon. Member wants to spend five or six hours with me in another question and answer session, I would be prepared to join him.


An Hon. Member:: Save us!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
acid rain-request that house pass unanimous

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Minister of the Environment, or whoever is answering on acid rain today.
Given the unanimity that exists in this House-


John Carnell Crosbie: On what?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -with respect to the fact that we would like to see acid rain abatement legislation in the United States, I am wondering whether the Government would be prepared, given the remarks yesterday by Democratic House Leader, Robert Byrd of Virginia, to sit down with members on all sides of the House concerned about this issue for the purpose of drafting a resolution, which could be passed unanimously by this House, thus sending a very clear message to the American public and the Congress of the United States of just how seriously Canadians take the issue of acid rain and how desperately we see the need for real acid rain abatement south of the border.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be presumptuous of me to dictate to the House of Commons how it might wish to express its will on a subject such as this, or on any other.
There is some legitimate concern behind the Hon. Member's question. Possibly he could suggest to his House Leader that the matter be referred to the committee of House Leaders to be pursued just as any House-related matter would be.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this isn't just any other matter. This is a matter-


An Hon. Member:: Who is the House Leader of your Party, anyway?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: This is a matter about which there is exceptional unanimity on the part of Canadian political Parties.


MINISTER'S POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am asking the Minister of the Environment, as the Minister charged with this particular responsibility, whether or not he would be open to the possibility of sitting down with Members on all sides of the House for the purpose of drafting a resolution which would be
March 31, 1987

passed quickly through this House, thereby sending a strong message to the Congress of the United States and to the American public as to just how urgently Canadians regard the need for real acid rain abatement legislation in the United States.
It seems to me that that is something to which the Government should be open. I am talking about a non-partisan matter. I am talking about something that we can do together, and something that would have an important effect.
What does the Minister have to say?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I have the following to say: I am prepared to sit down with any member at any time about any subject.


CONSTRUCTION WORKERS-DECISION TO STOP ISSUING WAGE SCHEDULES
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, who recently made a decision which will affect thousands of construction workers on federal construction sites.
As of tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, construction workers will no longer be protected insofar as the issue of fair wages is concerned, the reason being that the Minister has decided to do away with the practice of issuing wage schedules identifying wage rates for construction workers.
What logic prompted you to do this? What is the Government trying to achieve through this decision? Who will benefit from it?
And while the Minister is looking into this, I should like to know who requested this action and what support the Minister has for this decision, a decision which will affect thousands of workers, and particularly those in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly it is an interesting question. The question went well beyond the preamble. Since that is what we are driving for, perhaps the Hon. Member is to be commended.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on March 18, 1987, all I did was to take the administrative measures required in connection with a situation which had been prevailing since 1982, a situation which started under the then Liberal Government.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that there is widespread opposition to his measure.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is your measure.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Jacques Guilbault: My question for the Minister is: why did you choose not to consult the construction industry before reaching such a decision? Why did you do that? And why is it that the players involved in this decision had to learn of it via the media? That is what I should like the Minister to tell us.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I also indicated on March 18, 1987, all of those interested in the subject had made their views known since 1982, and all of those parties affected learned of my decision through a letter from myself, and not through the media.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Minister will know that there is a great deal of opposition to his decision to close the marine ecology laboratory at the Bedford Institute.
Can the Minister explain why his departmental Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister are issuing letters of reprimand and ordering disciplinary hearings for the five oceanographers who disagreed publicly with the Government's plan to close the marine ecology laboratory at the Bedford Institute?
How can we have honest and objective discussion of this important decision when those in opposition to the decision are being told that they will be punished if they make their views known?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member was not here yesterday when I dealt with this question.


David Orlikow: I was here yesterday.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Obviously, you weren't listening, then.
We are not closing the marine ecology laboratory; we are changing its name and consolidating and strengthening the scientific work that it does, in the context of creating six new centres-


An Hon. Member:: Why the gag?


Thomas Edward Siddon: -creating six new centres of expertise in important Fisheries and Oceans related research. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, no gag order has been issued by any of my officials, and no punishment has been threatened. In fact, there are standard Government of Canada guidelines for

March 31, 1987
Oral Questions
communications by public officials, and I, in particular, encourage public officials to speak out, as they wish, with the degree of discretion that is appropriate to their duties.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Surely the Minister knows that at least two of these people have had reprimands placed on their records.


ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER'S LETTER TO UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
David Orlikow: Let me ask the
Minister a supplementary. Can the Minister explain the actions of Assistant Deputy Minister Scott Parsons, who wrote to Dalhousie University professors who had protested the cut, suggesting that they might consider keeping quiet on this subject since they receive government funds for oceanography research?
Does the Minister approve of that kind of blackmail threat on the part of a senior official of his Department?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, of course I do not, and Canadian Press falsely repeated a story attributed to one Dr. Eric Mills, who presumes from Mr. Parsons' letter that certain things were said which I do not find in the letter which 1 have in my hand.


An Hon. Member:: Table it.


John Carnell Crosbie: The usual innuendo.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Today in Halifax-Dartmouth the scientific community is holding a funeral service for the marine ecology lab, the closure of which has been termed by one American scientist as a victory of bad government over good science.


John Carnell Crosbie: She is dead but she won't lie down.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Why are this Minister and this Government determined to close this facility, with the stated belief that they are going to improve upon the services that this institution can provide, when already this institution is internationally recognized as one of the finest institutions of its kind in the world?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Again, Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if this Hon. Member would pay attention to the answers given. As well, he could have attended the standing committee this morning, where these questions were addressed in detail.
The marine ecology laboratory is not being abandoned. As I indicated yesterday, of the 60 personnel in that laboratory,
some six will be transferred to strengthen our research capabilities in other parts of Atlantic Canada. Most of the remaining personnel, but for one or two, will continue to sit virtually in their same offices. In fact we are creating three new areas of competence in the Bedford Institute which encompass the work of the marine ecology laboratory.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the facility is being done away with, and I wish the Minister would have the courage to answer the question.


GOVERNMENT RESEARCH FUNDING QUERY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for Captain Tuna, the Chicken of the Sea. Why is the Government cutting back so drastically on funding for Atlantic fisheries? In addition to the reduced funding, why is there also a reduced percentage of funding for research and development? Why, in the reduced percentage to research and development, is so little being done for basic long-term research? Why is all of it going to shortterm projects?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been taking note he would have realized that over a year ago we decided to bring oceanographers together with fisheries biologists so that we might do a better scientific job. This current matter was announced last September 28 in Atlantic Canada. Where has the Hon. Member been for the past six months? We are creating a new centre for marine plankton ecology and a new centre for toxicology at the Bedford Institute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Far from being one month, as he suggested, it has been six months since the political announcement of an economic recovery program for northern Ontario. It has been four and a half months since he announced the 7-point program in the House. Since northern Ontarians have had their expectations raised and are now obviously looking for a far-reaching strategy on the part of the Government, will the Minister at least advise his colleagues, while he is waiting to make the announcement, not to transfer jobs out of northern Ontario as they have been doing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest. I am not sure of any deliberate policy of the federal Government to transfer jobs out of northern Ontario. The objective of the Government is to strengthen the
March 31, 1987

Oral Questions
economic base of northern Ontario to provide many long lasting and durable jobs.


John Edmund Parry: If not deliberate, it must have been by accident because it has been happening.


REQUEST FOR FREEZE ON JOB TRANSFERS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, instead of simply blaming the former Liberal Government, will the Minister freeze those transfers, pending an announcement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question again by simply saying that the policy is in the final stages. It will be announced very soon. The Hon. Member can respond then, and 1 am sure he will find something negative to comment about at that time.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Commissioner of Official Languages summarized the Government's performance in the following terms:

After another year marking time, 1987 will be the year of the test.

He also said: "The machine has run out of steam. There are no directives from higher up."
The President of the Treasury Board admitted to me in the House that enforcement of the legislation would not be relaxed and that the Government was truly committed to amending it. We have been promised this for two and a half years, in two Throne Speeches. When will this Government introduce the promised amendments to the Official Languages Act?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the Hon. Member's question, first of all, I would like to say that the Government welcomes both the criticism and the suggestions and recommendations submitted in the Commissioner's latest report. As I have said before here in the House, we are conducting a thorough review of the Official Languages Act which is now several years old and is in need of significant renewal. This will come in the form of a new Bill that will be tabled in the House as soon as possible.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister has correspondence from London Life, from George Weston Limited, and from myself in respect of their attitude concerning what they should do with money received by people on disability insurance, and how they propose to handle disability insurance policies by reducing the payment to the insured by the amount of the increase the Minister gave to disabled people. The Minister will know that the attitude of George Weston Limited is that it thinks that its seizure of this money is fair. What action does the Minister intend to take in respect of the benefit to ensure that the disabled receive what they were entitled to receive?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I have been very concerned about the fact that, when Parliament passes legislation which gives an increased benefit to the disabled of Canada, the money is not passed through to the disabled. I wrote to Canadian Health and Life Insurance Underwriters. I want to make quite clear that they are the ones who are co-operating fully. George Weston in this case has not. I must make the point that these plans are operated by the company. They are insured by the company rather than by a life insurance company.
It is not only George Weston. It includes some universities, some Public Service unions, and some other unions. I have a list. I do not intend to go public with others yet because they have not responded. However, I do intend to do so if Canadians decide, regardless of what happens when Parliament passes a law or legislation giving benefits to the disabled, to withhold the benefits.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister is aware of plans by his Department to install a toll-gate at Pacific Rim National Park on Vancouver Island. He is also aware of concerns that the proposed gate is uneconomical and extremely difficult to police. The region's geography makes it a hindrance to tourism promotion as well. When will the Minister respond to these concerns? In other words, for whom does the gate toll? Hopefully it is not for Pacific Rim National Park.

March 31, 1987
Patent Act


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is true that my Department and the Government of Canada had intended in June of this year to introduce national park fees at Pacific Rim. The Hon. Member and other B.C. colleagues on the government side have argued very strongly that it would be inappropriate for us to do so, on the grounds that Pacific Rim is not yet a full-fledged national park, that we have yet to receive all the relevant lands from the Province of B.C., and that we have not paid for those we have received. Because of his very strong representations and those from the B.C. Government too, I have decided to put a moratorium on all relevant national park entrance fees at Pacific Rim. I think this would be particularly welcomed by the residents of Tofino and Ucluelet, and I congratulate the Hon. Member for his most successful lobbying in this connection.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are 47 report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.

Motion No. 1 was moved and negatived in committee and therefore will not be selected for debate and will not be put to the House.
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on by itself. [English]
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 15 seek to amend that part of Clause 15 which deals with restrictions on the importation by the licensee of processes or products related to a medicine for which they have been granted a manufacturing licence, the duration of such restrictions, and their coming into force. Therefore, these motions will be combined for debate but voted on as follows.
(a)	vote on Motion No. 3 will be applied to Motions Nos. 13 and 15.
(b)	Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 11 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7, in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) seek to amend the same subclause of the Bill as his Motion No. 4 and, therefore, they will not be selected for debate and will not be put to the House.

Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10, in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), seek to amend the same subclause of the Bill as his Motion No. 5 and therefore they will not be selected for debate.
Motion No. 12 will be debated and voted on separately. [English]
Motions Nos. 13 and 15 were dealt with earlier and are grouped with Motion No. 3.
Motions Nos. 14 and 16 will be debated and voted separately-
Motions Nos. 17, 18, 30, 39 and 40 deal with information to be submitted by patentees to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the time frame for submission of such reports. Therefore, these motions will be grouped for debate but they will all be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 19 and 20 seek to amend the same clause of the Bill and are virtually identical. Since Motion No. 19, in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond was placed on the Notice Paper first, it will be put to the House and voted on separately. Therefore, Motion No. 20 will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 31 seek to limit the powers or the options of the board to exercise its mandate in controlling the market price of a medicine of a patentee in favour of the patentee. Therefore, these motions will be combined for debate but voted on as follows:
(a)	Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 31 will be voted on separately, and
(b)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 will obviate the question being put on Motions Nos. 24 and 25. A negative vote on Motion No. 23 would require the question to be put on Motion No. 24 and on Motion No. 25.
Motions Nos. 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 41 and 42 seek to make the work of the Board more accessible to the public and, therefore, will be grouped for debate. Voting on these motions will take place in the following manner:
(a)	a vote on Motion No. 26 will apply to Motion No. 27; and
(b)	Motions Nos. 28, 33, 34, 41 and 42 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 29 was moved and negatived in committee. Therefore, it will not be selected to be put to the House.

