1987-05-06

Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Abitibi- Temiscamingue area was ranked first in Quebec for job creation in 1986. A major economic survey of the progress made by the Quebec labour market in 1986 has brought to light findings which are both unexpected and new. Contrary to what usually happens, the major urban centres such as Montreal and Quebec City did not show as much dynamism last year in the area of employment as such remote regions as Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, there is a shameful incident in the record of Canada's treatment of former prisoners of war that needs to be rectified.
Some 22 former Canadian servicemen, including seven Newfoundlanders, one of whom is now deceased, during the Second World War were held as prisoners in a Vichy France prisoner of war camp in Laghouat, Algeria. One of those prisoners, Mr. Jim Templeton of St. John's, was held for a total 472 days.
In 1976 the Parliament of Canada passed the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. Since 1976 these 22 Canadians have been unable to receive from their Government compensation as Canadian prisoners of war. The reasons given are confusing. The Government argues that in order to receive compensation one had to be held by a country engaged in activities against the Allies.
Since the Government and, for that matter, the Allies never formerly declared war on Vichy France, these 22 Canadians, including six Newfoundlanders, have never received adequate compensation. I bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues. It was well exposed on CBC's Sunday Morning this weekend past.
In 1986, Montreal and Quebec City lagged far behind outlying regions as far as job creation was concerned: their growth rates were 1.8 per cent and 1.6 per cent respectively, which are far behind those of 9.2 per cent and 7.3 per cent recorded in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean respectively.
A positive fact is that the unemployment rate has come down in most regions. In the Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean areas, the decrease in unemployment has reached 2.3 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively.
On the other hand, the full-time employment growths have exceeded the Quebec average of 2 per cent, reaching 10.9 per cent and 7.4 per cent in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean regions respectively.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of these accomplishments. Thanks to our businessmen, various groups in the economic sector and the efforts of all federal and provincial elected representatives, the working men and women in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Lac-Saint-Jean regions will no longer come last in the Province of Quebec.


I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) will move swiftly to ensure that these gentlemen, some of whom died trying to escape that camp, will finally receive justice and the compensation to which they are entitled as Canadians who served their country in very difficult and extreme circumstances.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in late 1986 Texaco announced it wished to drill some test sites within the Canadian section of Georges Bank. In

May 6, 1987
recent weeks this matter has been made more urgent with the announcement by the U.S. Interior Department of a five-year offshore drilling plan for test wells on the American side of Georges Bank.
Georges Bank is a prime fishing area. Atlantic fishermen recognize the potential environmental damage to this sensitive area which can be wrecked by offshore drilling. They are organizing to ensure that this is not allowed to happen. Nova Scotia New Democrats are supporting the fishermen. Bob Levy, our fisheries critic, presented a resolution to the Nova Scotia Legislature on March 31 which reads:
Therefore, be it resolved that this Government state categorically that it will press immediately through its representatives on the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Oil and Gas Board for a permanent moratorium on any drilling for oil and gas on Georges Bank and that it will work to have the Georges Bank declared a National Marine Park by Environment Canada as soon as possible to allow for commercial fishing but no offshore drilling.
I call upon the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to proclaim a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Georges Bank area until the feasibility of establishing a National Marine Park is thoroughly studied, and to protest American plans to drill in such a sensitive area. Now is the time for the Canadian Government to act.


NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, from May 3 to May 9 of this year, we are celebrating National Forestry Week in Canada. Forestry is a vital part of our economic and social life and has enormous impact on our lives as Canadians. Canada is the world's leading exporter of forest products, 22 per cent of the world's total, an incredible $16.2 billion worth of products in 1985.
In Alberta, forestry is an important source of employment. There are 1,200 jobs directly generated by the forest industry in Edmonton alone.
This week I am proud to be able to host the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) when he visits the Northern Forestry Centre and the Alberta Forestry Centre. This will be a wonderful opportunity for Edmontonians and Albertans to become more aware of the potential of forestry and its impact on their lives. It is one of the keys to economic diversification in Alberta.
Canada and forestry are synonymous. We all have an obligation to ensure that we protect this natural resource, and that we use it wisely.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, victims of the Government's slashing of research and development spending continue to surface long after the dirty deeds are done. The most recent corpses are over 600 students who will find themselves without jobs this summer because of a 25 per cent cut to the budget of the Undergraduate Student Research Awards Program funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
These awards provided university and industry labs with funds to hire students to do research, to obtain valuable work experience and, hopefully, to go on to graduate study. Everyone except the Government knows that you cannot have more science and technology without people. If we cannot do anything else, we have at least to get young people interested in science.
I call upon the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) to provide funds to NSERC so that it can restore this program to its previous level and provide students with real summer job experience, and get back to providing Canada with the scientific talent that it so desperately needs.


ENVIRONMENT MONTH
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, to mark the beginning of Environment Month our Conservative Government supports the initiatives taken by the Fondation quebe-coise en environnement which is sponsoring a wide information and education campaign on the importance of protecting our environment. Ever since it first came into office our Government has always been leading the way in all matters related to environmental protection.
This is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) and the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) have assured foundation members that they would make a generous contribution to a special Broadcast entitled "Pour I'avenir du monde, je m'implique", a three-hour environmental presentation to be aired at 6.30 p.m. on May 24 over the Radio-Quebec TV network.
Mr. Speaker, once again our Government has unreservedly endorsed the Environment Month campaign theme, "Pour I'avenir du monde, je m'implique". I urge all Quebecers, particularly my constituents of Chambly, to pay special
May 6, 1987

attention to environmental protection during this National Environment Month.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, as one reads the analyses and the recommendations of the World Commission on Environment and Development headed by Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Brundtland one gets the feeling that much of what we do around here amounts to a form of fiddling while Rome burns, or of having the planet disintegrate around us.
I want to make this point because I think that many who are now concerned about the economy should be concerned about the long-term effects of not paying attention to the environment, both in terms of the intrinsic value of the environment as well as the extent to which our economy is based on a healthy environment. We need to abandon the narrow bookkeeping to which all of us are addicted which pits short-term economic deficits against long-term environmental deficits, which may not be able to be repaid and which, in the end, will be profoundly economic deficits as well as environmental ones.
Might I also suggest, more for the benefit of government back-benchers, that we will not be able to solve a great many of these environmental problems if we are committed to allowing the market-place to be the final arbiter of what is done and not done in the name of economic development.


NATIONAL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, since this is National Business Week, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the performance of the regions, and more particularly the region where the riding of Lotbiniere is located, with respect to job creation in 1986.
In fact, a major study on labour market developments in Quebec tells us that the Mauricie-Bois-Francs region is one of three that have shown remarkable growth in employment. This area ranks third with an employment growth rate of 6.6 per cent. The in increase in full-time jobs La Mauricie-Bois-Francs was 5.1 per cent, 3 per cent above the provincial average.
This progress is the result of the perseverance, active involvement and know-how of the entrepreneurs in this region,
and I think performances like these should be given the attention they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention more specifically the progress achieved by entrepreneurs in the eastern part of the riding of Lotbiniere, with respect to job creation, and I would urge all those who are active in businesses in my riding to help support this upward trend.


FINANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the two and a half years that this Government has been in power, it has promised the earth and the moon to the people of Greater Montreal. However, despite the Government's catastrophic failure to help Montreal East in the Gulf refinery question, even after three committees, the de Cotret Committee, the Picard Committee and the CREM Committee for Montreal East were set up and three reports were published, the Government has yet to take any action.
The Government of Quebec is still waiting for this Government to locate the space agency in the Montreal area. Second, it expects a real banking centre, not just a night wicket. I would urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to wake up and follow through on the commitments made by his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the people of Montreal.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 1986, I convened a local public conference for residents of my riding of Don Valley East to discuss and learn about the vile types of pornographic material which are so widely distributed and easily available today.
Sergeant Wendy Leaver of Project P of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force made a thorough presentation depicting violent pornography, much exploiting young children, on video tapes and in magazines.
Almost 100 residents attended this meeting. They were shocked and almost numbed by the devastating, crude and violent scenes depicted. The mood changed to anger when they realized that we have inadequate laws on the books to prevent this type of material from eroding our morals and the very fabric of our society.

May 6, 1987
Oral Questions
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Elnatyshyn) is to be commended for presenting tough new legislation which will make it illegal to import, sell or rent materials defined as pornographic, and illegal to possess child pornography. The basic freedom of expression of Canadians will remain protected by defining a limited class of materials to be prohibited as pornography.
I urge all those who see this Bill as a crude and needless intrusion by public authority into private morals at least to take the time to view and read the sickening material which is available today. If the import and distribution are not curbed through tough legislation, the current material will have a cancerous effect on the future of our society.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer congratulations to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and teachers of British Columbia for their fight to improve education in British Columbia.
The B.C. Teachers' Federation has, for almost 70 years, been a vigorous supporter of students, teachers, and education in B.C. It has carried on this fight in recent years against one of the worst provincial Governments in Canada.
The NDP caucus wishes to congratulate and support the B.C. Teachers' Federation and B.C. teachers for their struggle against Bill 20 and Bill 19, two pieces of legislation which destroy the rights of teachers and working people in the Province of British Columbia.


SUPPORT URGED FOR MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS RESEARCH CAMPAIGN
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, multiple sclerosis is a disease which primarily strikes young people in the prime of life. We have known for over 100 years what the symptoms are and, even though 50,000 Canadians are afflicted with it, we still do not know what causes MS. Recent discoveries by scientists such as Dr. Kenneth Warren, a Canadian, have put us on the verge of finally determining the cause of MS.
As honorary chairperson of the Restigouche Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, it was my pleasure to participate earlier today with MS officials in presenting a carnation to every Member of this House. The carnation symbolizes the ongoing fight against MS. Despite the significant strides that have been made, the shortage of funds, particularly at this
important stage, has been discouraging to many multiple sclerosis researchers.
I urge the Government and all Canadians to make May, 1987, the best fund raising month on record for MS research so that this insidious and costly disease can be eradicated for all time.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) has in hand a report dealing with the fact that Government red tape, especially at the federal level, is causing small businesses very serious problems.
Since September 1984, this Government has been making a lot of studies-study after study-and we are still awaiting the Government's policy on the development of small businesses which generate the majority of jobs in Canada.
I suggest Mr. Speaker, the time has come to get out of school, to show where they stand, to show leadership and to assure our Canadian entrepreneurs that the time is right for eliminating or dramatically reducing Government red tape, that is causing serious problems for our Canadian entrepreneurs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question today must be for the Deputy Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is touring western Canada, he should be reminded that compared with the start of this decade youth unemployment in western Canada has skyrocketed.
The youth unemployment rate is up 50 per cent in Manitoba compared with 1980. It is up 78 per cent in Saskatchewan. It is up 81 per cent in British Columbia. In Alberta, where the Prime Minister visits today, the youth unemployment rate is up 157 per cent from the start of the decade.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister say now when the Government intends to introduce its national youth strategy which the Prime Minister promised the young people of Canada during the election, or does he really think that photo opportunities in
May 6, 1987

western Canada will be a substitute for finding jobs for young people and the youth of the western Canadian provinces?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the national unemployment rate has fallen from 11.7 per cent to 9.6 per cent since we have assumed office. The youth unemployment rate at the same time has fallen from 18.3 per cent to 14.8 per cent.
I must remind the right hon. gentleman that unemployment is down in every region of the country. There still are some pockets where there needs to be some substantial improvement, and western Canada is one of them.
Clearly that is an area we are addressing. It will be addressed under western diversification and indeed under the Atlantic Opportunities Program which we will be announcing shortly.


John Napier Turner: I am very interested to hear that the Deputy Prime Minister feels that Alberta is a pocket. I might say to him that the unemployment rate for young people in Alberta and British Columbia is something about which he and I ought to be jointly more concerned than the reply of the Deputy Prime Minister.


OPENING OF STUDENT EMPLOYMENT CENTRE IN MOOSE JAW
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Prime Minister will have a photo opportunity later this week at the opening of the Student Employment Centre in Moose Jaw. 1 might say that that takes real nerve, because the Government is cutting $2.3 billion from post-secondary education, spending per student is 18 per cent lower than it was a decade ago, and university student employment centres were cut by 30 per cent last year.
Will the Prime Minister use his visit in Moose Jaw to reverse the Government's short-sighted policy in restricting support for post-secondary education and for youth employment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who flies over Alberta, I visit Alberta on a regular basis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he were to look at the statistics, he would know that under the Challenge '85 program some
101.000	jobs were created and that under Challenge '86 some
93.000	will be created, a substantial improvement over the previous Government's record.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: I venture to say that I have been in Alberta almost as often as the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Check it out. Since the last election I have taken 36 trips to western Canada, including 49 communities outside Vancouver. That is a fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I cannot remember when the Prime Minister was last in western Canada.


An Hon. Member:: You have a short memory; he is there today.
[ Translation]


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, not only are half a million young Canadians unable to find jobs, but close to 200,000 Canadian students will not have summer employment this year.


INQUIRY WHY FUNDS FOR STUDENTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED
John Napier Turner: My
question is this, Mr. Speaker: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why again this year the Government has reduced student program funding by 15 per cent, particularly with respect to summer employment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the right hon. gentleman might want to define to the House what he means by "almost as often". I think that would be a rather interesting comparison as to the number of times he has been in Alberta. That is not to say there are not serious problems out there. Our Government is addressing them.
The Right Hon. Member's allegation that funding has been reduced is not correct. Challenge '86 was funded at $180 million and so was Challenge '87. Last year $30 million was provided by the census. It was not part of Challenge '86. It was part of a separate initiative by the Government.