Motion No. 30 was dealt with earlier and was grouped with Motion No. 17.
Motion No. 32 will be debated and voted on separately.
March 31, 1987

Motions Nos. 35, 36 and 37 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 38 in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, seeks to levy a charge on patentees of medicines which is then to be distributed to the patentees in a part of the Bill dealing more specifically with information to be provided to the board on sales and expense analysis. Thus the amendment is irrelevant to this part of the Bill. Further, such a charge, an annual royalty of 14 per cent on the sales of patented medicines in Canada, would extend the objects and purposes as expressed in the Royal Recommendation and would require the passage of a Ways and Means motion. Therefore, I must rule the motion out of order. In doing so, I refer the Hon. Member to Citations 516, 517, 773(1) and 773(7) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
I have dealt already with Motions Nos. 39 and 40, grouped with Motion No. 17, and with Motions Nos. 41 and 42, grouped with Motion No. 26.
Motions Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 will be debated and voted on separately.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line 34
at page 10 the following:
""research" is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways. New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the reevaluation of existing observations;".
He said: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the grouping of various amendments that I have submitted on behalf of my Party, as well as those amendments submitted by the New Democratic Party. Before I debate the substance of the particular amendment, I must say that I may be calling upon the Chair from time to time to enlighten us as to the exact motion with which we are dealing. Some of them, as I am sure the Chair and the Table will recognize, are grouped together for the purposes of debate but, as you know, they are voted in different ways. Just so we have clarity throughout our debate, we would want to have some indication as to where we are. I make that point at the outset just so that members opposite as well as members in the respective opposition Parties will know that we are not attempting to unduly delay the passage or the time of debate on this piece of legislation.
This amendment, known as Motion No. 2, which includes definition of research really stems from our deliberations at committee stage. It should be noted that we are dealing with a piece of legislation which fundamentally alters the way that Canadians and industry will have to respond, if you will, to the whim of the Government in the United States. Bill C-22 is not a product of any Canadian Government, it is a product of the American Government and American multinationals which
Patent Act
have told their branch plant economies here in Canada that they have to adhere to policy which has been developed in Washington, New York, Philadelphia and other places.
One major, and I want to underline "one", and I want to underline "major", omission from Bill C-22 is that there is no definition whatever of the word "research". We have heard time and time again the Minister extol the virtues of Bill C-22, particularly with regard to research and development, but he fails miserably to include a direct reference to the concept in the definition in the parameters of the word "research".
In making these amendments to Bill C-22, it should not be interpreted by Members opposite, no matter how perverted their thinking may become, that we agree with the thrust and substance of the Bill. We do not agree with the Bill, and I want to make that perfectly clear.
There are ways to improve upon the Bill, as Hon. Members would know if they were to keep their minds open and accept the arguments, not only of opposition Members but indeed of some very distinguished representatives who have made representations to the committee and to individual Members. I am certain that we could arrive at a definition of research like the one I am advocating today which would be suitable to all sides.
It should be noted that there are a number of questions about the omission of the word "research" from Bill C-22 that ought to be put on record. Why has the Government refused to table the $1.4 billion commitment allegedly made by the multinationals to the Government in exchange for greater patent protection? Why is there no provision in the legislation referring to the commitments made by the multinationals and no enforcement by the board if the multinationals refuse to live up to their commitments? The only sanction in the Act is a review by Cabinet in four years' time.
We need a definition of research in the Act. No one will know what commitments were made by the multinationals if there is nothing to be a judge or a guide. Of course, with great fanfare, the Minister rebutted the suggestion by saying that this will be done by regulation. I thought that Tory Members were concerned, as they said during the election campaign in repeated pronouncements across Canada, about getting away from regulation. That is why they talked about regulatory reform. Now, when we want to include within the pith and substance of the Act a definition of research, the Government opposite is refusing to accept our amendment.
Can the Government explain why the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada was instrumental in drafting the research and development guidelines, better known as Regulation 2900, for the purposes of the Income Tax Act? How will Canadians be assured that more jobs, growth, et cetera, will be created by this legislation when Canada has the most favourable research development tax incentives of any country in the world but Singapore? How will Canadians

March 31, 1987
Patent Act
know if the Government is spending more by virtue of these tax write-offs than what it alleges will be gained through increased commitments by the industry? It would seem that the two will neutralize any positive growth effects. That is another reason for including in Bill C-22 a definition of research, taking it out of the politically-motivated hands of the Governor in Council.
As has been shown to us by Gallup poll after Gallup poll, Canadians do not trust this group of bandits across the way to somehow represent their interests. Therefore, Canadians need a definition of research in the legislation which is clear and unequivocal as advocated by my amendment.
Members opposite might say that they need more time. They may argue with my definition of research, but the Government has had many months to come up with a suitable definition to be placed in the Act. I am suggesting that the Government does not want to include a definition of research in this piece of legislation because the group which is controlling the Government's agenda on Bill C-22 is composed of multinational corporations. The multinational corporations do not want a definition of research in the Bill.
I know that there are members of the Tory caucus who believe very strongly as do I that this piece of legislation is regressive and does not represent the interests of ordinary Canadians. There are many members of the Tory caucus who believe that without a clear definition of research spelled out in the Bill itself, this legislation will not be effective. The Minister can shake his head all he wants, for many days, nights, weeks and months, but if he is trying to use the backdoor argument that this will be put into regulation, it seems to me that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Government Members were on the one hand the ones who advocated regulatory reform and less regulation, but now on the other hand we are seeing the exact opposite taking place in the legislation.
It was my hope that government Members would see the value of this amendment, not only in terms of how ordinary Canadians view this particular legislation but also in terms of how the pharmaceutical industry views it. By providing a clear definition of research, 1 would think that government Members would be able to send a clear signal to the pharmaceutical industry in Canada and, indeed, the multinational pharmaceutical corporations that there will be guidelines and parameters attached to the word "research".
The Government has done nothing. It has listened time and again to the multinational corporations, to corporate interests from the United States, as opposed to the Canadian industry and the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the four million Canadians who would prefer to have a definition of research in this particular Bill.
The Canadian Federation of Biologists appeared before the committee and was supportive of the Bill. However, when its members found out that there was no definition of research in the Bill, they withdrew their support. These were very
distinguished and reputable individuals who came before the committee to make that presentation. I had hoped that through their verbal communications to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) and others, the Government would have seen fit to include that definition in the legislation.
The Government had already received representations from members of the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Canadian Labour Congress. After hearing from those individuals who are directly involved, the Government should have reasoned that it was time to include this particular amendment in Bill C-22.
I suppose I have several minutes left, Mr. Speaker. How much time do I have? I do not want to overdo it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is one minute over the time he was allotted. However, I think I will give the Hon. Member the courtesy of 30 seconds so that he may conclude. Hon. Members may speak for only 10 minutes at this stage.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I certainly would not want to extend my time, although I know Hon. Members opposite would like to hear what I have to say.
Let me conclude by saying that there is a great deal of support in Canada for research and development. I think it is important that government Members recognize that, notwithstanding the fact that multinational corporations seem to be pulling the strings, Canadians want to see more research and development taking place in Canada. By omitting the word "research" from this legislation, government Members have made the Bill fall far short of the expectations of Canadians and Members of Parliament regarding research.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we must face the fact that when this Bill is passed it will substantially increase what Canadians pay for the prescription drugs they need. Before 1969 we paid the second highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. Since 1969 we have had among the lowest costs for prescription drugs in the industrialized world. That was brought about by amending the Patent Act in 1969 with regard to prescription drugs. That amendment allowed the company which researched and developed a drug to recoup its costs after which generic drug companies could get a licence, pay a royalty, and duplicate the drug. When prescriptions are filled with generic drugs there is a 50 per cent or greater saving than when they are filled by brand name drugs.
We are talking about a lot of money. Professor Eastman of the University of Toronto, who did a major study on this issue in the last couple of years, pointed out that in 1983 Canadians saved S211 million by having prescriptions filled with generic products. This Bill will give the company which develops a drug an extra six years of exclusivity during which time no other company will be able to duplicate the drug or compete
March 31, 1987

pricewise. Dr. Eastman points out that as a result of this the multinational companies which develop the drugs will be able to charge as much as they want and that Canadians will pay a great deal more.
We must keep in mind that because of the revolution which has been going on in the fields of biotechnology and medical research prices for the drugs which have been coming on the market in the last year or so are substantially higher than they had been before. As I said, we are talking about a great deal of money.
Nothing is more important with regard to this Bill than the definition of "research" and what can be done under its terms in this country. Surprisingly, for all its claims about what Bill C-22 will do to advance research in Canada, the Government has chosen not to define "research" for the purposes of this Bill. A number of witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee in support of this Bill expressed their belief that the Bill was deficient in that the term "research" was not more clearly defined. I will mention a few witnesses who made that point. They include the representatives of Cangene, a company which is highly involved in the most modern techniques in biotechnology. The Canadian Medical Association, which has supported the principles of this Bill, made it clear that the term "research" had to be defined. Dr. Gerry Karr, a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Medical Association, made it clear in answer to questions that he believed that the term "research" had to be much more clearly and precisely detailed in this Bill.
Clause 41.25(7) of Bill C-22 reads:
The Governor in Council may make regulations defining, for the purposes of
this section, the expression "research and development".
That leaves the matter up to the Cabinet. This is not a point which the House should leave to regulation. The disadvantages are only too well known on such an important principle of this legislation. Many delegations appeared before the committee, and had the Conservative majority on the committee not imposed a time limit for reporting to the House there would have been many more individuals and groups appearing before it. Almost all of the delegations which appeared before the committee to express their views opposed this Bill.
The only support for this Bill was from representatives of the industry and some of the medical researchers who, looking at the cut-backs in funding which the Government has imposed on the Medical Research Council, on the universities through cuts in Established Programs Financing, and on the have-not provinces through cut-backs in transfer payments, and desperate in their desire to do more research, supported this Bill because of the increased funding they expect will come from the multinational drug companies. However, even they believed it was necessary to define much more precisely what research and development meant.
The Cabinet caved in to the representations of the multinational pharmaceutical companies. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) caved in to the request of President Reagan that we
Patent Act
change our legislation in respect of prescription drugs because-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is false.


David Orlikow: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) says that is false. I cannot think of another reason why the Government would be so determined to proceed with this Bill in the face of the tremendous opposition which has come from nearly all sources. Organizations of seniors, labour, and consumers as well as Keystone Agriculture, a very important farm group in Manitoba, have opposed this Bill. I could continue all day to list organizations which have opposed this Bill.


Charles Joseph Clark: Your assertion is false. You're uttering falsehoods in the House.


David Orlikow: I cannot believe that there is any other reason for the Government to proceed with this Bill except as a result of the pressure which has been exerted by the pharmaceutical manufacturers in Canada and the United States. We are not satisfied to leave the definition of "research" to the Cabinet because we believe that the Cabinet has already caved in to the multinational companies and will continue to cave in. This is not a point which the House should leave to regulation because the disadvantages of not defining clearly what the term "research" means in this Bill are only too well known. Regulation is a hidden process. The legislative statute provision which this Bill provides is an open one. Regulation can be changed by another regulation, often unnoticed but with enormous implications in this case. Regulations allow those with vested interests in regulation to make their case to the exclusion of any broader public interest in Parliament.
We have seen the history of regulatory agencies established to protect the interests of ordinary citizens. Consumers and passengers in the transportation sector, not only in this country, have watched in horror as the regulatory agencies frequently become the defender of the special interests rather than the defender of the people. One need only look at the Canadian Transport Commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I want to remind the Hon. Member that his time has expired. I am sure the House will give him a couple of seconds more in which to conclude his remarks.


David Orlikow: Let me just say in conclusion that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) is commendable in its attempt to make a statutory definition of research. It calls on the Government to account for promising such things as 3,000 high-tech research jobs for graduates, then failing to define just what the research will be for the purpose of Bill C-22. We believe that this makes a mockery of what Bill C-22 is supposed to achieve.

March 31, 1987
Patent Act
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few very short comments on Motion No. 2 which is now under consideration and which would add to Bill C-22 a provision containing a clear and specific definition of the word "research". The motion moved by my colleague the hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) reads as follows:
""research" is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways. New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the re-evaluation of existing observations;"
To me, Mr. Speaker, this appears to be a clear, specific and adequate definition which for many Canadians may indeed be one of the reasons why Bill C-22 must be amended.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains definitions and measures which the Canadian public must be able to understand. It is important that Canadians know that this Bill may have a hard and very direct impact on the price of drugs.
One of the reasons given by Government Members to take action and try to amend the Patent Act is that they want to promote research in Canada, or so they say. According to their statements and their definition, the multinationals would spend close to $1.4 billion-that is 1,400 million dollars-on research in Canada.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal Government commissioned the Eastman report. It was tabled and led to amendments to the Patent Act. In his report Mr. Eastman pointed out that the multinationals had not invested any more than they had to in Canada, that as a rule many of those companies treated our country as a branch plant, if you will, and that very little money was invested in pure and applied research in Canada.
As a result the money of Canadians, the admittedly huge profits of these multinationals end up in foreign countries, mostly in the United States. They are spent on research and development in the United States, so the new jobs are created in the localities where the companies have their head offices. To a certain extent we too benefit from this research, but not from the economic fallout of research work done here in Canada. Now the Government is telling us: Well, you can expect $1.4 billion worth of commitments if we pass Bill C-22. This Government has been making strong statements, Mr. Speaker, but never did the companies make any kind of firm commitment with respect to research. This is why we want to define the word "research" just so people will begin to understand that we aim to ask the companies to carry out research and development projects here in Canada so as to create jobs in this country and boost our economy.
Mr. Speaker, this is all I wanted to say. I suggest it is altogether appropriate and normal that the Government accept to amend Bill C-22 and include a clear and specific definition of the meaning of the word "research", and I commend the Hon. Member for moving this amendment.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak to this amendment. We oppose Bill C-22 because it is negative legislation that is damaging for Canadian people and will result in higher drug prices. This Bill is a result of the cave in of the Government to the demands of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and to the American Government which is largely under the influence of that industry.
We know that we cannot make a bad Bill good by amending it, but we hope that perhaps some amendments can build fences to remove some of the more damaging aspects of the Bill.
That is why we are very anxious to see some definition of research. We do not believe that the amendment moved by the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party goes far enough, but it is still a beginning. We do not want to leave the definition of research to the regulatory process which is hidden away and has no accountability to the House.
Therefore, given the need for a definition of research and that even the Canadian Medical Association in its appearance before the committee stressed the need for a stricter definition, why did the Government not introduce such a definition of research? Why does the Government leave it up to the Opposition to define something as basic to this Bill as that? In fact, in other legislation the Government provides a definition.
For example, Section 2900 of the Income Tax Act defines scientific research for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. Not only does it have a positive definition, it also has a negative definition, part of which I would like to read into the record. It says that scientific research:
-does not include activities with respect to
(d)	market research or sales promotion;
(e)	quality control or routine testing of materials, devices or products;
(f)	research in the social sciences or the humanities;
(g)	prospecting, exploring or drilling for or producing minerals, petroleum
or natural gas;
(h)	the commercial production of a new or improved material, device or
product or the commercial use of a new or improved process;
(i)	style changes; or
(j)	routine data collection.
Such things as market research or sales promotion, or style changes, or routine data collection are not allowed in the definition of research according to the Income Tax Act. I suggest that they should not be allowed in this Bill. But we do not know what is going to be allowed. Why does the Government not come out and say what its definition of research is? I suggest it is clear that the reason the Government rejected the Income Tax Act definition is that the pharmaceutical manufacturers want to include expenditures of this kind in areas such as applied research, market research and style changes. That is simply not good enough.
March 31, 1987

The Government has promised that there is going to be basic research. We have a great many concerns as to whether or not that is really going to happen. Dr. Lexchin has characterized the way in which applied research takes place in the drug industry, and I would like to quote from his comments. He said:
Much of the applied research and development that is carried out by Canadian companies is done for one of two reasons: either to take advantage of tax concessions, or to satisfy the Health Protection Branch's regulations about clinical testing of new drugs. Applied research and development also assumes a highly routine character, which tends to make these tasks unappealing to university scientists. Furthermore, in a profit motivated Firm there is always a latent conflict between an atmosphere of freedom, which is necessary for good scientific endeavour, and the necessity of direction from those who are responsible for the conduct of the firm.
When applied research and product development are the predominant research activities, both the goals and procedures become relatively well defined, and an atmosphere of completely free inquiry is not crucial. These considerations may explain the fact that although the pharmaceutical industry provided approximately 21 percent of the total funds for health care research in 1977, it utilized only 11 percent of the total number of medical researchers in this country in that year.
In other words, the pharmaceutical industry is not oriented toward the kind of basic research the Government would have us believe from some of the comments made by government Members in the debate so far. It is interesting that even the Canadian Medical Association, which has supported the PMAC in its desire to have changes, has said in its brief, and I quote:
It is our opinion that additional measures are required to encourage investment and high quality research ... In order to achieve this goal it will be necessary to define more precisely the term Research and Development as it applies to C-22.
On page 8, the CMA, as one of its three recommendations, adds:
That a precise definition of research and development be established for the purposes of interpreting and administering Bill C-22.
This is from a supporter of the Bill. When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked:
Do you believe that the section in the present draft legislation is deficient, in that it should be much more specific as to what kind of research should be considered as part of the package that the companies have promised, in terms of going to $ 1.5 billion rather than just leaving it to the companies' whim?
Dr. Gerry Karr of the Board of Directors of CME said: "Emphatically yes". For these reasons I would very much want to say that either the definition proposed by my Liberal colleague should be accepted or the definition which is proposed in the later amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member from Winnipeg North, should be adopted. I think it is absolutely essential that we not leave this Bill completely defenceless and open with respect to the question of what "research" involves. We should not leave that entirely to the regulatory process. We as Members of Parliament, representing the people of Canada, should have a say in it.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take time to speak to this motion, which was introduced by my
Patent Act
colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), defining the word "research". I think I should read that motion one more time. The Hon. Member, I might add, has done a tremendous amount of work trying to get legislation through this House that will not destroy our drug industry in Canada, certainly on the generic side, so that we can show some compassion and feeling for our poorer citizens and, indeed, for all Canadian citizens by being able to give them drugs at a cheap and affordable price. The motion states:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 10 the following:
" "research" is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways. New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the reevaluation of existing observations;".
For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Government would try to get a Bill through this House without clearly defining the word "research". I can only think it must be trying to hide something. I have received letters and I am sure every Member of Parliament has also received a number of letters from interested individuals and groups such as senior citizen groups and groups representing the Royal Canadian Legion and all those who would be affected by paying a higher price for drugs if this legislation is passed. I have a copy of a letter written to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) dated November 24, 1986. A copy of the letter was sent to me as well as to other Members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).
We are dealing with the importance of the word "research" being defined in the legislation and not by regulation. I believe this letter is very appropriate to the motion before us today and I would like to read it into the record. It reads:
Dear Minister:
As a long-time member of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada, a former company director and member of the PMAC I can no longer remain silent regarding the issue of drug patent legislation.
Based on nearly 25 years experience in the industry and participation on numerous PMAC committees I can say without hesitation that you and your government associates are being bamboozled and indeed railroaded into a quick decision in the sole interest of U.S. protectionism.
If the legislation you are now proposing is enacted into law this country will be faced with a monstrous increase in drug costs.
This is what a man who has been working for 25 years in the industry and who understands it is saying versus the Minister who tells us there will be no extra costs for drugs. The letter continues:
With rising hospital costs and insurance premiums individual Canadians will have to dig deeper into their pockets in order to provide additional profits for the majority of PMAC members whose head offices are located in the United States. Canadians will gain nothing!
The suggestion that this country will profit from multi-millions of dollars of investment in drug research is ludicrous in the extreme. Less than 5 per cent of new drug introductions over the past several decades have been the direct result of research in the United States or Canada. The great bulk of new drugs

March 31, 1987
Adjournment Debate
introduced on the North American continent had their origins in Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Italy and Japan.
Working through appointed resident research groups every major U.S. company seeks to obtain a license for new drugs as they are discovered in the countries mentioned. These, in turn, are then put into a screening and clinical research process before they ultimately appear on the North American market.
This procedure of screening and testing is indeed subject to high costs and a protracted time schedule due to U.S. and Canadian government regulations but is a far cry from the costs involved in basic research to isolate new drugs. The high costs claimed by PMAC members for "so-called" research-
This is the point at which he brings in the so-called research.
-involves a higher percentage for "clinical research" that should more appropriately be debited to merchandising. This results in highly exaggerated claims that have no relevance whatever to actual research expenditures.
That is why the word "research" should be clearly defined in the Bill.
Three companies alone in Switzerland-Ciba-Geigy, Hoffman-La Roche and Sandoz control a remarkable number of widely used prescription specialties. It is well known that Hoffman-La Roche alone earned well in excess of one billion dollars on the drug Valium which only now has come off the protected patent list. What is more important is that close to 100 per cent of the research and development facilities of these companies is located right in Switzerland. Do you seriously think that these and other PMAC member companies are going to duplicate costly research facilities just to satisfy the Canadian Government and then not raise prices on all drugs? To suggest that Canada's minuscule contribution to Valium profit will encourage greater investment in Canadian research facilities is naive indeed.
The PMAC is interested in the protection of its members. This is first and foremost. It has no interest whatever in seeing Canadians get the best of available drugs at competitive prices. Drugs, like cars, textiles, electronics or food are marketed to make money. The fact that they happen to cure some diseases or relieve pain is incidental. This is the nature of the business and if you and your government can be hoodwinked into believing otherwise then all Canadians must pay the consequences.
As one Canadian who just happens to have been close to the drug scene for many years this is how I see it. I trust and indeed hope that the legislation now in the discussion stage will be abandoned completely before it is too late.
The letter is signed by R. H. Wygant, President of Seawood Estates Inc., Prince Edward Island.
Not I, nor any Member of Parliament, could have outlined the situation any clearer than is outlined in this letter. That is why I thought it important to read it into the record. This letter was written by a man who spent 25 years as a member of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. This is a man who took the time to write the Minister and advise with respect to this legislation. This is a man who understands the industry. He is a man who happens to reside in my province right now, the Province of Prince Edward Island, who understands that it is the province in which the highest number of senior citizens in the country live. This man should be listened to. He is the man who also makes it quite clear that more than 5 per cent of the research that is done on drugs, and prescription drugs of any kind, is done either in Canada or in the United States on what he calls "basic research".
Mr. Wygant is trying to tell us that the American drug laws and the American multinational companies are trying to force
this issue, and very successfully I might add, on the Government at this time. This is a man who is trying to tell us that the only research that will be done will be done in marketing. That is what I suspected when this legislation was first talked about. I suspected that here was a way that the United States, and the large American corporations, could see a weak and vacillating Government in Canada of which they could take advantage. In this way they can move in here and exploit the poor people of this country, the aged, the sick and those on this continent who are less fortunate than probably some of the multinational corporations who are paying their presidents as much as $1 million a year.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental affairs-Clean-up of Niagara River and Lake Ontario; the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger)-Refugees- Imminent death of hunger striker-Government position, (b) Processing of refugee claims; the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins)-Finance-Sales Tax Credit Program- Request for greater publicity.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on Motion No. 2 (Mr. Dingwall) (p. 4745).
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, at long last Bill C-22 is back before the House for consideration at report stage. This Bill, which would change the conditions by which Canada would permit the production of generic drugs, is bad medicine for Canadians. It is bad medicine for our national health program. I note the arrival in the House of the Minister in charge of this legislative catastrophe. I note also that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has been here in the House throughout the initial stages of the debate on report stage of Bill C-22. That is appropriate since this Bill has a lot more to do with the
March 31, 1987

interests of a foreign power than it has to do with the Canadian people.
Earlier, I heard the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) taking wing in a flight of fancy, lofted by the vents of the PMAC poll. She was ecstatic, I suppose because she was surprised that the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association conducted a poll and found out that massive numbers of Canadians are in favour of legislation that will hurt them. She somehow found it within her naive consideration of reality that all of the previous polls, and all of the thousands of names submitted in this Chamber in protest against this legislation, were somehow misled or perhaps a sheer invention.
One searches and has searched repeatedly for reasons for bringing this legislation to Parliament. One of the reasons about which we are certain is of appropriate interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We know the history. Ronnie and Brian got together. Ronnie said: "Brian, come on, man, we have to change this ridiculous arrangement up here in Canada which provides drugs cheap to sick people. That has to change". There are reasons for this, of course. The Government craftily negotiated a trade arrangement with the United States. It had a list of the things it wanted to give up to show its sincerity. We know the history of what has been given up in order to have nice, comfortable, friendly negotiations with the United States. Never has a Government offered so much in order to have another country buy this country cheap.
We could look beyond that for reasons which have been articulated by the Minister for wanting to pass this legislation. He tells us that he has a promise from the multinationals that they will do "oh so much research in Canada", that they will create 3,000 jobs and spend $1.5 billion by 1990-91. There are two notable aspects with respect to this matter. There was the contesting proposal from Eastman that there be legislated in a new Patent Act a mechanism involving increased royalty payments which would provide a stimulus, an inducement, an incentive, for more research by those companies, which have had up until now, it is true, a ridiculously bad record of research expenditures in Canada. That record is even worse than the average among multinational companies in other areas of manufacturing.
Having set aside a reasonable proposal, he has a promise that is not on paper. But the most absurd thing in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that he has a promise for research and he does not even know what it is, or at least there is nothing in this legislation that tells us what it is.
To the multinationals, "research" could mean everything from basic research to studies on whether the pills should be square, round, longitudinal, or hollow.
The amendment before us is intended to help the Minister out. It at least provides a definition which will fit into the provisions for the evaluation of costs, provisions which are supposed to serve the Drug Prices Review Board. As you may
Patent Act
recall, Mr. Speaker, the Drug Prices Review Board is going to look at what the companies are charging and somehow make them adhere to some notion of "appropriate pricing".
We will not talk about how ridiculous that notion is in its fundamentals, but among the costs that are supposed to be included are the costs for research.
One would think that any normal human being, much less a Minister, would have the good sense-and even the Secretary of State for External Affairs across the way is smiling because he knows how ridiculous it is-would expect that this legislation would at least include a definition of research.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment suggested by the Official Opposition that an attempt be made to define research is a good one, and they have taken their shot at it. I want to congratulate them for that. They at least show a little more sophistication than the Minister and the Government whose legislation this is. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the definition is somewhat flawed. Let us examine what it states. It is as follows:
"research" is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways. New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the re-evaluation of existing observations;-
I have been a scientist for a long time, and I can tell you that this is the kind of definition that philosophers attribute to science. There is one notable omission from this definition, and it is that it makes no reference to the fact that science is empirical, that it involves the laboratory. Unfortunately, this definition would involve as "research" history as well.
With deference to my historian colleague to my right, it may very well be that it would be useful to fund research in the pharmaceutical industry so that the Government will remember the situation that existed pre-1969, a situation which would be repeated by this Bill, and it is that the multinationals raped this country in their pursuit of profits, and all at the expense of the ill. The arrangements which were then enacted became a part of a coherent program, providing health services to all at prices they could afford.
But, Mr. Speaker, I know that you are liable to allege that I am not being serious when I suggest that there be the inclusion of history as appropriate research for the pharmaceutical industry, and so, whatever happens to this amendment, I will in fact recommend to you the proposal of the New Democratic Party in Motion No. 43, an amendment which, while it does not define research, certainly prescribes the limits that make it possible to evaluate what the multinational drug companies will be doing in terms of research.
I think that the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, will be that the Minister knows no more about research than he does about the nature of this country, when it comes to the basis of a national health program which provides service to all at an economical cost.