John Napier Turner: You switched the census and put it back.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The right hon. gentleman, if he has such a great interest in western Canada-I have not really heard any constructive suggestions coming from that side of the House. Members over there are great at criticizing and knocking programs that we have brought forward. There is a clear recognition and there is a clear response.
Oral Questions REFUGEES

May 6, 1987


SCREENING PROCESS-PREPARATION OF LIST OF SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration. The Government has been wimpish in its bilateral dealings with the strong nations of the world. Yesterday it had to show its macho image by beating up on genuine refugees who are nationless. One of the serious flaws with the legislation is the creation of a safe third country list which will determine who can or cannot enter the system.
Why did the Minister establish two pre-screening officers when they do not have discretionary authority to consider claimants coming from a so-called safe third country? In addition, can the Minister inform Canada and this House whether our allies, the United States, which deports both Guatemalans and El Salvadorans, and Great Britain, which deports Tamils, among others, will be on or off such a list?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the first step is not a pre-screening. It is a first step to a claimant's right to demonstrate whether he has a personal fear of persecution. There are objective criteria that a claimant has to meet, but there is also another safeguard where, even if there is a shred of evidence that the individual has a fear of persecution, he or she will be directed immediately to step two which is the oral hearing in front of independent members of the refugee determination board.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DELETE TWO PROVISIONS FROM PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the political and diplomatic pressure on Cabinet will be overwhelming. How can the Minister guarantee, as he did last night, that no genuine refugee will be turned away? It is a guarantee that he simply cannot give.
Given that the safe third country list is a dangerous concept and does not recognize new world uprisings, and that prescreening is a barrier to the refugee board, would the Minister agree to scrap these two elements from his legislation and, therefore, allow a refugee claimant to go immediately and directly to the new refugee board? What is the use of having a new system if you cannot get to it?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we must provide a safe haven for those that need one. If the individual already has a legal status in another country, if he has lived there a reasonable length of time and could have sought protection, we will be seeking to ask him to return, assuming that the country has an exemplary record on human rights and assuming the record is excellent in the treatment of refugees of that nationality. As well we will seek advice from credible sources. Our system offers protection to everyone in need.
Let us look at the record of this Government in what we do for the real refugees of the world. We will be bringing 20,000
to Canada this year. That is help to real refugees. If the Hon. Member wants to talk about immigrants, let us boost the immigrant levels, which is what I want to do, and in that component we can have more family members, more independent immigrants, and more refugees.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The other day, Prairie Pools Inc. sent a telex to the Prime Minister of Canada requesting a formal meeting with the Prime Minister during his western Canadian tour. I spoke to a representative of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool at two o'clock this afternoon and as of then there had been no response from the Prime Minister's Office. Representatives of Prairie Pools had offered to meet the Prime Minister anywhere in any of the three Prairie Provinces. As yet, he is only meeting farmers on one farm and the pools do not have any idea of which farmers he is meeting.
Because of the importance of wheat pools in Canada, will the Deputy Prime Minister return to his office after Question Period, pick up the phone, phone the Prime Minister and ask him to meet with the leaders of Prairie Pools? If he does not do that, he will be content to let the Prime Minister snub the farm leaders of western Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, those kinds of comments and allegations certainly do not do honour or justice to the Hon. Member who has been around here for a long period of time. He knows very well that the Prime Minister has met on various occasions with representatives of the pools and representatives of the farm leadership in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Vancouver. He will be meeting with farmers and with the public at a number of public events.
It is interesting to note that in spite of what NDP Members suggest, the Alberta Wheat Pool, for example, has praised the federal Government and has condemned the Opposition for some of the actions it took last week. A representative of the pool is quoted in the Edmonton Journal of May 1 as saying:
"From agriculture's point of view, the government has been performing rather well in the last six months..." "They gave the deficiency payment; they covered the deficit in the 1985-86 wheat pool accounts without complaint; now the $64-million subsidy-I'm not sure we could ask them to do a whole lot more at this stage."


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Who are you quoting, your cousin?
May 6, 1987


REQUEST FOR MEETING ON DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what I want and what Prairie Pools want is an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. Prairie Pools sent an official telex to the Prime Minister's Office requesting a meeting and offering to make any travel arrangements necessary to meet anywhere across the Prairies. As of yet, the Prime Minister is only going to one farm.
All I want to know is whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister will go to his office to make a simple phone call to the Prime Minister of Canada asking him to meet with the leadership of Prairie Pools about deficiency payments. Is this just another road show on the part of the Conservative Party at the taxpayers' expense? I want answers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is going into contortions. He wants answers and he will get answers. The Prime Minister has met with representatives of the pools and will meet with them and with other farm leaders on many, many occasions in the future. The Prime Minister has met with more farm leaders on a more frequent basis than any other Prime Minister in the history of Canada.


CTC DECISION ON VARIABLE TRANSPORTATION RATES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, once again the Deputy Prime Minister dodges the question. He is afraid to meet with the leadership of western Canada and 1 want to know why he will not make that simple phone call. Since the Prime Minister is refusing to meet with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, why will the Deputy Prime Minister not take the advice of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and ask the Minister of Transport to overturn the ruling of the CTC on variable rates, a ruling which will destroy rural communities? Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least do that since his Leader does not have the guts and the courtesy to meet with the leaders of Prairie Pools?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There are obviously strong feelings about the situation on the Prairies and they have been expressed very forcefully in the House over a long emergency debate by Hon. Members of goodwill and concern on all sides of the House. In asking questions on this, I think we should keep that in mind.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Hon. Member's frustration and the frustration of members of the New Democratic Party. In effect, they are attempting to trivialize what the Government has been doing for western Canadian producers.
They are trying to trivialize the $1 billion deficiency payout. They are trying to trivialize the $700 million western grain stabilization pay-out. They are trying to trivialize the Minister of Transport's support for reducing freight rates.
Oral Questions
They are trying to trivialize the fact that we are guaranteeing Canadian Wheat Board losses. In fact, they are trying to trivialize the fact the Prime Minister indeed has a genuine interest in western Canadian agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET PRAIRIE POOLS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to give a commitment to the request of Mr. Bill Strath, President of Prairie Pools Inc. and representative of 130,000 western grain producers, for a deficiency payment. Now we see the Prime Minister's agenda for his tour of the West does not even include a meeting with Prairie Pools, the largest organization of farm producers on the Prairies.
Why does the Prime Minister's schedule not include any provision for a meeting with this most important group? Why is the Deputy Prime Minister stonewalling on the whole question of a deficiency payment when the West is in such a desperate situation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought there was a rule about the repetition of questions. That is the same question that was asked before and I provided an answer.
The fact is that the Prime Minister has met and will meet with representatives of the pools as he will meet with other representatives of farm organizations. A major meeting will be taking place here. The Cairns Group will be meeting and there will be preparatory meetings with the respective farm leaders in regard to that meeting.
The Prime Minister will be meeting with farmers who are active in the business and I think that is a tribute to the Prime Minister who has expressed a genuine desire to talk to the actual farmers who are on the land. The Hon. Member should be complimenting and paying tribute to the Prime Minister rather than condemning him for it.


REQUEST FOR DEFICIENCY PAYMENT COMMITMENT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the Prime Minister and his office have refused repeated requests from Prairie Pools to meet with him on his tour of western Canada. The farmers want a commitment to a deficiency payment for this fall. Will the Prime Minister give this deficiency payment commitment right now? Does he not know that photo opportunities of the Prime Minister along with his Tory caucus eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner will not put seed in the ground or fuel in the diesel tractors of the farmers of the western Prairies? Does the Deputy Prime Minister not know that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not understand the Hon. Member opposite. There is a deficiency payment being paid out now. Cheques amounting to $700

May 6, 1987
Oral Questions
million will be in the mail. Another $600 million to $700 million will be paid under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. In fact, $1.3 billion is going into the hands of the western Canadian farmers.
The Minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the Minister of Agriculture, and indeed the Prime Minister have said that they are certainly not turning their backs on the farmers. They have not done so in the past, they will not in the future, and they are not at this time either. The Hon. Member should know and accept that fact.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. While the Prime Minister is refusing to meet with western farm leaders in the West, incredibly the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board is telling grain farmers that the recent sale of four million tonnes of subsidized United States wheat to the Soviet Union is welcome news. Will the Minister explain why he thinks this sale is good when senior Wheat Board economists, the former Tory Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, and even Clay Gilson all believe it is a disaster and will further depress the price of grain?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, when this sale was made public, I attempted to point out that, to the extent this would take some pressure off the markets, it had the potential to improve prices. Perhaps the Hon. Member wants to take a look at what has happened in the market since last Thursday. In fact, the market has improved. If the Hon. Member wants to look at soybean prices which have a big impact on Canadian prices of canola, he will see that those prices have improved pretty dramatically over the last two months.
There is some optimism in the market as far as price is concerned. On the sales side, Canada is selling to the Soviet Union under a five-year long-term grain sales agreement and the Soviet Union is buying at a clip that will see it fulfil that commitment under that long-term sales agreement.


PROJECTED INCREASE IN RUSSIAN CROP PRODUCTION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, projections of Russian crops show there will be an increase in production this year. Therefore, they will buy less next year. In fact, the increase is equal to their total imports last year.
Does the Minister realize that the Americans are planning similar sales? Will he take some action to counteract a further lowering of prices?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has a very interesting attitude in here. They try to trivialize and take advantage for political purposes of a very difficult and unfortunate situation affecting all Canadian grain producers. That is not our attitude. We work with the farm community so that together we can come up with approaches which go a long way towards dealing with the situation. If the Hon. Member wanted to come forward with some solutions we would be more than happy to look at them to see how they could fit in and be of help.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I am sure he will agree that we cannot have more science and technology in Canada without scientists. If we do nothing else, we have to get more young people interested in pursuing a career in science. Can the Minister then explain why the Undergraduate Student Award Program administered by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is being cut by 25 per cent this summer? Why is the Conservative Government cutting back on summer jobs which provide science students with valuable research experience?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: I cannot second-guess what the NSERC may have contemplated when the adjustments were made. However, I point out that there was an increase of $10 million in the operating grants program which made research positions available for hundreds of first-time applicants for research grants in our universities.


David Berger: The Council has no choice when the Government continually cuts its budget, after having frozen it last year.


SUMMER JOBS FOR SCIENCE STUDENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister make a commitment to restore this program funding to its previous level? Will he offer science students gainful employment this summer so that Canada will ensure the supply of scientists whom we so desperately need?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I will pass the Hon. Member's suggestion on to the Council. Let me point out that there is not a freeze on any of the Council's funding. There is an increase of $1 billion over five years in funding to universities and I
May 6, 1987

wish the Hon. Member would acknowledge that when he attempts to discredit this important program.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, data on the grain crisis keeps coming in. Just in the last couple of days Unifarm president Ralph Jespersen had a meeting with 10 other farm organizations, including the various Prairie Pools, where they concluded that in addition to the assistance granted in the current crop year an additional $1 billion of special grains assistance, or deficiency payment of about $2 billion, will be required in the coming crop year.
That group, along with the Pools, telexed the Prime Minister's Office seeking to discuss this important issue while he is in western Canada. Therefore, can the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board tell us whether that meeting will take place and what the Government's response will be to the request for an announcement of its intentions on deficiency payments?


Mr. Speaker:: In the interests of all Hon. Members, as well as that of the public, there has been reference to repetitious questions and I want to make it very clear that, if it is in the interest of any particular Member or Members to ask a question repeatedly, that is not completely outside the rules. However, I also want to point out that Ministers are not obligated to try continually to answer the same question over and over again.


Mr. Benjamin:: They don't try.


Mr. Speaker:: I am just pointing out and reminding all Hon. Members that that is the rule. I am also pointing out that there are a lot of Members in the House in Question Period who want to ask questions, and, to the degree repetition takes up time, it is taking up the time of the House.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in light of the meeting of Unifarm and the other organizations I thought it was a new question.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR GRAIN PRODUCERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that a year and a half ago his Government correctly analysed the situation facing Canada's dairy producers, realized they had to have some security, and announced a five-year program for their industry. Does the Government have similar intentions for grain producers, east, west and centre, so they know where they are at for the next three to five years?
Oral Questions


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and myself sat down with farm leaders on March 5. The Minister scheduled another meeting for the early part of June with farm leaders from right across the country to discuss this very topic. I think it is very helpful to have farm leaders from the various affected parts of the country get together before the meeting so that when we do meet in Ottawa we can have a very useful meeting.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. When the Government refused to help the CIA brainwashing victims in Montreal it had a report which it made public. My question has to do with the decision to give $56,000 to Warren Hart. Here again the Government has a report, this time from Sydney Letterman of Toronto apparently, and I should like to ask the Solicitor General to release this report to give us the reasons for that payment which we consider inappropriate.


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: First, Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that I do not consider the payment to Mr. Hart to be in any way inappropriate as it was paid pursuant to the recommendations contained in that report. However, I am happy to advise the hon. gentleman that I have asked my officials to review the report and, subject to the terms and regulations of the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, security reasons, and the necessity of having it in two official languages, I hope to be in a position to release the report within approximately two weeks.


REQUEST THAT COMPILER OF REPORT APPEAR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister then be prepared to permit Mr. Letterman to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General to defend that decision and explain what is behind it?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already advised the hon. gentleman and this House, I expect to be in a position, subject to the conditions mentioned, to release the report within two weeks. I am sure he will be completely satisfied with the reasons for the payment after he has had an opportunity to read the report.

May 6, 1987
Oral Questions CO-OPERATIVES


ESTABLISHMENT OF SECRETARIAT
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for cooperatives. At a luncheon yesterday the Minister finally gave the Government's response to the Co-operative Development Strategy for Canada published three years ago this month. Would he agree that the elephant of government has laboured long but brought forth only a mouse in the form of his new cooperative secretariat?


Charles James Mayer: No, I would not agree at all, Mr, Speaker. If the Hon. Member will check with the leaders of the co-operatives presently in town for several meetings with the various cooperative associations, the proposal we announced yesterday was made with the full co-operation of the co-operative people from right across the country. If he is criticizing the Government he is also criticizing the co-op sector which worked very hard with the Government to come forward with that proposal.