March 31, 1987
Patent Act


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very pleased to rise on the motion introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).
One of the major planks that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has used in trying to market Bill C-22 is that of the research and development spin-offs that would accrue to Canada.
In the legislation, Mr. Speaker, that comes before the House, Canadians-not scientists and not researchers, but Canadians from coast to coast-can identify with the political Party of their choice. The legislation itself helps define the differences between the various philosophies that we see exhibited on the floor of the House of Commons.
Certainly, Bill C-22 is such a piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that illustrates to Canadians the mind-set of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It is a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that underlines the progress that we have made in the area of our health care system and the medicare system of this great country.
Canadians will ultimately reject this piece of legislation. We saw this in the emotionalism contained in the over-all mobilization of the senior citizens across this country when this Government tried to move on the deindexation of senior citizens' pensions.
I am not sure that what we will see in connection with this legislation will match that which we saw in connection with the deindexation of senior citizens' pensions, but it will come close. The Government simply cannot move on such pieces of legislation and not expect feedback from the Canadian electorate.
Going back to the initial response of this Government on the whole question of research, given that the Government is using the research and development argument as the major selling point in respect of this piece of legislation-a piece of legislation which ultimately will be rejected by Canadians-it is disconcerting for Canadians to learn that the Government of Canada has not even taken the step of defining what research means. This is something that goes to the very heart and soul of this legislation. The Government has not even made a commitment to ensure that the moneys that it says will flow from research and development on the part of the multinationals will in fact come about.
The amendment put forward by my colleague is an attempt to get this Government to commit itself to what it means when it speaks of research and development, an attempt to get this Government to ensure that the $1.4 billion figure that it uses in respect of the research and development expenditures that will be encouraged through this piece of legislation is in fact spelled out in black and white for all Canadians.
The Government cannot argue that this legislation will help the average Canadian in terms of drug costs; it cannot argue that this is a made-in-Canada policy. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that this policy is being dictated by the large U.S. multinational corporations. It is something that is being dictated by those south of the border.
The Government cannot argue that this legislation is in the best interests of our nation. Therefore, its only remaining argument is that of research and development; its only remaining argument is to try to show to Canadians how many jobs will in fact be created. But, this Government is not doing that, Mr. Speaker. The Members of this Government are talking about it and using it as rhetoric in their speeches across this country. But when it comes down to showing a commitment in the legislation itself, when it comes down to showing the clarity that Canadians request and require in order to begin to believe some of the things the Government is saying, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has not had the courage to illustrate that its convictions, its rhetoric, have a basis in fact.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that the consumer and corporate affairs critic of the Liberal Party of Canada has tried to tie this Government down in terms of its promises to Canadians. If the Conservative Government is not prepared to be very specific in defining what it means by research and development, if it is not prepared to ensure that there will be a guarantee of the $1.4 billion in research spin-offs, it is removing the very proof that it has tried to demonstrate to Canadians in order to obtain their support for the piece of legislation. If it is removing the entire research plank, why is it continuing to put forward this piece of legislation? If it is not prepared to define its essential argument, which is the guiding light in this piece of legislation, for whom is the legislation triggered or whom will it help?
In my constituency of York West there is no support for the legislation. Last weekend I had occasion to address 400 Canadians belonging to an association of senior citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and affiliated with the Villa Colombo, an Italian senior citizens' home. This piece of legislation was at the forefront of those discussions. It was at the forefront of their concerns, concerns which we as a Parliament must begin to understand and listen to. One would have thought that the Conservative Party of Canada would have learned its lesson with its deindexation legislation.
Government Members thought that they would be able to move on what they thought was a very unorganized, unmobilized, and perhaps passive constituency. How wrong they were. Canadians discovered that the senior citizen constituency was far from being immobilized or far from being dispassionate about issues concerning themselves in a very direct way. This piece of legislation is moulded in that same regressive attitude which characterized their initial legislation on the entire deindexation of senior citizens' pensions.
It is much larger than simply the senior citizens constituency. It gets at the very essence of Canadians who are deserving of drugs. I am not referring to those who can simply afford
March 31, 1987

drugs, but those who in fact need them. Drugs should be accessible to such people. However, if we are to move forward vis-a-vis the accessibility of drugs and the affordability of drugs, we should move in a progressive way which will enhance the accessibility and affordability of drugs for all Canadians regardless of age, income, or background. That is for what the Liberal Party stands for. That is what is behind Motions Nos.
2 and 3 and the long list of amendments we proposed at committee stage.
It is time the Government began to understand where those amendments came from. Essentially, they are not amendments from an opposition Party whose sole interest is to oppose. The amendments reflect the evidence which we heard in committee. The amendments reflect the national constituency out there which is beginning to tell the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government it leads that they are mistaken in their direction, that they are mistaken in the essence of Bill C-22.
Bill C-22 embodies something which Canadians will ultimately reject. Unfortunately, Bill C-22 depicts what it means to be a Conservative, a Tory in Canada. It is our hope and aspiration that these amendments will be accepted, that these motions will be taken in the light in which they are being offered, that is, essentially speaking on behalf of average Canadians who do not want their drug costs to rise and medicine to be inaccessible to them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of Motion No. 2 which is now before the House. It deals with the definition of research presented by the Liberal Party.
I find it very strange that in a Bill respecting research, amending the Patent Act, and abolishing generic pharmaceuticals, there is no definition of research. I find it extremely surprising, coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Why?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will answer the question. I am surprised that the Conservative Party of Canada would leave the definition of research to the Cabinet, to the bureaucracy, and to the multinationals, in effect.
I remember the same Conservative Party when it was in opposition. Time and time again it said to the House, when the Liberal Party did the same thing, that we should not leave the definition of important things to regulation, to secret meetings behind the scenes, to cabinet Ministers, to their bureaucrats and staff, or to vested interest groups, be they corporations or whatever. Also it said to the House that we should have more openness in Parliament and in the country, and more participation by parliamentarians in terms of drafting regulations and defining what we mean by certain legislation which goes through the House.
I could name many pieces of legislation in the last number of years where parliamentarians meant one thing at the beginning and the meaning was entirely different at the end.
Patent Act
When a piece of legislation was passed and it got into the hands of the bureaucracy, regulations were made to define terms and concepts, and its entire meaning was different at the end of the process from what it was at the beginning.
I am really surprised to see the Conservative Party take one line in opposition, and now that it is in government take the other line. Perhaps it is a bit like the name of the Party. It is the Progressive Conservative Party. Its Members are a bit more progressive in opposition and a lot more conservative once they are in government.


An Hon. Member:: Just like the Liberals.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, like the Liberal Party. I see the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) nodding in agreement. He realizes that that is exactly what happened. Once they are in power they become more conservative and more reactionary. They put more and more faith in the bureaucracy.
I see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) sitting in the House this afternoon. When he was in opposition, he protested against power being given to the bureaucracy to draft regulations and power being given to cabinet Ministers to draft legislation. However, now that he is in government, he sits quietly by and, like a trained seal or a little pup, says "aye man aye". When a cabinet Minister says, "jump", he says, "how high?"
I am surprised by these long-time members who used to criticize the Government when they were in opposition for not allowing parliamentarians to have more power. Now that they are government back-benchers, they are afraid to stand and speak their mind. Why do they not have the courage of their convictions to rise in the House and say what they think? Is it because the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine believes that if he does not rock the boat he will be a cabinet Minister some day? Is that the reason? God help us if that were to occur. I will bet that is why he is afraid to get up. He does not want to make big Brian angry. He does not want to make officials in the PMO angry. He does not want to make the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) angry. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is the tsar of Manitoba when it comes to patronage and when it comes to making political decisions for the Conservative Party in that province. He does not want to make him angry.
It is surprising to see these Members, who were so vocal, sanctimonious, and self-righteous in opposition, become toothless tigers or toothless pussy-cats once they are in government. Their fangs have been pulled.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are jellyfish.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are jellyfish. Perhaps one of them would rise to explain why the transition took place. I am sure that it is a real disappointment to their constituents.
Perhaps it is why the Conservative Party is now the third Party in the country according to poll after poll after poll.

March 31, 1987
Patent Act
They have misled Canadians. They are one thing in opposition and another thing in government.
Second, I am really surprised to see the Conservative Party support this kind of legislation that would allow American multinationals and Ronald Reagan and his buddies in the United States to call the tune over what happens in Canadian industry. Where is the great nationalist Party of Sir John A. Macdonald of many years ago which had a national vision that we can do things in Canada ourselves, that we can do our own research and development to develop our great country? Where is the great Party of Sir John A. Macdonald? I suggest it has gone and it is finished.
Where is the Party of John Diefenbaker? If he were here and Prime Minister today we would not have this kind of legislation. He would not have gone to Quebec City in February, 1985, to sing When Irish Eyes are Smiling with Ronnie Reagan and agreed with him when he said, "If you want free trade, then you have to adopt our policy in generic pharmaceuticals". John Diefenbaker would not have agreed to that. He would have stood up for Canada and for cheaper drugs for Canadian consumers and for our senior citizens.
The fact that the Conservatives are not standing up for Canada is another reason that the Conservative Party is now third in the public opinion polls. Conservatives are not true to their traditions or their roots. Soon there will be a rebellion among the back-benchers of the Party. Back-benchers will be more and more unhappy as they realize their Party is going down with this change in direction.
Where is the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, that was there under the leadership of the man from Yellowhead, who was also a strong nationalist when he was Prime Minister for a few months? Where is that Conservative Party? It has disappeared under the leadership of the man from Baie Comeau, who has a vision of our country as a Canada that is a branch plant. It is much like his vision of the business community, when he was a corporate lawyer, being a branch plant of American corporations, when he was head of Iron Ore. He has brought the same philosophy with him as Prime Minister that he had when he was President of Iron Ore and that he had as a little boy growing up on the north shore in Baie Comeau, where many people at that time worked for branch plants and American corporations.
That is not good enough. That is not the tradition of the Conservative Party and it is not Canada. That is why this Bill must be defeated and why people will rally around the New Democratic Party to stand up for their national interest, for the consumers which will defeat this legislation. And in a couple of years we will defeat the Conservative Party as the Government of Canada.
Whenever the Conservative Party gets into power for a few years it destroys its Party for about two generations. It happened with R. B. Bennett in the 1930s. It happened again
in 1958-59. Once the Conservatives are in office they forget about what Canadians want. They try to implement a Conservative agenda which goes against the wishes and the grain of the people of Canada. I call upon the back-benchers of that Party who sat in that position to rise to their feet and say no to cabinet Ministers who are saying, "We want regulations defining research drafted by the bureaucracy, drafted by the multinationals and drafted by the Minister and officials in his office". I say: Stand up and say that parliamentarians should have the right to define what we mean by research in a very important Bill about research and development. That is the tradition of the Conservative Party as it was led in this House by the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), that is the tradition of the Conservative Party as it was led in this House by Mr. Stanfield in 1967 to about 1974-75. Where is that Conservative Party of these hon. gentlemen? The Conservative Party has now become more of the Republican north than the Conservative Party of Canada.
I wonder why all these trained seals are sitting around so shyly. I see the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Van De Walle) here who is anxious to get up on his feet. He will say that politicians should draft this definition, not bureaucrats. He will say that because he has had first line experience in the front lines. He ran in a by-election and won by 200 votes in a seat the Conservatives won by about 30,000 two years ago. He knows how the Conservative Party will be dealt with when the Conservatives face the people in 1988 or 1989. I am anxiously looking forward to the Member from Pembina, the rookie member, getting up and saying that parliamentarians themselves should have the power to decide what we mean by research in a Bill we are passing through Parliament.
I am sure the member is sensitive enough to the needs and the wishes of his constituents to get up and say that right now. Because of that I will sit down. I encourage him to put his colleagues into line.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to shed some intelligent remarks on the Bill presently before the House. We have before us an amendment to the present legislation. Let me read it because members of the Government are not willing to listen to the reason and impassioned plea of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), who has so ably steered the legislation on behalf of the Liberal Party through the committee stages. His amendment reads:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line 34
at page 10 the following:
""research" is exploratory and innovative work undertaken on a systematic basis towards the acquisition of new knowledge in new ways. New knowledge involves the integration of newly acquired information into existing hypothesis, the formulation and testing of new hypothesis or the reevaluation of existing observations;"
Until now accusations have been made by government Members in debate and in committee that somehow the Opposition, by fighting for changes to the legislation, is against the original research and development being done in Canada. Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. In
March 31, 1987

the evolution of the law since 1969 and as a result of Bill C-22 we want to ensure that Canadians, while paying higher prices for their drugs, will have spin-offs in research and development from the funds being allocated.
The difference between the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party on this Bill is clear cut. I admit that. We are in favour and were in favour of amending the 1969 legislation, but only in favour of amending it as it was recommended to be amended by the Eastman Commission. That is the difference between ourselves and the New Democratic Party which has taken the position consistently that there should be no changes to the 1969 legislation.
I refer now to the Eastman Commission. I want to come full circle on this point about the need for original research and development. Professor Harry Eastman was asked by the previous Liberal Government to head a commission into the state of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. I think it is now acknowledged that the Eastman Report represents the state of the art of the knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. Since the 1969 amendment, the Eastman Commission found that the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada's ratio of R and D to sales was no better before the 1969 amendments than it was after. He states:
-the reason for this is our "branch plant" economy and that R and D in Canada will never be at high levels due to our small domestic market and due to the fact that historically multinationals perform innovative R and D in their home country.
The major reason that the Eastman Commission decided on the basis of the study to recommend only that the pharmaceutical manufacturers be allowed an amendment to the 1969 legislation was to allow only a shorter period of time for exclusivity on any research and development on any products introduced after the legislation is passed. If there was a desire on behalf of Canada to increase the R and D levels to allow our university graduates an opportunity to pursue their professional interest in a career for which they have studied at universities, he stated the following. He said that that ought to be done on the basis of a revolving R and D fund which would link the level of R and D done by pharmaceutical manufacturers in Canada to a period of exclusivity that would make it worth while for those companies to do R and D in Canada. That is why at the very beginning we in the Liberal Party set forth our position. We wanted to indicate to the House that we were prepared to allow amendments to the 1969 legislation but we wanted to ensure that Canadians' pocketbooks would be protected and that the goal of increased R and D could be attained. What disturbs the Liberals about Bill C-22 is that, in our opinion, there is no clear-cut protection to ensure higher levels of R and D in Canada, the object of amending the legislation.
As has been pointed out by speaker after speaker, the legislation has given a period of exclusivity to the multinational pharmaceutical industry that is too long, and it does not give
Patent Act
enough protection to the consumers. That is why members of the Liberal Party want to amend it, and I hope members opposite would listen. We have argued this consistently in committee and I believe that there is a genuine desire on the part of members of the Government to have higher levels of R and D in Canada. If this is so, we must ensure that there is a proper definition of research and development in the legislation. Otherwise, we will find that over the next decade, Canadians will be paying much higher prices for drugs but there will still not be a corresponding increase in R and D levels in Canada.
I submit to the House that without a proper definition of research and development, the multinational corporations will call product development research under the terms of the legislation. That will not attain the goals Eastman wanted to attain for university graduates. That will not attain the goals of the scientific community. That will not attain the goals of the universities.
As I have travelled across Canada I have spoken to deans of pharmaceutical universities about the future of health care in Canada. I have spoken to deans of medical schools and scientific colleges. I have listened carefully to their impassioned plea, one that I share, for a climate in Canada that would allow increased R and D activities, thus ensuring that the next generation of graduates will have an opportunity to use their knowledge in a field that is useful for all of mankind.
Without a proper definition of research and development, I believe that there will be very little original research and development taking place in Canada. Consumers will ultimately pay a higher price for drugs. I question the Minister's ability to defend his contention that this Bill will not add to the cost of drugs. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry is aware that over a long period of time, a higher price will be paid for drugs by Canadians.
Opposition Parties are not voting against this proposed legislation because we are somehow against more research and development into new cancer drugs. It is not true that if we are against this legislation, we are against new, innovative products being introduced, products that would save Canadian lives. It is far from that. I am indicating that if we are to change this law, and I believe it should be changed, let us ensure that we word the amendments and the motion so that we will end up with what we wanted in the first place, a reasonable change to the 1969 legislation that would ensure a level of R and D that would lead to a viable scientific and pharmaceutical industry and to innovative products. Without that, this legislation is wrong.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words about Bill C-22 at this rather critical stage. I must admit that I am a bit surprised that the Bill has reached this stage. As the Minister, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) will know, for days and days, in fact for many

March 31, 1987
Patent Act
months, the people of Canada have actually spoken out in this Elouse individually. They have signed their names to petitions that have come from every province and territory in Canada telling the House of Commons just how they feel about Bill C-22. I would like to take a moment to read the wording of many of these petitions which are addressed to the Honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled:
WHEREAS, the federal government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and,
WHEREAS, the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an on-going basis, and
WHEREAS, the proposals of the federal government will result in higher costs to the provincial government drug plans, and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes are another example of Canadian government concessions to the United States, at the expense of average Canadians, in the Free Trade negotiations,
WHEREFORE, the undersigned, your Petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
My colleagues and I have risen day after day, week after week, month after month to present hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of names of individuals from every community in Canada telling the Government to stop this madness and start treating Canadians as they ought to be treated. The petitioners are telling the Government to stop picking on those people who require prescription drugs, the elderly, the sick, the people who face all sorts of difficulties. Now the Government is planning to literally increase the cost of living borne by these individuals. There is no question about that. If anyone believes that having a monopoly on a new drug without having any competition will make that drug available at the lowest price possible, then that person will believe that there are pink elephants floating around in the House of Commons as well.
I wonder why the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) are not on their feet speaking strongly against continuing with this legislation. They might say that they disagree with the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have registered their concerns in Parliament because they are interested in all the new research this will create. Let us look at some of this research that is being proposed. During the committee meeting, various witnesses, through access to information, found that the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had done its own research into these new jobs that would be created. We heard that some of the new positions that would be created would be for clerks, animal keepers, cleaners and managers, not the scientific research staff the Minister has commented on time and time again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What is an animal keeper?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom), asked what an animal keeper is. Animal keepers would presumably keep the pens of animals that are being used for experiments. They are people who will be raising rabbits. That is what the Minister calls research people. These are the new professional scientists who will be raising chickens and rabbits for various experiments. That is not what we ought to be encouraging.
The Government is cutting back on research and development. University presidents across Canada are complaining about the brain drain. They are saying that the best researchers in Canada are required to move to universities or centres of research in other parts of North America because of the atmosphere in Canada. Even in terms of research, there is a problem.
If there is a critical element to this legislation, it has to do with the whole matter of research. It is only reasonable that one asks what the Government means by research. Does it mean the people who will be keeping the cages of animals clean? Does it mean the clean-up crews which will be working in the offices and research facilities? Who does the Government mean? We look carefully to the legislation to find the definition of research and find that it is not here. This is a critical piece of legislation with regard to a very critical matter, yet there is not a single line defining research.
I want to remind members of the Government that when they were in opposition they lived in fear that if anything in legislation was left open to interpretation the Cabinet could define whatever it wanted as research. It is important to have predictability and consistency so that people opening new research facilities will know precisely what the Government means when it says "research". We must have precision and accuracy in order that people can plan for the future. Good scientific policy is not built by leaving it to the whim of Cabinet. For that reason we have proposed a motion which attempts to define research.
In my conversations with people involved in the pharmaceutical industry I have been told that most of the research which will be done in Canada will be marketing research, finding new ways of packaging and marketing prescription drugs, rather than good, pure scientific research into new ways to defeat cancer and other illnesses facing people today.
My good friend, the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), presented a motion as follows:
That Bill C-22, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 6 to 9 at page 25
and substituting the following therefor:
"(7) The Governor in Council shall make regulations defining, for the purposes of this section, the expression "research and development" which shall include the following criteria:
This is the very critical point:
(a) all expenditures made under the requirements for a notice of compliance for phase one and phase two of clinical trials;
March 31, 1987

The reason for that is obvious. I do not think I need expand on that because I think all Members of Parliament are well versed in phase one and phase two of the various clinical trials. The motion continues:
(b) all expenditures made for laboratory and preclinical work which lead to a notice of compliance;
Again, 1 think that is perfectly clear. The motion goes on with the following important element:
but shall not include
(d) all expenditures associated with the marketing of the medicine including all direct and indirect marketing schemes by patentees."
In other words, if the Government's idea of research is to find new ways and means of packaging prescription drugs, finding new colours for packages and deciding whether to use certain kinds of cellophane for the exterior of packages and so on, that is not what parliamentarians suggest ought to be called research. Yet, there is nothing saying that that will not take place. As a matter of fact, most people knowledgeable about this Bill say that that is exactly the kind of research that the various companies have in mind.
The motion which we are presently discussing is an attempt to express in a clear and concise way that Bill C-22 will support only research that will be defined in this legislation. However, that definition is absent. Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, would have confidence that the Cabinet would identify research appropriately, but I am not certain that the rest of us have that same confidence. That is not necessarily a reflection on this Cabinet. We have concerns about future Cabinets as well. If we are serious about scientific policy and scientific research, we ought to include a definition in this legislation as is attempted by the motion before the House.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to deal with a couple of issues, one being the definition of research with regard to this Bill. As Members of the House ought to know, the definition of research for income tax purposes is established under regulations pertaining to the Income Tax Act. When a company declares its expenses, research expenditures are defined according to the Income Tax Act. I do not know how any reasonable Member of the House could suggest that a different definition than that in the Income Tax Act could be proposed in a way which would allow meaningful assessment of the amount of research that a company does and aggregates. We have commitments from the industry that 10 per cent of sales will be directed toward research.


David Orlikow: What kind of research?


Mr. Andre:: Research as defined by regulations under the Income Tax Act, the same regulations as apply to research in every other area of endeavour. Research has a definition which is established there.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What about market research?
Patent Act


Harvie Andre: Market research does not qualify as research under the regulations of the Income Tax Act. That is a bogeyman which has no basis in fact. In fact, none of the hypothetical situations which the Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) talked about would be acceptable under the Income Tax Act as research.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why don't you put it in the Act then?


Harvie Andre: To have two different categories of research, one in the Income Tax Act and one in this Act, would make it impossible to make the kinds of comparisons which we all want to make. Once a year we want to have the report of the Drug Prices Review Board showing the amount of research that can be used for comparison purposes. The industry has made the commitment that after four years of application of this Bill it will have reached a certain level. We want to be able to have those figures on a meaningful basis.
In his opening remarks the Member for Kamloops- Shuswap said that thousands of Canadians, the majority, everybody, is opposed to this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Tens of thousands.


Harvie Andre: I would like to read-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You need a new pollster over there.


Harvie Andre: They do not want me to be heard. I can understand why.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Tell us about it.


Harvie Andre: In a scientific poll 1,200 Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Is this research?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is for freedom of speech except if it is a speech from this side of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We never hear any.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That's blarney.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Read The Globe and Mail, Harvey.


Harvie Andre: The question that was asked, Mr. Speaker-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) on a point of order at 30 seconds to five o'clock.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members will give the Minister an opportunity to expand upon a poll which was

March 31, 1987
Message from the Senate
conducted and paid for by interests in Washington, Philadelphia and New York, so that he can expose to Canadians the real reasons why this legislation is being put forward today when the poll was released yesterday. We will give him an opportunity to explain.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister has the floor to conclude.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the poll was taken by a Canadian company, Decima Research. The question that was asked
was-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Ms. McDonald that Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: We heard about it yesterday.


Harvie Andre: They do not want to hear, Mr. Speaker. The House Leader leaves. They do not want to hear. If I had to choose between lower drug prices-

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-49, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall,
Ottawa
March 31, 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Judge Puisne of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 31st day of March, 1987, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program
It being 5.02 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in today's debate on this very important subject outlined in Bill C-204.
Smoking kills over 300,000 Canadians every year. It is the single most common cause of health problems in our society today, and it is preventable.
Before becoming the Member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre, I had the pleasure of serving as the Chairman of the Public Health Board for the City of Scarborough. During my term of office the board began drafting the by-laws for the City of Scarborough. I am very pleased to say that today those by-laws that were being drafted to promote non-smoking and encourage a healthy life-style are now in effect. The Scarborough Council recently passed a non-smoking by-law that all civic offices are now smoke-free and local establishments are subject to defined non-smoking regulations.
While there has been a recent decrease in smoking, the trend toward increased smoking among young people, especially women, is really quite discouraging. In addition to the two out of five Canadians who are smokers, there are many more involuntary passive smokers.
These people suffer many of the same health effects as smokers. Tobacco smoke irritates eyes, impairs lungs, aggravates the respiratory system, and increases blood pressure. It can also lead passive smokers to greater risk of lung cancer and one recent study showed that non-smoking spouses of heavy smokers had twice the risk of developing lung cancer as spouses of non-smokers.
Cigarette smoke contains over 50 known carcinogenics. In fact, if the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke were taken out and dumped somewhere, they would be outlawed by the federal Government's new Environmental Protection Act. Two of these chemicals come under the classification of the Dangerous Substances Safety Standards which say: "No exposure or contact by any route, respiratory, skin, or oral, as detected by the most sensitive methods shall be permitted to these chemicals".
Non-smokers exposed to smoke are at as great a risk as smokers. A non-smoker in a smoke-laden room will inhale as
March 31, 1987