EFFORTS TO SEEK CAPITAL FORMATION INCENTIVES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance who might tell us how far the Government is planning to move. The Minister is aware that the credit union sector has been seeking capital formation incentives that would put them on the same footing as the banks and other financial institutions. Is the Minister of Finance now more prepared to take action in this area than he was before yesterday and particularly before the February Budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a question that he knows has been under discussion for some time now. This is under review on an ongoing basis. At this point it is obviously not a matter that can be discussed in the House because it is outside Budget time. However, I will take his comments as a representation.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister will know that some 22 Canadians, including seven Newfoundlanders, were held as prisoners of war by the Vichy French at Laghouat, Algeria, during the Second World War. These prisoners of war have consistently been denied payments under the 1976 Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act.
Can Jim Templeton of St. John's, who was shot down over North Africa and spent 472 days in the Laghouat prisoner of war camp, and his fellow Canadian prisoners at long last expect the Government of Canada to intervene to ensure that they receive the compensation to which they are entitled as Canadian prisoners of war?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take notice of that question for my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As the Hon. Member knows, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is looking into the issue at the present time. He certainly has established a track record in defence of the veterans of Canada which is exemplary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I want to assure the Government that I seek not to criticize or comment upon Ministers but to seek compensation for veterans. I ask the question in a non-partisan way.


TERMS GOVERNING PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the 1976 Act for compensation for prisoners states that compensation should only be paid to those who were held by a power conducting activities against the Allies. Since the Allies never formally declared war on Vichy France or recognized Vichy France as a country with which we were at war, these prisoners, for technical reasons, have been denied compensation. Some were shot trying to escape from that camp. Will the Minister bring that fact to the attention of the Cabinet and seek immediate compensation for those Canadians who have served their country and indeed were held under brutal conditions as prisoners of war?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is more by way of representation. I would be pleased to ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs who, during his tenure as Minister, has fought long and hard for the veterans of Canada.


John Napier Turner: Just answer the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: He has been extremely dedicated in terms of fighting for their interests and ensuring-


Mr. Gauthier:: Never mind the commercial.


John Napier Turner: Just answer the question. It is a serious one.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I wonder if the Liberal Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, would give this the seriousness to which it is entitled.


John Napier Turner: Don't be a smart-ass about it. Come on.
May 6, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Struck a nerve.


John Napier Turner: You are pompous.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If the Minister of Defence would quit fooling around and give an answer, we would not have that. Snooty boy scout.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House would want this exchange to end on a note of hope for the very Canadian veterans about whom we speak. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Defence to finish his answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 would be pleased to do precisely that. As I was saying, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has fought hard for the veterans of Canada. I know that he will do everything that he can for these veterans as well.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I spent the last few days in Yukon and met with Tony Penikett, the Government Leader, and Norma Kassi, MLA for Old Crow. Yukoners in particular from Old Crow are deeply concerned about the United States proposal to drill in the core calving area for the Porcupine Caribou Herd, known as the 1002 lands.
Since American and Canadian scientists now stand by their estimate that drilling in the area will reduce the herd by 20 per cent to 40 per cent, and since fully one-half of the food consumed by the people of Old Crow is caribou from that herd, will the Minister tell the House what substantive steps he is prepared to take to ensure the protection of the coastal plain which is the maternity ward for this herd of close to 180,000?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member may be mistaken about the figure of 180,000, but I understand the seriousness of his question. The Porcupine Caribou Herd is an important source of food for people in Old Crow. As the member knows, the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has recommended drilling. We have not agreed to that.
The Hon. Member knows that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made representations to the American Government. The signing of the environmental agreement for the protection of that caribou herd will allow Canada to continue to make representations which I know the Hon. Member will support.
Oral Questions
However, the American Congress is not and has not made any recommendations or taken any steps. Therefore, it is not a problem we will have to face tomorrow, but a problem in which we are very involved in trying to seek solutions. We will ask the Hon Member to continue to support us.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO UNITED STATES CONGRESS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for the Canadian Wildlife Service. Is he prepared to use his good offices to provide to members of the United States Congress and the Alaskan State Legislature accurate, verifiable information about the importance and the fragility of this economic and spiritual bank account to the people of Old Crow who expressed their deep concern to me in the past few days?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's suggestion or representation is a good one. The Government of Canada and, I believe, the people of Canada, are greatly alarmed about proposals from the U.S. administration to exploit the hydrocarbon wealth in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Area. We are especially concerned about the possible and indeed likely effect of such development on the Porcupine Caribou Herd. If it would be helpful to make the relevant data available to the legislators, as the Hon. Member suggests, the Wildlife Service of my Department has the documentation that would support the premise of the Hon. Member's first question and I will pursue every possible way of disseminating that information.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, a spokesperson for a coalition of a dozen or so agencies, including La Ligue des droits et libertes du Quebec and the National Association of Women and the Law, accused the federal Government of turning a blind eye to the discriminatory treatment of young people and single persons from certain provinces, including Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, with respect to welfare benefits.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House what his Government intends to do to reverse this unfair treatment of young people and single persons?

May 6, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is away on government business today. He is aware of the coalition's concerns but has not yet received the details of their proposals or their concerns. He is waiting for representations to him on their behalf which he will study in detail and make the appropriate decision at the appropriate time.



OPPORTUNITY FOR GOVERNMENT TO CONVENE HEALTH AND WELFARE MINISTERS' MEETING TO ASSIST PROVINCES ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport would he have the kindness to inform his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of the fact that in Quebec, young people under 30 receive $296 less per month and that in British Columbia, young people under 26 receive $56 less per month?
Would the Minister be so kind as to suggest to his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that he call a meeting of all his provincial counterparts to discuss granting assistance to the provinces to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex or age, since the Coalition has threatened to go to court?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who will deal with the matter appropriately at the appropriate time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. 1 have just received a letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in which he rejects at this time my calls for a public inquiry into Propair Inc. and Trans World Arms in Montreal, who are involved in the Contragate affair.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs notes there are two RCMP inquiries going on at this time which cannot be quickly resolved. He writes: "It is also dependent on the speed of co-operation available from foreign jurisdictions." That is deliciously ironic considering the events in Washington.
How long will the Canadian public have to wait? Is the Government not a little embarrassed that we have to wait until
an American congressional committee exposes all these matters of vital concern to Canadian foreign policy?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: -I do not know why the Opposition thinks this is a matter of great merriment and gaiety because we certainly do not. I should point out that this matter has been under investigation for some time by the RCMP. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has repeatedly stated it would be inappropriate to comment on this matter while it is before the RCMP, and there is no point in adding to that answer at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a short supplementary.



RCMP INVESTIGATION

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General aware that on November 6, 1984, $432,000 was sent to a bank account in the Royal Bank in Montreal from Esther Morales, money through the Saudis and through the Grand Cayman Islands? How long do we have to keep bringing this matter out in the House and then through a congressional committee in Washington before the Canadian Government will make this information available to the Canadian public?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were aware of this long before the Hon. Member and long before it was brought forward in the press. We do not depend for our investigations upon receiving information from the United States. Our police are quite capable of carrying on their own investigations. They are doing a great job and when they have completed the investigation they will report to the appropriate authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that there will be two further questions, one question each from the Hon. Member for Don Valley East and the Hon. Member for Lachine. I am sorry that we have run out of time for other Members. We will try to get off to an earlier start tomorrow.



WAR CRIMINALS


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on March 12, 1987, the Minister of Justice responded to the Deschenes Commission report. On March 18 I asked the Minister how soon the Criminal Code would be amended to give Canadian courts jurisdiction to try war crimes or crimes against humanity here in Canada.
May 6, 1987

Since the Minister assured me in March that he intended to make the amendments a priority issue, could he confirm that the process is on schedule and that the amendments will be in this House before the end of June?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is refreshing to hear an intelligent question during Question Period. I appreciate the interest during the course of this whole matter by the Hon. Member and I want to reassure him of the fact that the Government does consider this matter to be a priority item.
I have set an objective of having the legislation before the House prior to the summer recess. I am encouraged by the response of the Opposition and I would hope that when we bring the legislation forward they will give this matter their immediate attention, and conceivably we can pass this matter into law at the earliest possible date.



VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Most Canadians love with a passion our national sport, hockey. However, more and more Canadians, including two of my constituents who are members of the Minister's Fitness Council, are expressing concern at the debasement of our national sport by violence. Would the Minister advise the House what steps are being taken to reduce violence in sports?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of my hon. friend, particularly in the last few weeks during the NHL play-offs where violence, which has an negative effect on the youth of our country, has increased. As a result of that, I formed the Fair Play Commission last year, the honorary chairman being Wayne Gretzky. It has put into place new rules and regulations within our own jurisdictions and has begun discussions with the National Hockey League to try to improve the violence-related problems within the League, which is not within our jurisdiction.
Shortly after our next meeting which takes place this Friday, we will be proposing some concrete proposals and some concrete steps which will start the educational and informational aspect which will eventually lead to the eradication of excessive violence in sports.
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition Nos. 332-1682, 332-1683 to 332-1685 inclusive, 3321691 to 332-1694 inclusive, 332-1696 to 332-1700 inclusive, 332-1703 to 332-1708 inclusive, 332-1713 to 332-1721 inclusive, 332-1723, 332-1745 to 332-1752 inclusive, 332-1755 to 332-1757 inclusive, 332-1759, 332-1760, 332-1763, 3321764, 332-1766 to 332-1784 inclusive, 332-1786 to 332-1788 inclusive, 332-1792, 332-1794 to 332-1803 inclusive, 332-1811 to 332-1813 inclusive and 332-1815 to 332-1828 inclusive.



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF CANADA


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), and in conformance with the provisions of Section 45 of the Public Service Employment Act, I wish to table in both Official Languages, and in Braille, the 1986 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission of Canada.



TAX REFORM


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to re-inform the House and Canadians that I will be tabling the Government's White Paper on tax reform on Thursday June 18.
Last October in this House I said that tax reform would be based on a number of important guidelines. I set out those guidelines clearly for all Canadians to examine and consider. The White Paper I will be tabling next month has been shaped by those guidelines. It has benefited from the views and insights of the provinces and Canadians across the country.

We said we would make the tax system fairer. We will. We will redistribute the tax burden, so that it will be shared more equitably among taxpayers in similar circumstances.

May 6, 1987
Statements by Ministers

Tax reform will put the Government's revenue sources into better balance, reducing reliance on personal income taxes and increasing the take-home pay of the overwhelming majority of Canadians. It will also provide the Government with a sounder revenue base; not more revenues but more stable and predictable revenues.
Comprehensive tax reform means making improvements in all three parts of the system, personal, corporate and sales tax. Our White Paper will set out specific proposals in each of these areas. To improve the personal income tax system, we will propose lower rates, fewer rates, fewer special preferences and greater use of tax credits rather than exemptions.
Lower rates will benefit the large majority of taxpayers, not just now but well into the future, as their incomes grow and they get to keep more of each additional dollar. Fewer rates will simplify the tax structure. There are now 10 tax brackets. We intend to reduce them to three.
Fewer special breaks for high income earners will reduce opportunities for them to avoid paying their fair share of tax.
Converting personal exemptions and some deductions to tax credits will make the tax system fairer and more progressive. Moving to a system of credits will be a major change, a socially progressive change, a change to the personal income tax system on which future improvements for low income Canadians can be built.
For the corporate income tax system, our proposal is to broaden the tax base by eliminating many special preferences and reducing others. As a result, many more profitable corporations will pay tax, and government revenues from corporate income tax will increase. Broadening the tax base will enable us to lower corporate rates so that they remain competitive with those of our major trading partners and competitors.
Corporate tax reform will support the nation's ability to attract both Canadian and international investment. It will help ensure that business and investment decisions are based primarily on economic merit and growth potential rather than on tax considerations.
The White Paper will also set out proposals to achieve our goal of replacing the federal sales tax system. The current system is flawed and inadequate. We will replace it with a broad-based, multi-stage sales tax.
There are alternative mechanisms to achieving this such as a federal only, multi-stage sales tax, with or without invoices; or a comparable federal-provincial tax with invoices. They vary only in their application and the manner in which they are implemented.
A federal only tax without invoices, which could be called a business transfer tax or a goods and services tax, is relatively simple, both to administer and to comply with, but only if it is
applied uniformly on all goods and services. A federal only value added tax with invoices can be more selectively applied, but would create more compliance and administrative problems in the face of existing provincial retail sales taxes.
A national multi-stage sales tax, in co-operation with the provinces, which could be called the national sales tax, would replace both the federal sales tax and provincial retail sales taxes with a national system. Such an approach offers obvious advantages-a harmonized national tax system, lower administration costs, and less paper burden for businesses. Provincial Governments have indicated some interest in a national sales tax. The concept is clearly worth pursuing.

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposal for comprehensive tax reform aims to give Canada a fairer, simpler tax system, a system that is more effective in encouraging economic activity, jobs and opportunities for Canadians. This is what we are working toward in developing our proposals-proposals that I will table in this House on June 18.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just announced that he will be tabling his tax reform project on June 18.
First I should like to thank him for sending us a copy of his statement a couple of hours before delivery, for this enabled me to study it.
But June 18, well this time I must tell the Minister that I will try to take his word for it. Fifteen months ago as we recall, on February 26, 1986, the Minister had promised to table in the House a White Paper on the business tranfer tax. As he said himself, he was going to do it in the very near future. But this was back in February 1986. It was only on July 18 that we learned he had changed his mind and would not be tabling this business transfer tax white paper, that he was considering a more comprehensive tax reform which he would unveil in the fall of 1986. Fall 1986 came, nothing happened, except that the Minister announced he would table the white paper at the same time as the 1987 Budget. A few days before the 1987 Budget, on January 30, he told us that he would not table it with the Budget, that it would be put off until spring this year.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe the Minister but he has been crying wolf for so long and announcing tax reforms which never did materialize that this time I am taking a chance when I take him at his word.