many of these carcinogenics in one hour as a smoker smoking 35 filter tip cigarettes.
Smoking in the workplace not only causes health problems but economic problems as well. Smokers take more sick leave than non-smokers. Smoking affects the morale of workers as well. In a recent survey by the Canadian Journal of Public Health eight out of 10 respondents stated that they experience physical discomfort in the presence of second-hand smoke. Lost productivity and wages due to smoking add up to over $5.5 billion every year. That is a drain on our business community and on our economy as a whole.
Comprehensive non-smoking policies which include smoking cessation programs have been implemented by Health and Welfare Canada, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Auditor General's Office, the National Research Council, the Public Service Commission, and Statistics Canada. These programs provide a model for several other federal Departments that are currently developing a smoke-free work space.
Most provincial Ministries of health have enacted some nonsmoking restrictions and several are providing support to community initiatives to reduce smoke in the workplace.
I am very pleased that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has recently proposed a new air regulation to ban smoking in Canadian aircraft for both domestic and transborder flights of two hours or less. The flights between Toronto and Ottawa are certainly much more pleasant.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has done some advertising aimed at discouraging smoking. The most recent is the Break Free campaign which is targeted at young people. This is a component of a federal, provincial and territorial initiative, the national program to reduce smoking. Moreover, there are campaigns sponsored by non-governmental organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung Association. A number of these organizations receive government funding for their campaigns to promote a smoke-free society.
What is the future? Given current trends, a number of directions are expected. In the matter of claims of non-smokers and smokers' rights, the trend toward according greater attention to the rights of non-smokers can be expected to continue and be extended.
Second, in the aspect of health, enhanced efforts at informing the public about the illnesses attributable to smoking and encouraging the adoption of healthy life-styles can be expected, with children and young people as major target groups.
Third, with respect to safety, it can also be expected that efforts to protect the public from the hazards from involuntary exposure to smoke will be enhanced, especially in the workplace and in public transit vehicles.
Finally, efforts to develop ways to assist those involved in the production and marketing of tobacco to switch to new enterprises in order to offset the economic losses caused by the
Non-Smokers' Health Act
declining market for their product are expected to continue over the long term.
Although the federal Government has already taken steps in addressing these issues, it plans to do more and is currently studying new initiatives with a view toward adopting a more comprehensive and health-oriented policy on tobacco. That is why it supports the spirit and the essence of this Private Members' Bill which attempts to reduce tobacco consumption and protect the public from involuntary exposure to tobacco.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the Private Members' Bill introduced by the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). The legislation proposed in Bill C-204 would regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers other than in designated smoking rooms. Smokers in contravention of its provisions would be subject to a maximum fine of $50. Employers who failed to provide a smoke-free working environment would be liable to a maximum of $10,000. The employers envisaged by the Bill would include not only the federal Government but also Crown corporations, contractors operating under the Canada Labour Code, the Senate and House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and individual Members of Parliament.
The legislation also attempts specifically to regulate smoking on aircraft, ships, railway cars and motor vehicles which are governed by federal legislation, and it is this aspect of the Bill that I wish to address.
With respect to smoking in the workplace, I know many other Hon. Members have had a chance to speak on the subject, but as a non-smoker myself, I applaud the efforts I know my colleague has been making for so many years to encourage non-smoking throughout Parliament Hill and in our offices. It is happening. I see it around me every day. I go into committee rooms which are non-smoking. I go into conferences which are now non-smoking. The message is certainly getting across.
Before dealing with the issue of smoking on common carriers, I would like to make it clear that I am fully aware of the dangers associated with tobacco smoke to both users and non-users. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes) pointed some of those out in her previous speech.
If I have some concerns with the specific legislation prepared by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, it is not because I disagree with her broad objectives, which are admirable, but because I think her strategy for attaining them, particularly with respect to common carriers, is costly, perhaps impractical at this point, and in some cases possibly even counter-productive. The Bill makes smoking, and in the case of an employer the failure to prevent smoking in a non-designated area, a criminal offence.

March 31, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act


Ms. McDonald:: Not so.


Mary Collins: Not so? I appreciate the information. That was the way we read the Bill, but it is certainly an offence for which there are the fines which have been indicated.
I think the problem we would still find in trying to implement this in the case of common carriers is the fact that it would be costly to try to enforce, and in the case of common carriers such as ships, enforcement would be pretty difficult at this point in time. Transport employees who provide direct service to the public often share their workplace with the public, and in large airports, ports, railway and bus stations, with private users of the facility. Those who operate the means of transport, pilots, ships crews and truck drivers, perform most of their duties in quarters which, under Bill C-204, would constitute work spaces. Depending on the particular situation, in some cases they are now indeed separate places. A truck driver usually has a cab and a ship's crew, depending on the kind of ship, will have a separate place. It might or not work out depending on the make-up of the crew in that particular kind of operation.
The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) spoke recently on this Bill and she had similar concerns. She dealt with some of the details of the problems associated with regulating smoking on common carriers and in transport terminals where the employees share their work space with the public. She also outlined the many voluntary self-regulating initiatives which have been undertaken by employers in the carrier industries. I am sure all Hon. Members present today are aware that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has published in The Canada Gazette for public comment before March 3, the regulations he would like to impose on smoking on passenger aircraft. As indicated, this would apply to flights of less than two hours. I think that is certainly a very laudable effort. I know that Air Canada has already initiated this ban on some of the shorter flights. I certainly appreciate that. I hope it is extended and receives public support. I believe from the indications we have received so far that the non-smoking flights have been accepted by the public, but it is being done in a gradual and progressive way.
The problem of regulating smoking in operational work spaces in all aspects of the transport sector would not perhaps be quite as easy to deal with. While the federal employer may reasonably require employees who smoke to be subject to certain restraints during normal working hours in buildings and workshops, since they are free to smoke once they leave and can be provided with designated smoking areas, operational staff do not enjoy the same liberty. I might just say that I support the Hon. Member's initiatives with respect to the concept of having separate smoking areas to which employees can go if they must have a cigarette.
The Coast Guard fleet, for example, spends more time at sea than alongside, and it would not make either legal or common sense to impose unilaterally a ban on smoking aboard Coast Guard vessels. The crew are at home when they are not on
duty and should be entitled to the same sort of freedom on their own time as are land-based employees. In circumstances such as these, the only practical approach to resolving conflicts between the wishes of non-smokers and those of smokers is a co-operative one. Differences must be dealt with in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding when people are confined to small areas for lengthy and often stressful periods of duty.
The issue of smoking and non-smoking has a long history which goes back at least to the time of James II. As far as I am aware, it has yet to be resolved. A careful study of that history suggests that persuasion has always worked better than fear or punishment as a modifier of private behaviour and a catalyst for good interpersonal relations.
I agree with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre, that the major emphasis should be on prevention. As we know, the biggest group which is still attracted to smoking are young teenage women. I am a mother of a teenage girl and we have often talked about this particular issue. As she says, everyone is going to try smoking at some point or another. It is part of growing up and part of experimentation. A lot of it relates to peer pressure and what is acceptable within a group. It seems to me that through advertising on television, through promotion in magazines and books which teenage girls read we can get the message across. I know the kinds of books teenage girls read and the message imparted is that smoking is not the smart thing to do, that we do not need to smoke to be acceptable to our peers or to be grown up. Indeed, it has the potential of a real hazard to your health. I think we could be more creative than we are now in trying to deal with that particular part of the problem.
I would like to see a much more concerted effort with respect to the prevention side of smoking and some reasonable measures with respect to the rights of smokers and nonsmokers in public places and private offices, recognizing that harsh penalties are not the way to bring about those changes.
In conclusion, while I agree with the spirit and objectives of the Hon. Member's Bill, I do not support it in all its details. I think it will make an important impact and progress towards the ultimate objective I believe most Hon. Members share, that of diminishing the amount of smoking and the costly impact of smoking on the health of Canadians.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise happily to participate in the debate on Bill C-204, the legislation introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I have listened very carefully to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Scarborough-Centre (Mrs. Browes) and the Hon. Member for Capilano I thought those interventions were thoughtful. I would like to confess that I am perhaps the only smoker who has participated in this debate thus far.
Smoking has a very long tradition, having begun several centuries ago. It is a habit that provided some pleasure to a
March 31, 1987

population whose life expectancy was somewhat shorter than it is today. In fact, what has happened is the discovery that as conditions of health and the environment have improved in most respects over the years, people have increased their life expectancy. Indeed, people have lived long enough to discover that some of those things that we had become used to can affect our health very seriously.
Up until now the condemnation of smoking that I have experienced has been from my wife who complains about my yellow teeth, and from my barber who tells me that my gray hair is coloured by the smoke of the cigarettes I smoke. But my wife has taken a rather more deliberate and critical examination of my habit, limiting me to certain rooms in the house, conscious that it is not just a question of a filthy habit but a dangerous one, a habit that certainly should not be encouraged. It is an addiction. There can be no doubt about that. It is an addiction that is shared by a great many Canadians. Roughly one-third of Canadians smoke. They spend something in the order of 1.2 per cent of the Gross National Product on their habit. I should say it is we smokers who spend that amount of money. It is an interesting figure because it turns out to be just about the money that we spend on scientific research.
When one considers the over-all cost of the health system and so on I think it can be fairly claimed that with the amount of money that tobacco smoking costs the population, Governments are more than enough compensated for the needed expenditures required by the country in the area of scientific research. Some 30,000 people die-and I note here that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre, suggested that 300,000 people died per year from smoking. I am not even sure that that many people per annum die; but certainly 30,000 people die as a result of indulging in the habit. Increasingly, evidence demonstrates that approximately 1,000 people become victims of indirect smoking. Thus we are faced with the reality that an increasing proportion of the population which condemns smoking are being affected by it and want to see the habit eliminated. That includes many smokers. I must confess I have a compact with my son that will determine in specific terms when I will have to take hold of the issue and abandon my $3-a-day habit.
When one considers all of the issues involved, when one considers the costs involved, and when one considers the discomfort caused to non-smokers there can be nothing clearer in terms of what should be done if we are to take a significant step forward in improving the state of the health of the people of Canada. Undoubtedly, the single most important step that we can take would be to pass legislation such as that tabled by my colleague. Parenthetically, I say that my colleague has been an effective educator in this respect.
Whatever we may want to consider with respect to caveats, whatever we might want to take into account with respect to the situation of the smoker, the emphasis must be on the nonsmoker and the termination of this habit which has the dimensions of a national habit to so many. It may well be that
Non-Smokers' Health Act
as the Hon. Member for Capilano has indicated, there has to be a great deal of care in drafting the final form of this legislation. I agree that in committee, perhaps, it will be necessary to take into account that if we are to solve this major problem we also have to in some measure take into account the great difficulty involved in imposing sharp and rapid change upon a certain portion of the population which by and large consists of people who have grown up smoking. But these are details. I see no proper place in this debate for examining very closely those details because the principle of this legislation is clear. If we are to change the smoking habits of the nation, if we are to provide the single most important change in respect of improving the health of Canadians, then this legislation should gain the support of the House.
Let us remind ourselves of what it would do. It would have the Government do what it could easily do itself by virtue of introducing legislation. I think it is unfortunate that it was necessary that a Private Member provide the initiative that the Government lacks. Essentially, what this Bill would do is to amend the Hazardous Products Act so that tobacco would be classified under that Act as a hazardous product. This would provide for the regulation of advertisement, importation, sales and so on of tobacco products. It would have the effect of ensuring that tobacco products be clearly labelled to be dangerous to one's health.
I must relate to Hon. Members an experience that I had just recently. I was trying to chose, as a smoker, a package of cigarettes that had a low tar and nicotine content as compared to others. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, would say that that is a silly exercise. But, after all, I am a victim. I could not read the label. It was not a question of looking at this item, smoker or not, and having provided to me a clear indication that this is a dangerous substance. It was impossible to determine anything that was written on the label. Certainly, if anything, it is elementary. What could be more elementary than making it clearly known to all who would engage in the habit, or might be tempted to engage in the activity, that tobacco, cigarettes, are a dangerous product to one's health?
This Bill would also provide a guarantee to workers that they would be able to work in a smoke-free environment. What could be more elementary than that? Surely, it is necessary to make arrangements to let down softly those who are addicted to nicotine. That is a detail. But there can be no doubt that this House ought to pass a Bill-and I hope the other place will give its consent-that there should be provided to all of those working under federal jurisdiction, whether they are standing still, moving across the sea or through the sky, a smoke-free environment. Travellers on common carriers ought to be provided circumstances in which tobacco smoke will not be either an irritant or a threat.
So this is a Bill that is simple in its premise. It is clear in its purpose. Its justification is abundantly found in the danger that tobacco smoke poses to me, to other smokers and to those