Let us hope for the best. We will take the word of the Minister and wait to see what will happen on June 18. We Liberals believe that there has to be a meaningful tax reform package in Canada. We hope that the Minister will deliver on June 18.

Mr. Speaker, June 18 is a memorable day in Europe's history, because it was on June 18 that General de Gaulle
May 6, 1987

called on the French to resist and take up arms against the German forces which had invaded France. I hope that on June 18, the Minister will not be calling on Canadians to pay even more taxes to this Conservative Government.


An Hon. Member:: A farewell to arms!


Raymond Garneau: But not to taxes!

The Minister said in his statement that Canadians could pay less income tax and have, as he suggested, increased take-home pay. But he did not guarantee that Canadians will have more money in their pockets after having paid his new national multi-stage sales tax. The name is so complicated I wonder how we will be able to pay it.
The Minister suggested that he will lower the personal income tax by abolishing preferences. He is saying that we will have fewer special preferences in our personal income tax. I wonder if those preferences that the Minister talked about eliminating will be the first $1,000 of income from interest and dividends, the investment credit for farmers or the flowthrough share deduction for the mining industry. When the Minister says that he will abolish special preferences is he talking about the $1,000 deduction from pension revenue for retired Canadians?

What will happen to the child tax credit and the deduction for child care expenses? Will they be eliminated? Is that the kind of preference to which the Minister was referring in his statement today? The Conservative Government was elected in 1984, and Canadian taxpayers, through their income tax, are paying $22 billion more in 1987 than they were paying in 1984, which represents an additional tax burden of over $1,000 per year and per family, a family with an income of $30,000 and two children, which is not excessive.
Ever since this Government came to power, Canadian taxpayers have been paying considerably more taxes, and when the Minister says he wants to put more justice and equity into the system, is he in fact trying to turn the situation back to what it was before his Government came to power?

Is it the objective of the Government to bring taxpayers back to the point where they were before the Tory Party took office in 1984? The action of this Tory Government has been to tax, retax and surtax Canadian workers and Canadian families in a way that the richer one is, the less tax increases one has had to pay. Is the Minister now telling us that he will correct his own mistakes and bring more fairness to the tax system? We will wait to see how the Minister will achieve that goal and reverse the unfairness that he himself brought into the tax system.

The Minister is proposing to reduce the number of tax brackets to three, from the present 10. I wonder whether three
Statements by Ministers
different tax brackets provide enough room for a progressive personal income tax system. Again, the Minister seems to be indicating that he prefers to protect those on large incomes instead of the average family.
The Minister said he wants to abolish certain tax shelters. He said there will be fewer special breaks for high income earners. Does that mean he will abolish his regressive $500,000 capital gains exemption? Is he going to abolish the flowthrough shares which have been so beneficial to our mining regions? I do not know what he will do. We will have to wait and see how the Minister will achieve that goal and reverse some of the decisions he made in the past.

In another vein, I must tell the Minister that we endorse the idea or approach to replace exemptions by tax credits. However today's statement is not clear enough and we will have to wait and see what happens in that respect.
I would have more remarks to make on corporate taxes, Mr. Speaker, but you are indicating that my time is running short. I should like to comment briefly on the business transfer tax.

I would like to say a few words about the business transfer tax which will now be called the national multi-stage sales tax, the latest tax grab invented by this Government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is going through the back door rather than the front door, to take billions of dollars from the pockets of all Canadians; the old, the young, and every family. If this multi-stage sales tax is applied as the Minister suggested in his remarks, Canadians may or will have to pay sales tax on food, on haircuts, on everything. I wonder how small businesses will get exemptions. If they do not, it will be a nightmare for them to manage the new taxes.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister that if he implements his tax reform as he suggests it will have a considerable impact on the provinces. Hopefully his proposals will provide enough firm guarantees for the provinces, particularly those which benefit from equalization payments, to be sure that the tax reform will not reduce their revenues.
I should also remind the Minister that he is committed to simplifying the system. Considering the multi-stage tax he is talking about I really wonder whether the services of lawyers and accountants galore might not be needed to meet the requirements of this new invention of the Mulroney Government, a national multi-stage tax.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, appreciate the action of the Minister in giving us an advance

May 6, 1987
Statements by Ministers
copy of his statement. It is a model which I hope will be followed by some of his colleagues in the future.
Behind the bland exterior of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is the Gypsy Rose Lee of tax reform in Canada. Every few months he gets up in the Elouse of Commons to reveal a little more of his intentions with regard to tax reform. As the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) pointed out, he has been doing this for a long time. He shows the same craft of which his namesake was capable-there is always something more to reveal, but now he says he will reveal all on June 18. The lady in question never got quite that far. We will find out whether the Minister can do better.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister says he can. I welcome his statement that he will table specific proposals on tax reform on June 18. I welcome his renewed commitment to certain principles of tax reform, such as ensuring that profitable corporations pay taxes and eliminating exemptions and deductions in the personal income tax system in favour of tax credits, something which would make the system more progressive. We will have to wait and see whether these words translate into actions.
The Minister himself will acknowledge that he has been far from achieving that standard over the course of the two and half years during which he has been Finance Minister, a period of time during which there has been next to no growth in corporate tax revenues in the exchequer while personal tax revenues have risen by close to 50 per cent. In other words, individual Canadians have been paying for the Minister's deficit reduction strategy and corporations have not had to pay at all. The Minister now says, "Trust me, I am going to make the system fair".
I am particularly concerned, as is my Party, about the latest version of the sales tax which the Minister is announcing. I have been through the various proposals which have been made. We now have the manufacturers' sales tax, the MST. We were going to have a value added tax, a VAT, then it became the business transfer tax, the BTT. The Minister now says that we may have a federal-provincial multi-stage sales tax, an FPMSST. That reminds me of LSMFT. It may be turned into an NST because it will bring in the provincial retail sales tax, the PRST. Anyone who can understand all that understands what the Minister will actually propose.
He is dazzling us with his footwork. I suspect that he may come up with yet another set of proposals in June which will be delegated out for consultation with the provinces, and that it is his intention to back away from changing the sales tax prior to the 1989 election. That may be prudent. It may be caution imposed by his colleagues. However, I have a warning for the Minister with regard to what he is intending to do with this new national sales tax.
The Minister speaks of introducing a broad-based multistage sales tax. He is not clear on whether there will be any
exemptions, but he makes it quite clear that his chosen instrument, the business transfer tax, would have no exemptions at all, that it would be applied uniformly to all goods and services. Is he now proposing that the national sales tax should be applied in the same way? Does that mean that when parents send their children out for daycare, an essential service, they will be paying the Minister's FPMSST on daycare services? Does it mean that a tenant who pays rent and earns a very low income will be paying some kind of federal-provincial sales tax on the service they get in rent? Or does the Minister mean that he still has up his sleeve the intention to have the most essential commodity for survival in life, food, subject to his tax? It is clear that that was the Minister's intention with the business transfer tax.
The Minister is dipping, diving, weaving and bobbing. We do not know exactly what he has to put forward now. However, I want to warn the Minister that if he and his Government intend to try to impose their new national sales tax on food, they will provoke a tax revolt from one end of Canada to the other. New Democrats will be at the front of that tax revolt and we will use everything we can to fight such a measure.

Mr. Speaker, the business transfer tax proposed by the Minister of Finance would have applied to food, the food Canadian families need to survive. Now that the Minister has come up with an alternative, a national sales tax to be imposed in conjunction with the provinces, Mr. Speaker, I ask him: Does the Minister still intend to extend that tax to food as well? If so he is asking for a taxpayers' revolution, a revolution which the New Democratic Party will support, and we will oppose this kind of tax with every means available to us in the House, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister seems to be talking about introducing a duplicate of U.S. tax reform in Canada. There are some good things about that, because there are some elements of the U.S. tax reform which are to be admired, such as the broadening of the corporate tax base, taxing all income equally, and removing wasteful tax preferences. However, there are things we should avoid as well. The Minister should know that Canadians want Canadian tax reform rather than only a clone of what was put into place last year in the United States.
I am particularly concerned that, despite all of the recent evidence which indicates that the Canadian corporate tax system is no more onerous on Canadian companies than are systems in the United States and elsewhere, the Minister talks about a substantial reduction in corporation tax here.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is wrong.


Michael Morris Cassidy: In the last year or so he has had to down scale his estimates of corporate tax revenues by $1.5 billion. He has failed to take a fair share of taxation from corporations. Canadians are looking for fairness in tax reform which
May 6, 1987

includes ensuring that the corporations pay their fair share, not just individual taxpayers.
Canadians were scrambling to pay their taxes last week. I am proud to say that I got mine in just before April 30. It is timely, therefore, to remind the Minister that when he introduces his tax reform proposals in June the thing which Canadians will be looking for most will be fairness. If he can achieve that by moving from ten brackets to three, more power to him. If, however, he is only trying to copy the American system which failed to achieve the necessary degree of fairness by moving down to three tax brackets, he will have made a very strange error and will have a great deal to contend with in this House. I wish him well. I hope at this time he achieves his goal in terms of making his proposals in time for June 18. It may be a minor miracle if he does so. However, I warn him that when he reveals all, when this Gypsy Rose Lee of tax reforms comes clean, he had better have, something good and something fair, or else taxpayers will not go along with him at all.
* *
*



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages. The report deals with the selection of a votable item pertaining to the fourth draw which took place on April 15, 1987.
May I note that, pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b), this fourth report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table in both official languages the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
The review and recommendations of the committee are consistent with the Orders of Reference dated January 29 and April 27, 1987.
The committee asks the Government to table a comprehensive response to this report, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2).

The committee is unanimous that a new law should be built upon a reaffirmation of the public character of broadcasting. The law should also reassert the needs for Canadian ownership and control and, more important, the need to provide a basis for strengthened Canadian programming, while taking into
Petitions
account the distinctive character of French and English language broadcasting.
The new Act should direct the CBC to cover the whole range of Canadian programming and each licensed broadcaster or network operator to provide predominantly Canadian programming.
For the first time the Broadcasting Act would affirm that the broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of both sexes. The Act should direct that the programming offered by the system should reflect the composition of Canadian society.
The committee recommends further that the Act treat cable and satellite-to-cable systems and other distribution undertakings as components of the broadcasting system.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the committee recommends also ways and means to reinforce the role of the CRTC, including a substantial increase and growth in its research activities, as well as better accountability to Parliament.
[Editor's Note: See todays votes and proceedings.]
* *
*



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a whole stack of petitions on this the last day of debate on Bill C-22. They are from Kamloops, Clearbrook, Prince Rupert, New Westminster, Coquitlam, White Rock, Surrey, Abbotsford, Cultus Lake, Mission, Yarrow, Sooke, Sidney, Victoria, Sparwood, Edmonton, Goose Bay, Stoney Creek, Hamilton, Brantford, St. Isidore, Chatham, Bathurst, and many other places as well.
All of them point out their concerns regarding the Government's intention to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. Basically they say that the increase in drug prices for average Canadian consumers will actually severely restrict the ability of Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present. They are signed by residents of Manitoba towns including, Boissevain, Morden, Portage la Prairie, Oakbank, Selkirk, Gimli, Arnes, and also the cities of Regina and Edmonton.
The petitions say that the federal Government's proposal 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.

May 6, 1987
Petitions
Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
I also have a substantial number of petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg on the same subject. They say that the proposed measure-and it is the one with which we are dealing today-will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis.
They also indicate that the proposal of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition, together with the required certificate signed by the Clerk of Petitions. It is sponsored by the Calgary Coalition for Life and is being submitted by Diana Gerlitz of Box 67, De Winton, Alberta, TOL OXO, and is signed by some 23 persons, most of whom live in Okotoks, De Winton, Black Diamond, High River, Airdrie, and Calgary in the Province of Alberta.
They avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance in the certain assurance that this honourable House will provide a remedy. It sheweth that thousands of unborn babies in Canada are killed for reasons of convenience and for the crime of being unwanted. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that this Parliament will support Motion No. M-37 and will allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.
And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have nine petitions from the Province of Quebec, the Province of Manitoba, and the Province of British Columbia to present. They relate to Bill C-22.
Very briefly, as stated in the petitions, the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. They object to the fact that they will send the price of new drugs sky-rocketing.
In addition, 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.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I present to the House a petition from Canadians living in the cities of Medicine Hat, Saskatoon, and Ottawa, who call upon Parliament to reject the proposed amendments to the Patent Act contained in Bill C-22.
Today at 6 p.m. Hon. Members will have their chance to say "no" to higher prices for prescription drugs.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, it is not only my duty but my pleasure to present a duly certified petition consisting of 331 names. It is signed by residents of Calgary, representing churches, individuals, and interested groups.
Because of the killing of thousands of unborn Canadian babies each year for reasons of convenience, and for such babies capital punishment exists for the crime of being unwanted, wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Motion No. M-37 and allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.
And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and the honour to present several hundred petitions. These petitions are from the communities of Capreol, Hanmer, Val Therese, Val Caron, Coniston, Sudbury, Dowling, Azilda, Skead, Garson, Windsor, Chelmsford, Noelviile, Montreal, Chatham, Tilbury, Wallaceburg, Dresden, Blenheim, Toronto, Downsview, Scarborough, Willowdale, Calgary, and Regina, and there are 700 signatures on petitions from Vancouver.
These petitioners point out that the 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.
They also point out that the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis.
As well, they point out that the proposals will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. Furthermore, the proposed changes are another example of the sell-out by the Canadian Government to the United States at the expense of average Canadians as they attempt to reach a free trade agreement.
Therefore, they call upon Members of Parliament, who will vote this evening on the question, to reject these proposals which will only serve to increase prescription drug prices in Canada.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, 11 in all, from Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba, from almost every province of Canada.
May 6, 1987

The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposals in Bill C-22 which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. They ask each and every one of us to vote against this Draconian piece of legislation brought in by the Government that will affect prices of drugs for the elderly, the sick and those who can least afford it. I am presenting these petitions to Parliament on their behalf.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege at this time to present on behalf of several hundred of my constituents, including people from the Baycrest geriatric centre and other senior citizens their profound concern through a petition which they are addressing to this House of Commons regarding Bill C-22 as we call it. They refer to it as the Bill dealing with proposed changes to the Patent Act.
Along with hundreds of thousands of other petitioners, some of whose petitions I have presented, they call upon this House to reject, in their words, "the proposed legislation regarding the changes to the Patent Act on drugs". I have hundreds of other names from members of the riding.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drugs and prescription drug prices for Canadians. They say "The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your humble and honourable House will therefore provide a remedy."


Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition concerning Bill C-22 from residents of several Quebec areas, including Cowansville, Dunham, Rimouski, and especially Baie Comeau. This petition states that the Government's proposed changes to the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs would increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of a great number of them to buy necessary prescription drugs. It mentions other reasons too, Mr. Speaker.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this proposal to increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a number of petitions to present today, the closing day of debate on Bill C-22. All oppose the proposed changes to the Patent Act which will increase the price of drugs for Canadian consumers.
This Bill will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require drugs. It will contribute to higher costs to provincial Government drug plans and it reflects concessions to the United States free trade negotiations. The petitioners all call upon this House to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians through Bill C-22.
Petitions
I have some 20 petitions from the City of Vancouver representing hundreds of citizens that I would like to present. In addition I have petitions from Surrey, White Rock, Richmond, Campbell River, Qualicum, Parksville, Maple Ridge, Savona, Hedley, Chase, Abbotsford, Clearbrook, Burnaby, New Westminster, Bowser and Courtenay, British Columbia.
As well I have a group of 14 petitions with hundreds of names on each from Manitoba opposing Bill C-22. Many of these people are senior citizens who are very concerned about the impact the Bill will have on their lives.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I too have some 14 individual petitions, signed by over 400 residents in Canada, which have been duly certified as correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 106. These Canadians live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the petitions have been signed by groups from Sunny Mountain Day Care Centre in Winnipeg and the Community Health Cooperation Federation in Saskatoon.
The petitioners say that the 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. They call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
1 know you will be interested to hear, Mr. Speaker, that these 400 odd petitions have joined with literally hundreds of thousands of other Canadians to send the Government a message. If the Government is smart, it should listen to the message which is coming through loud and clear.


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition which I have received from my constituents of Moccasin Trail in Woodbridge, Ontario. These residents, as have many of my other constituents from North York, request that their mail be delivered directly to their homes.
These Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are dissatisfied with the substitution and placement of supermailboxes instead of door to door delivery of their mail. They humbly pray that this House can help them with their concerns.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a great many petitions here from Canadian residents who are very concerned about the proposed changes to the Patent Act which will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and for provincial medicare plans. They see these proposed changes as another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations. They pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.

May 6, 1987
Petitions


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 have certificates as to the propriety of petitions which, as is my duty and honour, I wish to present on behalf of constituents and other residents of northwestern Ontario, primarily from the City of Thunder Bay.
These residents of northwestern Ontario protest that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They say that this Bill will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on a continuing basis and that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial Government drug plans.
They call upon Members of Parliament to seize the opportunity this evening to defeat the drug patent legislation changes when they come before us on third reading, and so keep down the costs of medicine.
1 have the privilege to present petitions from residents of various areas in Manitoba, from the City of Winnipeg and from communities north of Winnipeg, Selkirk, Balmoral, Stonewall, Stony Mountain, through toward the northwest, to Warren and other communities, and all the way to The Pas.
These residents of the Province of Manitoba similarly call upon Members of Parliament to act against this proposed action which is another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour, responsibility and privilege today to present to this honourable House some seven petitions. They are all duly certified according to the provisions of Standing Order 106.
These petitions are signed by residents of the communities of Winnipeg, Arborg, Laird and Carlton in Saskatchewan, Tourond, Narcisse, Riverton and Dallas in Manitoba as well as Selkirk, Fisher Branch, Hodgson and Koostatak. From that it can be easily determined that the concern over the Government's plans under Bill C-22 to raise the price of prescription drugs is shared right across the country from the largest to the smallest communities.
The petitioners instance these changes in Canada's legislative regime as examples of concessions to the United States in the free trade negotiations. They mention their concern that the cost of prescription drugs to provincial drug plans and the ordinary Canadian consumer will inevitably increase unless the Government turns away from its folly of presenting Bill C-22 to the House.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to avail myself of a long-standing right of Members of Parliament to petition Parliament.
I have two petitions, one which deals with the reduction of services provided by Canada Post Corporation. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved services the highest priority of Canada Post Corporation and to instruct the Government to abandon its policy of installing community boxes.
These petitioners are mainly in the Vancouver area, people who have seen a drastic reduction in postal services.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also have some petitions regarding changes to the Patent Act.
These petitioners as well ask Parliament not to proceed with Bill C-22 which would result in increased drug costs, particularly for the old and the sick. I know that the final vote on Bill C-22 will take place later this afternoon so this is a last-minute plea by Canadians who are asking Parliament not to proceed with the legislation for the sake of the country and particularly for the sake of the elderly and the sick. I hope that their pleas will not be ignored.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I too have a number of petitions to present. They come from people in Toronto, Vancouver and the Roberval riding in the Province of Quebec. All these people humbly call upon the Hon. Members of Parliament to oppose Bill C-22 in its present form.
They beg Parliament to amend this Bill and make sure that it is fair for Canadian consumers.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have approximately 45 petitions to table today. The petitioners are from various parts of the country including British Columbia, Ontario, parts of Nova Scotia, parts of Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Newfoundland and, indeed, other areas.
The petitioners are in opposition to Bill C-22 and say that whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private or government medicare programs, whereas the federal Government's proposal will raise the cost, already high, of provincial health care programs, and whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in increased drug costs and prices and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Conservative Government's concessions in free trade
May 6, 1987

negotiations with the United States at the expense of every-day Canadians, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
I should say that there are a number of other petitions I would like to introduce but in view of the time, with only an hour or so remaining for debate, I table 45 today.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE CONCURRENCE IN FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I had discussions previously with members [DOT] of the opposition Parties with respect to the fifth report of the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which reported on May 1,
1987.	The substance of that report was a request to extend the deadline for the committee's report on the consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the Province of Saskatchewan from May 6, 1987, to May 29, 1987. As I said, there have been discussions with the Parties and I would move at this time:
That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and
Procedure presented to the House on Friday, May 1, be concurred in.
[Translation\
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, there were consultations with the Parties on the subject and we agree with the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary. [English]


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have had no discussions with our House Leader, but I assume the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us that he is moving the motion by agreement with the Official Opposition and the House Leader of the NDP so 1 do give such consent.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 102 and 103.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Parry: 1.	Has the Department of Transport been conducting a costs/benefits assessment to determine the Department's future plans regarding Loran-C navigation in Canada?
2.	Has the Department completed its costs/benefits assessment and (a) if so (i) what are the results of the study (ii) what are the Department's future plans concerning Loran-C (b) if not, when will the assessment be completed?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) No. (b) Unable to determine at this time.


Mr. Parry: 1.	In a letter to Members of Parliament dated March 4, 1987, did the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation state that Canada Post will not remove rural route service from any of its customers?
2.	Did residents of Pinewood and Rainy River rural routes No. 1 lose their rural route service on June 3, 1986 and, if so, when will this service be reinstated?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2. Changes were made to the Pinewood and Rainy River rural routes effective June 30, 1986. Rural route service in this area is currently under review.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. P-4 for production of papers, in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), has been judged admissible by the Government and the papers are being tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining Notices of Motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. P-4 for the production of papers be deemed to have been adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 6, 1987
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers [English]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. P-4-Mr. Heap:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the relevant correspondence, memoranda, agreements and any other documents referred to by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in the House of Commons on February 20, 1987, (p. 3647 of Hansard) which outline and give effect to the agreement with the United States in which that country agrees not to deport refugee claimants awaiting an immigration hearing in Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 23 minutes.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have already put on record the opposition to this Bill expressed by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church not much more than a week ago, and similarly, the views of the Keystone Agricultural Producers, an organization which represents all the farm commodity groups in Manitoba. The Government's proposal has had almost unanimous opposition from the major newspapers in this country as well. Let me quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 12, 1987, a newspaper which does not often agree with the views that I and my colleagues in the NDP have expressed. The editorial says in part:
Harvey Andre has tried to write a drug-patenting law designed to balance the consumers' interest in competitively-priced drugs, the drug-innovators' interest in preventing competition and the national interest in expanded medical research, but he has not succeeded.
He has tried to explain to Parliament and to the public reasons why Bill C-22 on patent protection for drug innovations should be adopted and there again he has not succeeded.
Then we have an editorial in The Toronto Star on April 13, 1987, which said:
The amendments have a number of worthwhile objectives:
It says in conclusion:
Once the Bill becomes law, how long will it take before Canada once again has drug prices among the highest in the world?
And who's going to blow the whistle when the multinational drug companies don't live up to their glowing promises but continue to do their research and development in the U.S., Britain and Europe where their head offices are located? A Prices Review Board with no teeth? A federal government with no spine?
Those are very good questions asked by The Toronto Star.
Then we have an editorial in the Kingston Whig-Standard of January 6, which said in part:
Not only are the multinationals on the point of winning, but the Mulroney Government is going to give them far more than its own adviser recommends.
It continues:
-Mr. Andre, who, judging by the way he puts things, appears to care more passionately about the health of Canada's economy.
"As long as people are alive, they're a drain on the health care system," he says-
We certainly do not believe that, Mr. Speaker. The editorial concludes by saying:
It looks as if the government's action will not only make drugs more expensive, it will do nothing to decrease the pushing of unnecessary drugs. In the end, the consumer pays heavily for this sop to a powerful industry.
Then we have the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of January 10, 1987, which says:
The Mulroney government's controversial plan to amend the Patent Act to give the pharmaceutical industry a longer period of protection won't go down any easier with doubting consumers with publication this week of handsome profit statements by the major United States drug manufacturers.
As for the government's assertions that drug costs won't go up in Canada after the act is amended, Canadian consumers will be even less convinced after seeing the profit picture in the American industry and hearing how much their American counterparts pay for medications.
Just a week or so ago the major multinational corporations appeared before a U.S. congressional subcommittee dealing with health matters and were confronted with figures showing that their profits had gone up by more than 20 per cent a year in the last few years. It was pointed out that despite those tremendous profits only about one-third of those profits were channelled into research and development. When we see the head offices of the multinational drug companies acting in that way we should know what to expect from their Canadian subsidiaries.
In a January, 1987, issue of Business Week there was an article entitled "For drug makers, these will be the good old days". The article said:
This should be another record year for the $24 billion pharmaceutical industry ... new products should boost the industry's profits 15 per cent or so beyond last year's 18 per cent increase, to about $5.6 billion. After tax margins could exceed last year's 12.8 per cent.
How much more is the Government prepared to let the multinational corporations rip off the Canadian public? The article then goes into some detail:
Merck's sales could jump to $4.4 billion in 1987, up more than 25 per cent from this year's $3.6 billion, analysts estimate . . . Bristol-Myers-sales this year should jump 15 per cent, to about $325 million.
May 6, 1987

Meanwhile, Eli Lilly & Co. could have a winner in Prozac, an antidepressant already on sale in Belgium. If FDA approval is granted, analysts say, Lilly's 1987 sales could climb by $300 million, to $3.6 billion.
That is what happens. Drugs are developed in the U.S. or Belgium or Switzerland, brought to Canada, and the Canadian consumer pays through the nose. The Globe and Mail had a similar story in January.
The Reuter article was headed "Pharmaceutical companies seen buying shares, raising dividends". It said:
Shareholders could be in line for a bonanza from major pharmaceutical companies which, cash-rich from drug sale profits, are buying back their shares and are considering an increase in dividends, analysts say ... they are sitting on piles of excess cash from their booming business. Some of those funds amount to more than $1 billion (U.S.), which can be a drag on the balance sheet in the current low growth, low interest rate environment.
Industry leader Merck & Co., for example, will have about $1.5 billion in cash at year-end 1986, Bristol-Myers Co. $1.3 billion, Pfizer Inc. $1.4 billion and Eli Lilly & Co. $810 million. Some analysts predict that such cash reserves will double over the next two years.
We are talking about an industry which has already experienced tremendous profits. They do not need this legislation or the encouragement it will give them to make bigger profits, not to invest more in research. As I pointed out earlier in this debate, and in recent months, in the period before 1969, when the present legislation, which the Government is not just amending but is eliminating, was in force, although there were no restrictions on the companies and they had almost unlimited protection of their right to produce drugs which they had researched and developed, there was virtually no research done.
Given the testimony of these companies before the committee that the cost of developing a major new drug from original research to the point where it can be put on the market is in the neighbourhood of $100 million, it is ridiculous and naive to believe that they are going to permit their Canadian subsidiaries to invest that kind of money and effort in Canada to produce a new drug when the market in Canada is so small.
All the evidence indicates that this Bill will increase prices to consumers, and that means to young families with young children, retired people, indeed everyone who uses prescription drugs very frequently. It will substantially increase the profits of drug companies and cost the Canadian public hundreds of millions of dollars. For those reasons we intend to vote against this Bill.


Mr. White:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) mentioned the objections to Bill C-22 of a Manitoba farm group, Keystone Agricultural Producers. Indeed, in the early fall of 1986 the group issued a news-letter to its members stating their concerns about the Bill in light of their battle to lower the price of farm chemicals.
However, in January this year I attended their annual convention in Winnipeg and discussed the issue with several of their members. After a long discussion they came to the conclusion that if they had legislation like Bill C-22 for farm chemicals they would be ecstatic because their problems would
Patent Act
be solved. I think the House should know what the real story is as far as Keystone Agricultural Producers is concerned.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have put on the record in the House and in committee the views expressed by Keystone Agricultural Producers as they appear in a letter written to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) on November 25, 1986. It is signed by the president of that organization, Jack Penner.
I have talked to the Secretary of Keystone Agriculture Producers several times. If there had been a substantial change in their views and they had retreated from the position they enunciated very clearly and explicitly in their letter, then I say to the Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White) that I am sure they would have been in touch with me or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the member, outlining their new position. That has not happened. Therefore, I must assume and I think the member and the Minister have to accept the fact that Keystone Agricultural Producers is still opposed to this, as it was on November 25, 1986.
If the Hon. Member has any real evidence that the official position of Keystone Agricultural Producers has changed, I call on him to put on the record what has happened.
Let me quote from the organization's letter. It is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and states:
Dear Mr. Andre:
A recent meeting of the General Council of the Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc., Manitoba's principal general agricultural policy organization, unanimously adopted a resolution calling for our organization to vigorously oppose proposed amendments of the Drug Patents Act, which would allow chemical manufacturing companies patent protection of ten to seventeen years on new pharmaceutical drugs.
The KAP's concerns about the proposed amendments are twofold. Firstly, and most obviously, KAP members share the concerns of those who believe that extended patent protections, will, by limiting the ability of drug manufacturing companies to produce generic copies by means of royalty payments, raise the prices charged to consumers for pharmaceutical drugs to unwarranted levels. Farmers and their families are, of course, part of the general consuming public, and stand to be seriously affected in any such situation.
Secondly, since many of the drug manufacturing companies which produce pharmaceutical drugs are the same companies which produce the chemical formulations used by agricultural producers in the production of primary food commodities, it is our belief that any measures which may be taken with respect to pharmaceutical drugs may have significant implications with respect to the production and pricing of pesticides.
The letter concludes:
Viewed from the perspective outlined above, it is not difficult to understand why an organization such as the KAP would view the amendments you have proposed for the Drug Patents Act as constituting a step in the wrong direction, and we would strongly urge the Government to re-think this ill-advised legislation.
We had a very lengthy and important debate in which more than 100 Members spoke about the problems of western grain producers. Those producers are caught in a situation where they have low prices for the grain they produce while their input costs are increasing. One of those important input costs

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
is fertilizer. It is not surprising that Keystone Agricultural Producers are worried and therefore oppose the Bill. They know that it is not just prescription drugs that will be affected, but farm chemicals and pesticides.
Let me repeat that we are opposed to the Bill. We are joined by organizations such as Keystone Agricultural Producers. I wish the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River would listen to his farm constituents rather than the multinational drug companies, which is what he is doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on third reading of Bill C-22 today. 1 listened with great interest to what was said yesterday and today.
Quite frankly, I am puzzled by the comment of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) that the 1969 amendments to the Patent Act which allowed for compulsory licensing increased economic opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry.
I was a member of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-22, as was the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I sat through all but two hours of the 82 hours the committee spent on the Bill and that is certainly not what I heard.
Let me give some examples of what the experts said in the committee. We heard from the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation which consists of members from across the country. They stated that the amendments in Bill C-22 would protect the fruits of intellectual labour. They went on to say that since 1969, Canada has done very poorly in research and development. In their opinion, Bill C-22 would create the right environment for research and development. In fact, it was that group which made the committee aware that in the past several years advances in psychiatric therapy due to drugs has saved approximately $1 billion a year in hospital care.
We heard from the National Biotechnology Advisory Committee which called the present law a disincentive in the investment climate.
We heard from Doctor Chretien of the Montreal Clinical Research Institute who said that chemists who work for an innovative drug company do not get the same protection as, for example, a scientist who may work for Dupont Corporation who develops a new polymer. He said that pharmaceutical scientists are discriminated against because of the present legislation.
We heard from Doctor Manson, who represents Biomega, a Canadian biotechnology company. According to him, the system is not providing protection to domestic biological companies. He stated that this is a major growth area in human natural products, immunology and diagnostics and that our present system is not providing protection for that industry.
It is also important to note that amendments brought forward by the Government at committee stage have answered many concerns and questions raised by Doctor Manson and others representing Canadian biotechnology companies.
We heard from Doctor Spiro of the University of Toronto, representing the Coalition of Scientists. In his estimation, Bill C-22 will increase both basic and clinical research. The 1969 Bill had a bad affect on medical research, according to Dr. Spiro.
We heard from Dr. Jacques Gagne, a pharmacist-* pharmacologist and Dean of the University of Montreal. He was a little more emphatic. He said the 1969 amendments were the worst thing that ever happened to research in pharmacy in Canada. He calls Bill C-22 a major step in the right direction.
We heard also from a Mr. Ian Thompson. He is not an expert or scientist. He has two children with cystic fibrosis. He said the future of his family depends on research and new and better drugs. Who is doing the research in drug therapy? It is certainly not the generic companies. Dr. Chretien, whom I mentioned earlier, said generic companies do zero per cent in research. Their motive is profit only. As Mr. Thompson said, the future of his family depends on research, and therefore, depends on the innovative drug firms.
The Medical Research Council of Canada did not appear before the committee, but I have its report dated February 1987 from which I would like to quote very briefly:
After the Patent Act was amended in 1969 to provide for compulsory licensing to import, the growth rate of innovative pharmaceutical companies' R and D investment in Canada is said to have declined.
This decline in growth rate has been more than twice as severe as that for the industry worldwide and also about twice as severe as for other industries in Canada.
The report continues:
The direction which the patent legislation will take if and when the new Act is passed cannot but be favourable to the expansion of medical research in Canada.
The Hon. Member from Cape Breton-East Richmond read a letter yesterday from the Manitoba Women's Institute saying that we were accusing opposition Parties of promoting fear. In quoting from this letter, the Hon. Member stated that the Women's Institute was certainly not promoting fear. I agree, it is not promoting fear but is the victim of this campaign of misinformation. We have the misfortune in Manitoba, I must say, of having a New Democratic Provincial Government and we have been bombarded with misinformation.
I would just very briefly like to list some of the facets of Bill C-22 which should be remembered because I think it ties in with my following remarks. Under Bill C-22 all generic products sold today will continue to be sold. New generic products may be marketed as early as seven years after a brand product is approved for marketing. Today on average it takes nine and a half years for such a process. Why is that? I
May 6, 1987

mentioned a few moments ago that the only motive of the generic drug firms is profit. They do zero research according to some of the top minds in the industry in Canada.
Generic companies are now seeking licences for more than 40 products. Under Bill C-22 every single one of these products can be marketed within the next five years. A very important aspect of Bill C-22 as well is the establishment of the Drug Prices Review Board. Under the Drug Prices Review Board, the prices of all patent drugs will be reviewed annually. The prices of all new products will be compared to the prices of the products with which they compete to ensure consistency with the established market prices. The board as well will have the power to roll back prices if the innovative firms are not keeping their commitments to research and development.
The board will measure annually the impact of the activities on drug prices and these reports will be made public. These aspects are quite clear. The fact that Dr. Eastman will head up the committee and, in his own words, he feels the committee will be beneficial and effective, makes me think that the process will work very well.
The innovative firms at the same time have promised to expand R and D from 4.9 per cent to 8 per cent by 1990 and to 10 per cent by 1995. I have a long list of examples of innovative firms which have pledged millions of dollars, over $800 million, in increased R and D and capital spending.
I would also like to mention briefly, before 1 get into the Opposition tactics, some indisputable facts about the pharmaceutical industry.
I am a licenced pharmacist in the Province of Manitoba. There are over 5,000 drugs on the market in Canada at the present time. I can pick at random 100 of those products off my shelves in my drug store, and 93 at the present time will have no generic competition. Seven per cent is all that have generic competition at this time. What does that tell us? It tells us that only 7 per cent of the drugs on the market in Canada right now are financially attractive to the generic companies. The other 93 per cent, although they are saving lives across the country, are not rich enough to attract the generic companies. The generic companies are not doing the research. They are copying 7 per cent of the drugs for the sake of pure motive and we are losing our scientists because of it.
I attended a press conference in Winnipeg late last fall which was set up and held by several experts in the field. There were scientists from the University of Manitoba and St. Bonifice Hospital Health Sciences Centre. We heard from research scientists from the Children's Hospital in Winnipeg that two new products had been developed by a scientist who packed his bags and moved to Europe to further develop those drugs because of the present compulsory licensing laws in Canada.
I should also note at this time that we expect, upon passage of Bill C-22, $50 million of increased research and development spending in my home Province of Manitoba.
Patent Act
In light of these facts, what has the New Democratic Party been saying, particularly in Manitoba? For purely political reasons it is preying upon the fears of the sick and elderly. In fact that Party is not just preying on those fears; in my opinion it is creating false fears. I believe it is quite understandable that Canadians have questions about new legislation for any federal Government. However, the misinformation being spread by the New Democratic Party of Manitoba and across the country is reprehensible. It is creating totally false fears in the minds of the very people it pretends to protect. I would like to go through a few examples to prove my point.
My home town, Swan River, Manitoba, is a small town. The local Member of the Legislature from that area is a Cabinet Minister in the NDP Government of Manitoba. He sent a letter to the editor late last fall and I would like to read a few lines because it emphasizes the campaign of misinformation being perpetrated in Manitoba. I quote from a Minister of the Crown in Manitoba:
Dear Sir:
I wanted to express my concern about Ottawa's intention to ban generic drugs. A federal Bill to prohibit the sale of "generic" drugs-is expected to be introduced during the current session of the Canadian House of Commons.
He continues in his letter to urge that Canadians should write to the Prime Minister. For him to say that generic drugs will be prohibited is ridiculous. It is absolute nonsense. That letter was written by a Minister of the Crown in Manitoba who should be believable.
At the same time I have a letter which was sent out to most Manitobans from New Democratic Members of the legislature from across the province. I have several in my possession and they are word for word; the only difference is the signature. Although the letter does not speak in quite as profound terms as the previous letter, the first line talks about the prospect of higher prices, something that is worrying a lot of people these days. My contention is that worry is being spawned by the New Democratic Party. The letter says that drug prices will increase significantly, and for a full page the letter goes on to create fear in the minds of the elderly, which is shameful. Those are the very people that that Party professes to protect.
As recently as this week, the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom), while introducing a petition, bootlegged in some editorial comment on Bill C-22. He said that Bill C-22 would hurt the Saskatchewan Drug Plan and smiled when he said it as though that was quite funny. It is interesting that during the hearings of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-22 we heard from the Deputy Minister of the Saskatchewan Health Department and the Executive Director of the Saskatchewan Prescription Drug Plan. I would like to quote from the testimony of Mr. Walter Podiluk, the deputy Minister of Saskatchewan Health Department:
We present to you the Saskatchewan position, based on our experiences with a drug plan which is the most comprehensive and the most universal of any in Canada ... At the present time, after some fairly careful examination of the provisions and the features of Bill C-22, we feel it has the potential to control the inflationary spiral of pharmaceutical costs. We feel it also has the potential to create a more stable investment climate and stimulate employment.

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
Because Saskatchewan recognizes the potential good that can be derived from
the Bill, we are prepared to accept the principles and the thrust behind it.
That was from representatives of the Saskatchewan Prescription Drug Plan.
Finally, I wish to refer to one last letter which is the second in a series of letters. It was sent to thousands of Canadians last week or the week before last. It is from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and is dated April 13, 1987. It is a follow-up to a letter sent out on September 30. The letter reads in part:
Dear Friend,
You and your family could soon be paying a small fortune for prescription
drugs, just so that big foreign-owned drug companies can increase their profits.
Further in the letter he states that Bill C-22 would mean that:
-all new drugs coming onto the market will be as expensive as the drug
companies wish to make them-for 10 years.
That sentence ignores the Drug Prices Review Board which will control the price of all drugs, not just those 7 per cent from drug companies which are rich enough to attract the generics at this time. Further on in the letter he mentions a monopoly for drug companies. Patent experts who appeared before the committee told us that this situation is not a monopoly situation because these products, if not for the innovative firms, would not be in existence in the first place and there would be nothing to copy.
Further on in the letter the Leader of the NDP states that generic drugs save Canadians more than $211 million per year. He does not mention that under Bill C-22 it has been estimated, using the same criteria as that used by Dr. Eastman, that consumers would save not $211 million but anywhere from $226 million to $366 million. He fails to mention that fact.
The best part of the letter is found in the last couple of paragraphs. Beside a political gain I was wondering what the Leader of the NDP had in mind when he sent this letter. He
states:
Make a contribution to the New Democrats' campaign for fair drug prices.
Members of the New Democratic Party are using these false fears not just for political gain but as a fund-raising campaign. That is something which is unheard of and totally shameful, in my opinion.
1 feel that my contention that Canadians have been misinformed by the NDP is proven by this letter. That includes the Keystone Agricultural Producers about whom the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was speaking just a short while ago. They were misinformed and have sent out a newsletter advising their members to oppose Bill C-22. In my discussions with members of Keystone Agricultural Producers, as well as the President, I found they have softened that view and are now saying that if they had such a system in effect for farm chemicals they would be far better off.
This nonsense that is being spread-and I think spread is a good word because coming from a farming community in
Manitoba we spread much of what is being spread by the NDP here-is creating false fears. It is certainly not helping the debate on Bill C-22.
In the opinion of the Canadian Medical Association which represents almost 44,000 doctors Bill C-22 is good for Canada and good for the health care system. Rather than seeing Bill C-22 as a curse, the generic companies should see it as a chance to become involved themselves in research and development and invest their profits. Their profits are well up there. They should invest those profits in the pharmaceutical industry and in pharmaceutical technology. Let us not forget that if a generic company makes a major discovery in pharmaceutical technology, that discovery would be protected for between seven and ten years just as any discovery of an innovative firm would be protected for the same length of time. As a nation we must protect intellectual property rights.
I was in a conversation last fall with a gentleman who phoned me up at home one evening to talk about Bill C-22 and his opposition to it. It so happens that at the present time this same gentleman is writing a book which he hopes to have published in the next couple of months in hard cover. I said to him: "Well, sir, what if the day after you have this book published in hard cover selling for $20, $30, $40, someone down the street publishes the same book in paperback and sells it for $3.95? Would that not be the same as Bill C-22?" I think that is a very apt analogy. It got him thinking twice about Bill C-22 and his opposition to it.
The Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, of which I am a member, publishes a journal monthly. In the October, 1986, edition there is an editorial on the Patent Act changes that we are debating today. It is entitled "A Needed Reform". The article states that the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association has taken a definite stand on the proposed patent reforms. The association supports them because it believes that the amendments will improve the quality of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry and ultimately benefit consumers. I share this optimism, the optimism of my colleagues across Canada, in the belief that increased research development will occur under Bill C-22 and will result ultimately in a superior health care system for all Canadians. The four-year review that is built into Bill C-22 will ensure that the innovative drug companies are keeping up their end of the bargain.
I would like to close with a short verse that I read many years ago and happened to come across just a few days ago. It reads:
For the want of a prescription, a sale was lost For the want of a sale, a profit was lost
For the want of a profit, an investment was lost
For the want of an investment, a research project was lost
For the want of a research project, a new drug was lost For the want of a new drug, a patient was lost
Innovative drugs help support today's research and tomorrow's breakthroughs which are good for Canada. I urge the House to support Bill C-22.
May 6, 1987


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, without amendment, Bill S-6, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-22.
Mr. Speaker, it is both sad and unfortunate that the Conservative Government has failed to consider the recommendations made by the Official Opposition, by my colleague from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) and my colleague from Cape Breton, who both worked very hard to ensure that this Bill, whose purpose is ... I think it is important to recall for the benefit of the people watching us, that before 1969, it was the law of the jungle as far as the price of prescription drugs was concerned.
Because there was no competition at the time, and companies doing research enjoyed considerable protection in the form of patents, when their research was successful, on for instance a new drug to alleviate pain, the companies could arbitrarily set a price of $5, $10, $15 or $20 on their products. For 17 years, they held a monopoly, and people who needed this drug to alleviate pain were at the mercy of those who took advantage of the situation at the time, and thought only in terms of profits.
Faced with this situation and this attitude, in 1969 the Liberal Government decided to protect the Canadian consumer, while the Hon. Member who spoke earlier, the Conservative Member, his only concern was the company and research, never mind the price to be paid by the consumer and by the sick who need prescription drugs to alleviate pain or cure their illnesses. Faced with such abuses on the part of the multinationals the previous Government decided to eliminate this patent protection, with the result that the health product market became more competitive. The same medication, the same pill produced the same effects but it did not have the same appearance. Still the person who needed this medication to relieve suffering or cure such and such disease did not have to pay so much.
Patent Act
The Eastman report pointed out that Canadian consumers saved $211 million in 1983. When we say consumers, we have to keep in mind that we are referring to people whose condition is not normal and who need drugs because they are sick.
Even so, with the passage of time and perhaps rightfully so because of the lesson the multinationals drew from having to compete, the Liberal Government agreed to review the situation and appointed the Eastman Commission to find out whether after a few years we ought to maintain the same process and give no protection to companies which carry out research, or whether it is true that research can indeed be very costly and there ought to be a minimum of protection. Instead of giving up under pressure and yielding to blackmail from the multinationals or anybody else, the Government appointed an inquiry commission. After consultations Commissioner Eastman recommended that consumers who are sick need to be protected, this was the first and most important consideration, but at the same time he advocated a certain degree of intellectual protection for companies doing research so as to protect and maintain employment levels in research in Canada and Quebec. The Eastman Commission recommended a four-year protection.
But here again unfortunately-always in keeping with the Conservative approach so perfectly described by the Conservative Member who spoke before me-the poor company was losing a bit of money, it needed help, no matter what. Sick people will have to pay more, but to him it is a minor consideration, it does not really matter.
This legislation and the attitude show the position and attitude of the three national parties. The legislation shows that clearly. In the legislation you have protection-someone, a Prime Minister who is kneeling before the drug multinational corporations, as he knelt before the banking institutions, as he knelt before the Americans. And the drug multinational corporations told him: "Listen, you give us this, and what we need is 10 years without any market competition. Let consumers pay more, that is of minor interest". They said: "We will put up money", but that is taxpayers' money, federal money, $100 million to compensate the provinces, because they are footing the bill for the drugs used by people on Quebec welfare, by hospital patients and others.
Let us not forget how little this Tory Government shies away from getting money on the backs of patients. We remember the 10 percent tax on drugs-hard-nosed as it is, it will not stop at that. This is the second time it is using sickness in Canada-the first time to reduce the Canadian Government deficit that covers the Prime Minister's luxury travels, and now to enrich the multinational corporations.
But you have at the other end the New Democratic Party, and the Hon. Member who just spoke clearly showed that the NDP's intellectual honesty is not Canada's best. As McEnroe would say, it is no great shakes.

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
So you have clear, specific proof. The NDP opposes any change. And this shows that the NDP does not understand Quebecers at all. And this is where the NDP clearly shows that in spite the fine promises and the fine faces made by the NDP Leader in Montreal, as soon as he gets back to Ottawa, as soon as he crosses the river, he does not even remember what a Quebecer is and what he is asking for.
He does not even know. Some people. There is nobody in the NDP, not even the turncoat for Terrebonne who left the Progressive Conservatives, who transfered in the meantime- he took a seat anywhere, and he landed beside the NDP, because the Rhinoceros Party and the Liberal would not have him. Even he, who is from Quebec, did not dare rise to represent the interests of Quebecers.
And for once in Quebec, you know that in Quebec, the Liberals and the Pequistes are hard-headed. The Parti Civique and the RCN find it hard to agree on anything. They are often bickering, but on the matter of drug patents, dating back from the time when the PQ was in Government and the Provincial Liberals in Opposition, there was a unanimous vote in the National Assembly to urge the federal Government to grant a minimum of patent protection to keep Quebec brains in the Montreal area, to give a certain credibility, honesty that is due to multinationals, but not to do like the Conservatives who bow to blackmail and give everything to the multinationals.
Again, the NDP is unaware of what took place in Quebec. Personally, last year, I took part in the Montreal economic summit, which drew together people of all political stripes: representatives from the Quebec Government and Opposition, and Members of the Liberal, PQ and Conservative parties. Personally, I was there for the Liberal Party at the federal level. There was no NDP representative. There were people from the RCM and Civic parties. The Civic Party was then in power in Montreal. There were union representatives from the CSN. I suppose the NDP does not know about the CSN, for it operates only in Quebec. It is all Chinese to them. The CSD is another union which operates in Quebec. I can understand that the NDP leader would not know about the CSD; although he pays a lightning visit to Montreal once in a while, he does not know about the CSD.
But there were also representatives from the FTQ, which is a member of the Canada Labour Congress. Personally, I am a paying member in good standing of the FTQ. There was also a guy named "Ti-Louis" Laberge who is not afraid to speak out and who is neither a Liberal, nor a PQ nor a Conservative. He was sitting with the others around the table and all of them were on the same wave-length. They were asking that the federal Government introduce a bill providing a minimum of protection for patents. It is a well known fact that the drug manufacturers are concentrated in the greater Montreal region. There are a few in Quebec City and some more in other regions. We have to protect and keep our scientists.
Again, I should like to remind the House that it was not "Ti-Louis" Laberge who stated, even if at one time he did negotiate with the Premier: Just a minute, the multinationals
and you are bedfellows; you are giving them all they want. Now, this is a different matter.
Again, this panel included Golden Agers. These people too were unanimous. Then, all of a sudden, the NDP comes along and says: Let's keep things as they are. Let us maintain the status quo. We keep the status quo, Quebecers are not so important. We do not care about Quebecers. Such is the attitude and the behaviour of the NDP with respect to the fair and just claims of the Quebec people. The NDP, and the Leader of the NDP when he wants to defend the automobile industry in his constituency, in his province, often tries to get the support of Quebecers, and he would like them to understand the problems of other regions. But when they try to have the NDP understand their specific needs, because in all their speeches they say that they recognize the specificity of Quebec, when they are asked to say in specific terms how we should go about it, the NDP demonstrates that it is not this or that, that it is not the right way.
Let me go back to the attitude of the present Government. It is unfortunate that the suggestions, the amendments put forward by my colleague the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) were not accepted. He was expressing the fair, just and logical views of the majority of the Canadian people who were asking for a basic principle. I believe that all Members of the House of Commons who represent their constituencies, who represent the Canadian people, know very well that the least organized people in Canada are the sick, that there is no association for them to get together and lobby the governements, and tell them: Hold it, you are hurting us! Those people suffer. They do not have time to get organized. The first duty of every Member of the House of Commons should be to defend the interests of those who are least able to defend themselves. And it should have been the role of Conservative Members to tell the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney): Hold it, Canada is not run by multinationals. Let us reject their blackmail when they say: If you do not give us that Bill with 10 years, we will not make as many investments. If the Prime Minister had shown that he had guts, that he could hold his own, he would have said: Hold it, man, you will take what we will give you. We have been elected by our fellow citizens to defend the interests of the Canadian people from sea to sea, not to be blackmailed by multinationals.
He could have said that a commission, an inquiry carried out with public funds, had enabled experts to say that four years would provide adequate protection for consumers in terms of drug prices. With four years, there would be protection for research and academics who want to work in that field, and the multinationals would continue to make a profit, even without a ten-year monopoly. After all, they did not go bankrupt. Now listen, the multinationals are not in business to please you or me. They do research because they think there is money in it, otherwise they would not bother.
May 6, 1987

Unfortunately, concessions have been the order of the day. As for the NDP Members, initially they had set up their petitions opposing the measure but felt they could not send their petitions to Quebec. Maybe there was a bit of hypocrisy in this, because they knew perfectly well they would be getting into a hornet's nest. However, I felt they might have realized at some point that if they want to get candidates elected in Quebec, they would have to show a minimum of respect. They should go to Quebecers and ask what their position is. They should ask the PQ and the people who defend the interests of Quebecers from the Montreal area in the National Assembly what kind of distinctions they make. They may be right and they may be wrong. But they did not do that. They tried to cover up the problem so that they ended up defending their own ideological interests but not the interests of Canadians, and especially not the interests of Quebecers. Recently, questions were asked in the various regions, both in the National Assembly and elsewhere, and' both parties were always asking the federal Government to proceed quickly. However, I repeat that this is not reflected in the Bill we are being asked to adopt today on third reading, Bill C-22, which unfortunately will have the effect of considerably increasing the price of prescription drugs in the future.
Some Conservative Members will say: The provinces will foot the bill. But from whom are the provinces getting the money? From the taxpayers. Consumers will be paying more taxes to cover the cost to provincial plans of higher priced drugs.
Other Convervative Members suggested: "No, there is no serious problem there, they have private insurance". Well, who is paying for private insurance covering the cost of drugs, the Blue Cross or someone else. The consumers again. The fact is that prices will increase, insurance companies will raise their premiums, insurance companies operate on the basis of a 10 per cent profit on cost, well, they too will be looking for extra profits. But who will be footing the bill? Again, consumers.
And Conservative Members once more forgot about senior citizens. Yes, seniors again. It may be in an underhanded way the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who announced today that on June 18, he will be introducing the tax reform ... Is he going to mislead senior citizens as he once did concerning the de-indexing of old age security? Will Mrs. Solange Denis have to stay at the door to watch for our national "Charlie Brown"?
But they forgot there are four million people in Canada who will have to dig into their pockets. And they are not rich people, but people working at the minimum wage in convenience stores, people who work week-ends. Four million people who may not transfer the cost of drugs to their Provincial Government because they are not on welfare, because they have an income, they work. That includes equal numbers of young people, older ones and seniors.
There are four million people who have no more protection, who do not have Blue Cross, who do not earn enough to pay for the protection of private insurance. On top of that they have to try, out of their meagre earnings, to put as best they can some money aside in case they have to buy drugs if one of their kids gets sick.
Patent Act
And here, with the 10 year protection, we will come back to that, that during 10 years .. . Ah, at the start, during the first year, the multinationals will be kind, they will report, they will say: We are planning a one cent increase. Look how nice we are. Three, four or five years later, when we are not looking anymore, they will go ahead, they will go all out. Hey? After six years they will say: Just in case they change anything we should do like the Conservative MPs, let us grab everything we can before we get beaten.
Why did the Conservative Government not choose to negotiate just like the Eastman Commission would have done? Eastman recommends four years, the companies are trying for 10, so let us settle the matter and call it five years. You have only five years. After five years-Mr. Speaker, I see I have only one minute left-after five years we will review the legislation to see whether it should be maintained. No, Sir, it is the other way around. This is just another way of speaking, we let them buy us off, not for very much because we are not worth very much these days. So we tell the multinationals: You have 10 years. We give them 10 years and then set up a supercommittee to investigate. Imagine, we are not even sure whether research will be done in Germany .. . Imagine how much we will have to pay for this committee which will go traipsing around the world to make an inquiry into a handful of powder .. . Who studied that? Make an investigation. We will have Sherlock Holmes-type investigators coming out of the woodwork. It will cost a fortune and we will be no better off.
After five years the committee will report: Well, maybe we should make some changes. So the multinationals will say: Just a minute, you passed a law, we have 10 years, it was up to you to think about it. Today's Conservative Members will no longer be here in five years, they will all be out, but the people will be left with the problem created by the Conservative Members.
I see some of the Conservative Members are laughing. It is very funny. I can appreciate that some of them may have an interest in this. Perhaps they are shareholders of the multinationals. Personally I am clean, I have no shares in the multinationals. I can understand that a shareholder would be interested and anxious to see the Bill passed, he will be here day and night, hopefully the shares will go up and he will make a bundle. But that is not my interest nor my intention, Mr. Speaker.
We are talking about our constituents. The Conservative Members who are here ought to keep in mind that maybe tomorrow somebody in the family will be sick. You are laughing now, but maybe one of your relatives will take sick tomorrow and you will say that the high cost of drugs is scandalous. How did it happen? People will tell you that you should have been on your toes when you were there. You should not have given in to blackmail from the multinationals. You should not have let them buy you off. It is your responsibility to think about the welfare of Canadian taxpayers first instead of your own.