March 31, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
who must breathe the air that I create by virtue of my bad habit.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, as a smoker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Bill before the House. 1 admit that smoking can be dangerous. Any sensible person will understand that. For instance, if you eat steak three times a day, it might not be very good for your health either.
Mr. Speaker, cigarette smoke is not only bad for the smoker's health but also for that of non-smokers. More and more Canadians are starting to realize this. Scientific findings on side-stream smoke were recently published in a report by Everett Koop, the U.S. Surgeon General, who discussed the effetcs of side-stream smoke on non-smokers.
Tobacco smoke contains particles and gaseous products which in turn contain more than 60 substances that may cause cancer and other diseases. According to the Surgeon General's report, the smoke from the burning end of a cigarette contains more toxic products and cancer-causing substances than the smoke inhaled and exhaled by the smoker. In fact, many studies have concluded that the risk of lung cancer for the non-smoker is increased by 30 per cent as a result of exposure to side-stream smoke.
The combination of smoke produced by a lighted cigarette and the smoke exhaled by a smoker puts the lives of these involuntary smokers at risk.
When parents smoke, it increases the risk of complications during the pregnancy, including low-birth weight and a higher rate of stillbirths. The children of smokers are also more prone to bronchitis and pneumonia than children of non-smokers. Upper respiratory infections are more frequent and there is also a grater risk that they will get some kind of cancer later on.
Mr. Speaker, in a recent report on the environment on board aircraft, the U.S. National Academy of Science identified the danger of the effects of smoke in aircraft and recommended that the U.S. Congress considerer prohibiting smoking in aircraft and on public transit. In a subsequent report, the Academy also concluded that the risk of lung cancer was increased for non-smokers when they were exposed to tobacco smoke. Similarly, the Academy indicated that children exposed to side-stream smoke were more likely to get upper-respiratory and lung infections.
From scientific research on smoking and the health of nonsmokers, we can draw three general conclusions:
"Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, among non-smokers.
Children of smokers suffer more frequently from respiratory illnesses and symptoms compared with children of nonsmokers. The lung capacity of children of smokers develops at a slower rate.
Separating smokers from non-smokers on the same premises may reduce but does not altogether eliminate the problem of exposure to side-stream smoke."
Now that the Canadian public is becoming informed of the dangers of smoking and the risk incurred by passive smokers, it has been urging many changes with respect to the use of tobacco products in public places.
Across Canada, smoke-free public places, work places and public transit are being designated. Municipal and provincial Governments as well as labour and management are working very hard to change policies on smoking in closed premises.
The smoker's rights are questioned when smoking increases the risk of disease for those occupying the same environment. Today, our Government is subsidizing non-governmental organizations such as the Canadian Lung Association and the Canadian Cancer Society which are actively promoting a smoke-free society. In fact, these medical and public health interest groups play a very important role in changing the attitude of society to smoking, and that is why we intend to continue to support their efforts.
Furthermore, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) recently proposed a new regulation prohibiting smoking on domestic and transborder flights of two hours or less on Canadian aircraft. Most major Canadian cities are setting restrictions on smoking in public places and are gradually adopting increasingly stricter bylaws in this respect. For instance, one bylaw put into effect recently in Vancouver has restricted the number of areas where smoking is allowed in most public buildings in that city, including office buildings. If people working in an office are unable to agree on the issue of smoking at work, the office automatically becomes a nonsmoking area. Smoking is also prohibited in taxis, retail stores, at service counters and in line-ups.
This year, Quebec also adopted legislation restricting smoking in public places. It is the first provincial legislation of its kind. The Quebec legislation consists of two components: the first prohibits smoking or restricts smoking to certain designated areas in Government buildings, hospitals, educational institutions, public transit and many other public buildings. In the second part, municipalities are empowered to pass additional bylaws in this respect within their respective jurisdictions.
In Canada today, several transportation modes, one province, 40 municipalities and thousands of work places and public places have adopted policies to protect non-smokers from side-stream smoke. This is a social trend that is becoming increasingly widespread and will bring us ever closer to the ultimate objective of a great many Canadians, namely that Canada will be a smoke-free country by the year 2000!


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the debate on Bill C-204, standing in the name of the
March 31, 1987

Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), and to speak in favour of this Private Members' Bill.
We often hear stories in respect of those who smoke. One time someone said that if God wanted us to smoke, he would have put chimneys where our heads are. I agree with those who say that smoking is not natural to the human species. In fact, when we really think about it and consider the nicotine and charcoal taken into our bodies, we can imagine that they are not very good for our health.
There was a time when we thought that smoking made us more confident. When we were young we put cigarettes in our mouths, lit them up, and thought that it gave us a certain ambiance, confidence, or grown-up approach to life.
We now know differently. All the evidence is in. There is no doubt. It all points to the fact that smoking is a definite health hazard, not only for those who smoke, but for the innocent, those who do not smoke and are in the presence of smokers.
Bill C-204 is an eminently wise Bill. What does it do? First, it bans promotion and advertising of tobacco. Second, it gives Canadian travellers the right to smoke-free air on common carriers. Third, it guarantees in federally regulated operations that workers have the right to smoke-free work sites.
Bill C-204 has support. The list of its supporters is indeed very impressive; very impressive groups and individuals support the enactment of the Bill. The Canadian Cancer Society supports it. The Lung Association supports it. The Canadian Medical Association supports it. Other regional health groups support it, such as the Manitoba Medical Association and the Medical Society of Nova Scotia.
Many Hon. Members who have spoken so far support the Bill. Previously we heard a colleague who is a smoker support the Bill. Unions representing workers support the Bill. I have in my hand a letter dated March 25, 1987, and directed to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood. It reads:
Dear Ms. McDonald:
You can count on the support of the Airline Division of CUPE for Bill C-
204.
I will be in Ottawa on April 9 and could meet with you to discuss how the
Airline Division of CUPE may contribute further to help Bill C-204 become
law.
It is signed by Richard Nowlan, Division President of Local 4004 of CUPE. I recall sitting many times in the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration when it considered amendments to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code concerning occupational health and safety. When we considered changes to that part of the Canada Labour Code, we gave workers the right to refuse work in conditions which they considered injurious to their health.
There is a grave concern in the workplace in respect of all the new untested chemicals which come on the market. Workers may not know the contents of the chemicals or what their effects will be on their health. There is a consciousness now, and efforts are being made to ensure that the contents are clearly identified. In fact, workers can obtain from computer
Non-Smokers' Health Act
systems instant information about chemicals in the workplace and their health implications. That information is available to them.
All the evidence is clear on this one particular substance. It is a killer. However, we have not moved to ensure that workers can work in an environment free of second-hand smoke or the effects of smoking themselves.
We have not had the courage to follow up on what we now know is a danger to human health. We have not moved on it. The Bill would move us in that direction. No reasonable worker who would say that cigarettes are a dangerous substance would say that the Government should not ensure the health of workers on the job. It is something for which workers and their representatives have been fighting in provincial and federal labour legislation to ensure a healthy working environment.
I should now like to deal with tobacco advertising because the Bill would in fact ban it. I suspect that the Government from time to time has shown a reluctance to move on banning tobacco advertising and to encourage Canadians to give up smoking or not start it. It is a trend today that Canadians at a younger and younger age are developing the habit of smoking.
I think the Government has become dependent upon tobacco usage, upon smoking. It has been reluctant to give up the smoking habit because it sees it as generating tax revenues. In every Budget since I have been around the House cigarettes have always been the favourite target. With every penny increase in the tax on cigarettes, the Government becomes more and more dependent upon income from tobacco.
As a matter of fact, the revenues collected by federal, provincial, and territorial Governments from tobacco sales amount to $3.03 billion per year. Of course the Government does not recognize that it is offset by costs in health care services.
The matter was brought home to me when I took a heart attack last summer. When I arrived at emergency in the hospital, the first question asked was: "Do you smoke?" When I said "no", there was relief on the face of those attending me.
We must think of the health care costs, the costs in absenteeism, and the costs in fire damage. They are estimated at $8 billion. The Government should recognize the false economy- approximately $3 billion are collected in taxes but over $8 billion are paid out in costs. The Government has everything to gain by phasing out and trying to encourage Canadians to quit the smoking habit.
The third area in the Bill concerns the right to travel in a smoke-free environment. I can only come to Ottawa by air, train, or bus, and I must be here. When I do so, I am trusting that the bus, plane, or train will be driven safely. My health is in the hands of those conducting the system. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I have no protection from second-hand smoke. As a matter of fact, you can smoke in the rear seats of buses but the air gets circulated to the front of the bus.

March 31, 1987
Royal Assent
SO)
I think it makes a lot of sense for travellers on common carriers that airplanes, trains, and buses be smoke-free, I want to urge Members of this House with all the vigour that I can to support Bill C-204 because it is wise and healthy to do so.


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, one of the purposes of Bill C-204 is to regulate smoking in federal workplaces. The employees in these buildings and facilities are or will soon be subject to the Canada Labour Code which is administered by Labour Canada. Therefore, I want to take a few moments of the time of the House to elaborate on the provisions found in the code relating to occupational health and safety.
The Canada Labour Code consists of a number of parts of which Part IV is of interest to the House at this time. Part IV of the Canada Labour Code applies to federal works, undertakings and businesses and certain Crown corporations, and provides for the occupational safety and health of the employees of these establishments. Specific examples of federal works, undertakings and businesses include the federal Public Service, banks, radio and television stations, railway shops and grain elevators. When the code is extended to apply to operation of trains, aircraft and ships in the near future, it will apply to the employees in almost all the workplaces where the proposed Act should and would apply.
The purpose of the code is to prevent accidents and injury arising out of or occurring in the course of employment to which the code applies. It achieves this by requiring the employer to ensure that the safety and health of every person employed by the employer is protected while at work.
The Canada occupational safety and health regulation issued pursuant to the code prescribes the minimum standards that the employer must meet in order to comply with the code. Part X of the regulations addresses dangerous substances. A dangerous substance is defined as a hazardous substance or a chemical, physical or biological agent that because of a property it possesses is hazardous to the safety or health of a person exposed to it. Part X requires that when there is a likelihood that an employee may be exposed to a dangerous substance, the substance must be identified and its exposure quantified and compared to a permissible limit. Tobacco smoke contains literally thousands of potentially dangerous substances. They range from simple substances such as carbon dioxide to the more dangerous poisons such as carbon monoxide. Packages of American cigarettes specifically warn the smoker of the carbon monoxide hazard.
Under the Canada Labour Code, if a non-smoker were to complain about being exposed to the tobacco smoke from a colleague, the exposure of the non-smoker to specific constituents of the smoke would have to exceed the established permissible limits before it could be determined if the employer is in violation of the code. If the worker were exposed to more than the allowable concentration of a specific compound, the employer would be required to reduce the exposure to
acceptable values or face a fine or even imprisonment. The fines under the code vary depending upon the severity of the contravention and range up to $100,000 where the contravention results in the death or serious injury of an employee. The maximum prison term is two years for a wilful contravention which results in a death or serious injury.
The code also permits employees to refuse to work if they have reasonable cause to believe-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but we have someone from the other place.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable The Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-49, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1988-Chapter No. 11.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day. It is March 31, 1987. That may not mean an awful lot to you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, as you think about it, perhaps all it means is that it is the end of the month of March. Perhaps you are thinking that it is pay-day. I suspect there might be a ray of light which brightens you at that thought.
March 31, 1987

However, while it may not mean an awful lot to you, to the five million or more people who inhabit the area around the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, it is a red-letter day because today and from now on there should be less toxic chemicals going into the water they drink than there has ever been before. Today marks the end of one year of sampling. From April 1, 1986, until March 31, 1987, there was sampling of the water in the Niagara River for the purpose of establishing a base point over which we hope the quality of the water which people drink from the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River will improve.
This is in accordance with a declaration of intent which was signed by four parties: Environment Canada, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It was signed a short time ago with the purpose and intent of ensuring that from now on the toxic pollutants which are going into the Niagara River will be reduced by 50 per cent by the year 1996. In order to monitor that and ensure that it does happen, that declaration of intent calls for reports to be issued to the public every six months.
That is extremely important because it appears that real progress has been made at last in cleaning up the drinking water in Lake Ontario, the Niagara River and the St. Lawrence River. It is important because Canada and the United States have been talking about doing this since 1919. It is important because the chemical dumps on the American side of the Niagara River-particularly those infamous four, Love Canal, Hyde Park, S area dump, and the 102nd Street dump-have been described as the world's largest storehouse of deadly dioxin. It has been leaking into the Niagara River for some time.
This agreement is important because just one two-hundredth of a drop of the worst dioxin, which is 2,3,7,8,-TCDD, can kill a person. Only a shovelful of that dioxin dropped into Lake Ontario could destroy the drinking water of Lake Ontario for all time.
It is also important because we know that the deadly dioxin is leaking out of the dumps along the Niagara River, particularly the Hyde Park dump, where it has been identified as seeping down the face of the gorge right into the river. There are some 900 kilograms, almost a tonne, of that kind of deadly dioxin in the Hyde Park dump alone.
This agreement is important because we know that there are some 70,000 tonnes of other chemical wastes, most of which we have identified as cancer-causing wastes, in that Hyde Park dump alone. It is important because recently, near the mouth of the Petit Flume storm sewer located in Tonawanda, New York, they have identified that deadly dioxin in clams. We know that in this sewer alone is a chemical-laden sediment that would cover a football field to a depth of one metre.
Adjournment Debate
This is an important step and that is why it is such a red-letter day for the people who live around Lake Ontario, the Niagara River and the St. Lawrence River. In spite of all this good news, there are some questions still to be answered. That is why I am delighted to have the Parliamentary Secretary here tonight to answer some of those questions that people have been asking.
For instance, why has the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States not designated these dumps under the American Super Fund legislation? Why has the Occidental Chemical Company that controls and owns these dumps on the American side of the Niagara River spent money to help clean up the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union but is not spending money to clean up the chemicals which they themselves own in our own backyard?
Will those chemicals be excavated and the toxic material removed and destroyed, or will there only be some containment plan to try to keep it there on site? Why, in spite of this declaration of intent and the target of reducing by 50 per cent the flow of toxic chemicals into the river, will 4.5 tonnes of pollution still be going into the river every day, even with these clean-up targets?
When will the 45 Ontario industries and the 53 United States industries that are currently polluting the Great Lakes be cleaned up? When will the 10 Ontario hazardous waste sites and the 105 U.S. hazardous waste sites around the Great Lakes be cleaned up? When will the 32 Ontario municipalities and the 81 American municipalities that are still dumping sewage and polluting the Great Lakes be cleaned up?
Those are answers the people of Canada want to know and I am looking forward to getting those answers from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) and to acknowledge his enthusiasm for environmental issues, his search for answers and the need for certain measures to be taken. Tonight I will be elaborating on the question brought to the attention of this House by the Hon. Member on February 3. That was in relation to the international declaration of intent relating to the Niagara River Toxic Management Plan.
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), I am pleased to provide the Hon. Member with details of that declaration, signed with Mr. Lee Thomas, administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Jim Bradley, the Minister of the Environment for Ontario and Mr. Henry Williams of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The occasion of this signing, I might add, was a very successful three day international symposium on toxics in the Niagara, jointly sponsored by these four environmental agencies and held in Toronto.