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is still hope, for the Bill has reached third reading. 1 am under the impression that Conservative Members have cash registers instead of hearts. There is nothing that can be done about that. But I am still hoping, one never knows . . . Since the Bill will be referred to the Senate, maybe it will be returned here with amendments that will enlighten Conservative Members, and I trust that the NDP Members will remember how unfair and offensive to Quebecers they have been in this debate.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for his eloquent speech in favour of the neediest Canadians. I do not think the House has a better defender of the needy than the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned a category of citizens who will undoubtedly be the most affected by the change proposed by the Government. This category of some 4 million people do not necessarily live on welfare, are not necessarily wage-earners and are not eligible because of their job to medical assistance programs which would provide them with free drugs and they will be faced with prohibitive costs when purchasing medicine.
These Canadian men and women just cannot afford such a burden. But in spite of all this, I think that demonstration of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is quite eloquent and shows that there will be cruel and severe consequences for a great many men and women. Still, the Government tries to justify its odious drug legislation by saying that it will create new jobs. I know that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie represents a riding in the eastern part of Montreal Island, in Quebec, which is severely affected by high unemployment.
Could the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie indicate to the House whether he sees any benefit or positive results for the Island of Montreal as far as job creation is concerned, following the adoption of this Bill which is cruel indeed to Canadian men and women?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) for his very important question. The Conservative Government would have us believe that it introduced this legislation, which provides a 10-year protection period, in order to create jobs. The problem is that we cannot be sure that the Bill in its present form will create jobs in Quebec. These jobs are not a sure thing. There may be a couple of jobs in the construction industry since it seems another building is going up. Sure. Suppose they need a carpenter. Today, a carpenter doesn't have that much to do on a construction site. It is mostly iron and steel and concrete. However as far as scientific research and the real brains are concerned, there is absolutely no guarantee.
Knowing the Conservatives, are they going to oblige a company to create jobs in Canada? We saw what happened with Gulf-Ultramar. The Government decided to allow the
sale of the Gulf refinery to a foreign company, which then decided to close down the refinery. The jobs were lost. We saw this in the decision regarding Dome Petroleum and Amoco. The Hon. Member is right to be concerned because this Bill means the consumer will have to pay more. According to the Conservatives, this will create more jobs in research, but there is nothing to guarantee and nothing proves that the jobs in research will go to Canada and Quebec. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, I am sure that the people of Quebec fully expect to be shafted once again, as they were so many times before. They will have to foot the bill but will have nothing to show for it, as we saw in the case of the General Motors plant in Sainte Therese.


Mrs. Bertrand:: Mr. Speaker, first I want to make a comment, then I will have a question for my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie who poses as the champion of the elderly. He usually does a very good job, but still there is a limit to wanting to protect the poor, the orphan, and the elderly. Demagogy comes easy in this field, and I think my colleague has earned his spurs in that respect. Mr. Manuel Maitre, the director or president of the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, had this to say when he appeared before the committee, and I quote: It often happens that the senior citizens or groups of senior citizens-because politicians tell them this-say that they are going to pay more if this legislation is adopted.
Mr. Maitre said: This is a total falsehood because in Quebec there are presently 4,100 pharmaceutical products for which they can get a refund. Five years ago there were 1,400 in Ontario and 800 in Saskatchewan. Mr. Maitre went on to say: What you have there is a complete arsenal, you can poison the whole planet with it. And one of the recommendations of the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens is to urge the Government to legislate in an attempt to cut down the use of medicated drugs. Physicians are so handy with their prescription pad that senior citizens become sick.
So the only drugs they need now are covered. Well, how can you justify your position when we know that this group of sick and elderly people are covered by health insurance plans?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) that before, on the matter of the de-indexing old age security pensions, she stated clearly and publicly that a Government was under no obligation to honour its promises, its commitments.
And she just showed clearly, and I mentioned earlier in my speech, that indeed the NDP does not understand the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, who ask for minimum protection. But the aim, what the Hon. Member is asking, is this: Do senior citizens over-use drugs? Physicians and studies suggest they do. But it is not by granting patent protection that the over-use situation will be corrected. Senior citizens will not change on the matter of aspirin if they use too much.
May 6, 1987

It is therefore my view that the Hon. Member for Brome- Missisquoi took the wrong road to reach her goal. If education is needed to urge people to use less and less drugs, it is not by keeping money with the multinationals that this will be accomplished. The Government could have taken money and put it into education, prevention through the CLSC, the senior citizens' clubs, and I would be highly supportive of such a move.
But what we now have before us is strictly a case of someone kneeling before the multinationals, someone wanting to give extra money to the multinationals. This holds nothing good for consumers as a whole. And above all, it will not protect patients because there are drugs patients have to use to alleviate their pain.
I would therefore urge the Hon. Member, knowing her sense of responsibility, to tell her Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that in order to achieve her goals, in order to prevent people from using drugs unnecessarily, other methods and other steps could be taken. I would be ready to co-operate. But let them reduce the bill, let them provide for a five-year protection and a review of that protection five years down the road. But first, we must protect consumers. And if the Government really wants to save jobs, help our brains, our scientists, our learned people, well, it is not by slashing research funding and so on that this will be accomplished. It is not by simply asking patients to become increasingly ill that jobs will be created for people with brains. Because the Government attitude is getting stupid there.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are three things to consider. If Conservative Members want our scientists and researchers in whatever field to have jobs, well, instead of spending money on the banks and handing out capital gains tax exemptions, instead of letting the Prime Minister transfer a penitentiary to his own riding, instead of all this foolishness, let them take the money and manage it properly, and provide funding for research and create jobs for people and protect the sick. Now, if she wants a program to educate people to be less dependent on prescription drugs, I think that is a very good idea. So let's provide the funding and do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal.
[DOT] (noo)


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today in strong support of Bill C-22. As we are quickly coming to a close of this debate, perhaps we should review a little of the history over the past few months. There has been much talk about there not being enough time to debate Bill C-22. Canadians have seen what has happened. We have had days and days when members of the opposition Parties rose and said, "I move that so and so be heard". On one day we voted every half an hour. That is not responsible opposition. It is time members of the Opposition learned that they are here to oppose Bills that are bad but not to oppose every Bill that comes before the House.
Patent Act
This Bill was introduced on November 6, read for the first time on November 7, and debated at second reading stage on November 20, 21, 24, 25 and December 5. From there, the Bill went into committee and that committee sat every day of the week beginning December 8 and going right through until March 5. There was adequate time for members to look into the Bill.
From speaking to some of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I have learned that they do not believe that there is very much wrong with this Bill. As a matter of fact, looking back in history, this Bill was introduced in the Thirty-second Parliament by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but it was botched up and the Government did not get it through. Now we will vote on this Bill and I urge all members to support it because it is a good one.
I think we should look at the Bill itself. It talks about the protection of intellectual property. Intellectual property is a very important thing. People talk about generic companies not being able to work alongside innovative companies. Generic companies presently produce 7 per cent to 8 per cent of all the pharmaceuticals in Canada. In the United States where there is 17-year patent protection legislation, generics have grown to 25 per cent of the market. I see in the future a generic industry and an innovative industry working side by side in Canada. We have to remember that the last real breakthrough in medicine made in Canada was made in 1921 with the discovery of insulin.
This debate is winding down. What is left to say? It has all been said. I listened to the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party who just spoke actually twist things. I do not say that he was deliberately misleading the House because I do not think he understands. We need research and development in Canada.
At the present time, the ratio of research and development to sales in the pharmaceutical industry is 4.7 per cent. We have been guaranteed by the Bill that by 1990, that ratio will be 8 per cent and by 1995, it will be 10 per cent. The sales of pharmaceuticals presently amount to $2.5 billion to $3 billion. Perhaps by 1995, those sales will have grown, but that is already a great amount of money.
The scientific community has responded. It has said that we are right, Canada cannot survive without research and development. Nordic Laboratories in Montreal have committed $35 million to research and development. Universities and hospitals in Calgary and Edmonton have committed $132.9 million. Universities and hospitals in British Columbia have committed $81.6 million. Astra Pharmaceuticals in my own riding of Mississauga has pledged to spend on research and development. These companies have pledged that they will spend $850 million in research and development over the next 10 years. This means that 3,000 new jobs will be created for university-trained research people. The brain-drain to the United States will stop.

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
It is absolutely ludicrous that we should protect intellectual property for only four years. A company in my riding, Smith Kline & French, developed a drug to deal with peptic ulcers. That drug saved $135 million in surgery costs. Imagine the savings that drug made to medical costs in Ontario.
The scientific community has responded. Michel Bergeron, Director of the Department of Physiology at the University of Montreal, and others have said:
We are in full support of the amendments that are in front of the House'to support pharmaceutical discoveries.
A professor in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Science at the University of British Columbia has said:
You can't have good quality medical care if you don't have good research in the country. These things are tied together.
The Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Toronto has said:
Many critics overlook the fact that the $3 billion in research to be spent by Canada's pharmaceutical industry will lead to new and improved treatments, eliminating or reducing the need for surgery and hospitalization.
The scientific community supports this Bill. Most members of the Liberal Party who think support it as well.
Now members of the New Democratic Party have decided to launch a fund-raising campaign, the Hon. Member for Oshawa's (Mr. Broadbent) campaign for fair drug prices. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you received one of those little cards, but some of the people on my executive in Mississauga received them. They asked me if it could be true that this man wants them to send money so that he could support the downfall of the pharmaceutical industry, and they laughed at him. Believe me, the campaign did not take off the way he thought it would.
I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Hon. Member for Oshawa by a constituent of mine. I know my constituent would not mind if I quoted from this letter. It was sent to many places including The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and the Consumers' Association. My constituent had this to say to the Hon. Member for Oshawa:
How dare you misrepresent the drug prices issue to Canadians? As a pharmacologist who understands how new drugs are researched and developed, I am outraged that you should effectively lie to Canadians by omitting any mention in your recent unsolicited letter of the cost and value of drug research for the health of Canadians.
Although basic medical research is also done in universities, it is the "multinational" research-based pharmaceutical companies who spend the money to research, develop and introduce new drug treatments of disease for the sick and needy of ail nationalities.
If the costs of new drug development cannot be recovered by the innovative pharmaceutical industry before their profits are siphoned off by copy-cats with no research overheads, then obviously, new drug development becomes uneconomic and will be phased out.
Who will suffer then, Ed Broadbent? Those with cancer, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, autoimmune diseases, viral and parasitic diseases, severe skin diseases, etc., in fact, those whose conditions would have been treatable if research had remained a valued and economically feasible human endeavour. The situation you would have us support denies drug developers the right to expect to recover their investments of $100 million and ten years of research for each new medicine they introduce.
Canadians support the concept of improvements in health care, as demonstrated by their generosity in giving to the Cancer Society, Muscular Dystrophy Association, Heart Foundation, etc. University researchers are beneficiaries of these donations, but only Ed Broadbent stands to benefit from the diversion of discretionary money to the "Fund for Fair Drug Prices". Canadians stand to lose out in the long run, both in a financial and in a humane sense, because the development of new drug treatments promises the most economical (and sometimes the only) means of treating these difficult diseases.
I am tired of "positions" and half-fact/half-fiction masquerading as truth when presented to the Canadian public. The truth is not a matter of opinion, but of established facts. When facts are omitted from discussion in order to make opinions more tenable, then the New Democratic Party perpetrates a dastardly and callous lie upon the public.
I want you to listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
I have voted NDP in the past. 1 guarantee it won't happen again,-
Praise the Lord, someone has seen the light. He said that only because any Party that takes the position on the Patent Act adopted by the NDP is fundamentally opposed to research and development in health care and to all that has motivated this man in his 22 years of study of drug treatment of disease.
We have put in place a Drug Prices Review Board chaired by Dr. Harry Eastman. He is a respected gentleman and has guaranteed a lot of safeguards to ensure there will be no increase in drug prices.
Does the board have any teeth? I can tell you it does. It will have the authority to review all prescription drug prices so as to ensure that those prices are fair after taking into account the Consumer Price Index, the price of that drug in other countries, the direct production and marketing cost of the drug, along with any other factor the board considers relevant. If the board finds the price of a particular drug excessive it can set a price ceiling thereby lowering the price. If a company persists in selling above that price ceiling then the board can order its period of patent protection to be revoked, not just on the product in question but on all of its patented drugs. The board has a very strong case to put before the Canadian public.
We must also remember that for the first time there is a federal agency, and I mentioned this before, with provincial participation which can review the 93 per cent of drug prices not subject to generic competition. Up until now they have not been subject to any kind of downward price pressure.
This is a good Bill. It does a lot of things. It will bring in new research and development. Three thousand new jobs will be created in Canada over the next 10 years. About $850 million in new research and plant expansion projects have already been announced. Of the 3,000 new jobs, over half will be for university-trained people. We are going to end the brain drain. We will have increased innovation.
This Bill will improve the quality of Canadian health care, which is very important. More drug research in Canada will result in new and improved treatments for medical problems
May 6, 1987

and better over-all health care. Some new drugs eliminate the need for hospitalization, and I mentioned the drug produced by Smith Kline French in my riding. Surgery as well as harmful side effects will be reduced and consumers will not only benefit from the earlier introduction of drugs into Canada but there will also be the further saving from reduced hospitalization.
We will also get strengthened generic competition. I honestly believe that the generics are not going to suffer from this situation. We know that when drugs are introduced on the market in Canada the generic companies do not rush to copy every one