March 31, 1987
Adjournment Debate
This declaration of intent, which was toasted at the time of signing with pure water, is a statement of political will and commitment of the four jurisdictions to reduce the loadings of toxic chemicals entering the Niagara River by 50 per cent over the coming decade. In order to accomplish this goal, the four governments are committed to undertake and complete all the activities defined in an all-party Niagara River Toxic Management Plan which was released on October 30, 1986.
This plan is a technical document which describes specific work activities and schedules for completing these activities which we agreed to undertake jointly and individually. The plan will be updated and a revised version will be released in July, 1987. In addition, the declaration of intent also requires the four jurisdictions to review and publicly report on the state of new and emerging technologies to protect the environment from threats of hazardous waste landfill sites. The emphasis will be on such techniques as excavation, removal and on-site destruction of contaminated materials. At all chemical dump sites, excavation, removal and destruction will be considered an option.
The signing of this declaration constitutes the result of fruitful negotiations between the four governments and marks our will to offer a healthy and clean environment to every Canadian.


REFUGEES-IMMINENT DEATH OF HUNGER STRIKER-(A) GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) PROCESSING OF REFUGEE CLAIMS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) announced that the Chileans blocked by him in Argentina were not refugees, that none of those people were refugees, my reaction was not to believe him. I did not believe him because I had personally spoken to a number of Chileans in Montreal who had arrived recently and who were seeking refugee status. They were people I would consider to be refugees. For instance, there was a lawyer who had worked for the Church in Chile and had been arrested several times. He finally decided to leave his country because he feared for his life.
There was a truck driver whose friends had taken part in demonstrations and who was therefore implicated through his association with these people. He too feared for his life and decided to leave his country. In the group in Montreal, at least among those I spoke to, there are people I consider to be refugees because I felt their stories had the ring of truth.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said a few weeks ago that no one in Argentina was a refugee, I reached the conclusion that his assessment was not credible and that at least some of these people had a legitimate claim.
If the Minister had said that 20 or 25 were refugees, maybe half, I would have thought his assessment was credible. But when he says that no one is a refugee, I protest.
Since that time the facts have confirmed my feeling. Last week, the Quebec Minister of Immigration, after evaluating about 50 people, reached the conclusion that at least 10 of the people in question were in sufficiently precarious circumstances to be admitted to Quebec on humanitarian grounds. The Minister asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration to review those cases. I would like to point out that only those who asked to be allowed to settle in Quebec were evaluated by the Government of Quebec.
Then, Mr. Speaker, what has been the response of the Minister of Employment and Immigration? He says he is puzzled about the various assessments. You will admit Mr. Speaker that the Minister is disarming by naive. This confusing situation would justify a form decision on his part. He may have 56,000 assessments, Mr. Speaker, but the only one which really matters is his own, because he is the one who may admit these refugees in Canada. He is the only one who decides whether or not they have the right to enter this country.
Such a decision being so crucial and final-for this people it is a matter of life and death-it is imperative to ensure that those who are seeking refugee status may do so with a minimum of legal protection.
This is why recommendations made to the Government in recent years have been unanimous. People are asking for an independent, neutral and impartial procedure. Department of Immigration officials should not be expected to decide the fate of refugees because their responsibility is to administer the Immigration Act. These applications should be examined by people who are expert in refugee matters, and the Department of Immigration should not have anything to do with the whole process.
When applications are filed abroad .. . For example, the Chileans who have made headlines in recent weeks, who have been detained in Argentina, left stranded in Argentina by the Minister, these people in foreign countries are often in a predicament, separated from their families, facing an official who may not feel much sympathy for refugees, they have no access to legal advice, they have absolutely no right to appeal, they are at the mercy of the Minister of Immigration and his officials.
I therefore urge the Minister to admit that the refugee determination process in foreign lands has serious drawbacks. The Government should repeal the shameful measures imposed last February 20 and set up a compassionate and fair treatment system for refugees.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the Hon.
March 31, 1987

Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) on March 4, 1987.
On March 12, 1987, the Government decided, for humanitarian and compassionate reasons, to bring three wives and their children to Canada to join their husbands. The Minister's permits were issued, and they arrived at Mirabel on Saturday, March 14, 1987.
As for the remainder of the group, each has been interviewed by our officers at the Canadian Embassy in Buenos Aires. They have also been seen by a Quebec immigration officer.
On the basis of their interviews, our foreign service officers had initially concluded that none of the group fled Chile for reasons of persecution; rather, they were coming to Canada for economic reasons. However, we have received additional information from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' representative in Argentina, and it is the conclusion of the Canadian officials that two persons have valid claims to be Convention Refugees.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees provides information and advice, but it is only the Canadian Government which can decide the validity of a refugee claim from someone seeking to enter Canada.
Under the Cullen-Couture Agreement with the Quebec Government, the Quebec Immigration Minister, Louise Robic, has the legal means to bring to Canada, as independent immigrants, any of the Chileans in the group remaining in Argentina.
Mme. Robic announced on March 30, 1987, that the nine Chileans granted permission to enter Quebec shall be processed as independent immigrants, including standard medical and background checks, before they can be brought forward. The remaining Chileans can, should they wish to do so, apply to the Canadian Embassy to determine whether they can meet the selection standards for immigrants other than Convention refugees.
Canada remains open to genuine refugees from Chile. However, many of the people coming from that country recently using the in-transit route have in fact been economic migrants or family class applicants joining relatives here. These people must be dealt with in the normal way and must not be allowed to short-circuit the immigration system, or jump the queue.
Canada has an ongoing immigration program from Chile. Last year, 453 Chileans entered the country under regular immigration programs. Canada has an outstanding record with respect to receiving refugees from Chile. Since the fall of the Allende regime in September, 1973, Canada has admitted 16,735 people from that country.
Adjournment Debate


FINANCE-SALES TAX CREDIT PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR GREATER PUBLICITY
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) reminded us that it was March 31, and he did so because he had a particular interest in that date. What I want to speak about today also reminds me that it is March 31, which means that tomorrow we are into the month of April, by the end of which we must have our income tax returns filed. Now is the time to be thinking about preparing our income tax returns.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) about the federal sales tax credit that was introduced in the February 1986 Budget. This is a terrific program. Its purpose is to take into account the increase in federal sales tax while making sure that lower income Canadians are not penalized.
Because it is a new program, I have found that a lot of people who are eligible for it do not know about it. For that reason, I should like to take a few minutes to explain what the program is.
It is a tax credit program, and under it those with an income of less than $15,000 would be eligible for a tax credit of $50. For a family whose combined income is less than $15,000, a husband and wife who were living together as of the end of last year would be eligible for a tax credit of $100, plus $25 for each child.
This is a significant amount of money for lower income families, and we want to make sure that those who are eligible receive it. The point is, in order to get the credit, one has to file an income tax return. There are a number of people in this category whose incomes are such that they do not ordinarily pay any income tax and therefore do not file an income tax return.
I should like to refer to what was brought to my attention in my riding of Capilano. Senior citizens whose incomes were basically their old age pension, and perhaps the GIS, who do not ordinarily file income tax returns may not know that this year they should do so because they are probably eligible for the $50 credit. We want to make sure that people know about it.
Another category which has been brought to my attention is that of students. Every Canadian 18 years of age and over who is eligible and has an income of less than $15,000 should be filing an income tax form this year in order to obtain the particular credit.
I asked my question on March 25. I was pleased that the Minister of National Revenue in his usual way immediately issued a press release the next day-and I hope it has been well covered in the media-reminding people to claim their tax credit.

March 31, 1987
Adjournment Debate
As he said in the particular press release: "This tax credit is of particular importance to low-income Canadians, many of whom would not normally have to file a tax return". He emphasized that in order to claim the sales tax credit, a tax return must be filed.
That is the message we want to ensure that we get across. I hope all Hon. Members of the House will make the effort, through press releases and householders to their constituents, to ensure that the message gets out.
There is another point I want to raise because it was brought to my attention. There is some concern about people who have never filed tax returns. They are not used to it, they might be scared about it, and they do not know where to go for help. First I would advise them not to go to tax discounters. I was very pleased with the legislation we brought in last year to limit the role of tax discounters. It is not worth it, because there is help out there.
In my own riding of Capilano, British Columbia, I have worked with north shore seniors' groups and the information centre. In particular, the north shore health and information service provides volunteers to help seniors fill out their income tax returns. This is probably true across the country. There are many volunteers who will go to the homes of senior citizens and be in community centres to help with tax returns.
I was delighted by an article which was brought to my attention. It indicated that this kind of service was being offered by the Department of National Revenue. The particular project in Sydney, Nova Scotia seems to be an ideal one. I hope it is done right across the country. In the article Mr. Ross Crewe, Public Relations Manager for the Sydney District Office of Revenue Canada, talked about a program where Revenue Canada recruited all sorts of volunteers in the community to help people prepare their tax returns. If someone phones up, they will send a volunteer to the homes of seniors to help them. It does not have to be a scary kind of situation. It has some 70 volunteers in Sydney working out of a store-front office, so it is accessible. People do not have to climb a lot of stairs or go into a government office, which might be a little scary.
I should like to refer to some of the comments of people who have used the service. A gentleman, Mr. John Briand, said:
They say filling out the form is simple but it can be complicated . .. The
volunteers know just how to fill it out, and it's a lot easier for them to figure-
Kristene Brown, a University College of Cape Breton student is not taking any chances. She said:
I wanted to make sure I'd get it done right.
She had gone for that kind of help too. That kind of help is available.
I urge low-income Canadians-and we expect that 75,000 Canadian families will be eligible for the federal sales tax credit-to make sure that they get their forms in. If by chance they miss out or know of someone who has missed out, they will have a chance even after the end of April this year. They
will have three years within which to claim the credit. Of course, $50 in the hand is better than $50 waiting out there.
I encourage the Minister, his Department, and all colleagues to make extra special efforts this year to ensure that Canadians are aware of this excellent program which the Government has put in place. It shows our care and compassion for Canadians who are having to make do on lower incomes.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I respond to my colleague's question of March 25 regarding the public awareness of the federal sales tax credit. I commend her for her ongoing concern and compassion on behalf of all Canadians.
As you are no doubt aware, some four million Canadians can benefit from this Government initiative. I would like to assure all Members that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) is energetic in promoting and informing Canadians how to claim this valuable credit.
The federal tax credit is progressive. It permits eligible Canadians to receive a fully refundable credit of $50 for themselves, an additional $50 for their spouse and $25 per qualified relative. Not only is this a progressive measure by virtue of the fact that it is refundable, this credit is sensitive to the needs of low-income Canadians and gradually diminishes as a taxpayer's income increases. This credit is designed to help achieve the Government's objective of tax equity.
Department personnel have been mobilized across Canada to promote the availability of this credit through the Department's volunteer program, a program that assisted some 85,000 low-income tax filers last year. Positive results of their efforts are recorded in numerous news articles, articles which themselves stress the importance of filing a tax return in order to claim the federal sales tax credit.
The Minister of National Revenue recently issued a news release reminding Canadians of the eligibility criteria for this credit. In addition, the Minister will shortly be issuing a letter to all Members of Parliament and Senators urging them to publicize this credit in their constituencies. An article explaining the credit and how it is to be claimed will be enclosed with the letters so that Members of Parliament and Senators can provide copies to community papers and community groups right across Canada. I urge all members to use this opportunity to reach out to their constituents.
Not only has this Government introduced a progressive tax measure with this credit, we are conscientiously promoting the credit with those very Canadians for whom it was introduced. I would stress, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the remainder of the tax filing system, the Department will continue to explore all available channels for publicizing this important new credit.
The Minister believes that most Canadians who are eligible for the federal sales tax credit are aware of how to claim for it in their tax return. But, I want to remind my colleagues that
March 31, 1987

there are provisions in the Income Tax Act for claiming this and other credits in future years should an individual overlook the availability of a credit this year. This provision gives tax filers up to three years to make claims that they may have missed.
I appreciate this opportunity to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the steps being taken by Revenue Canada, Taxation, to ensure that Canadians take full advantage of this new refundable credit.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 6.39 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, April 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers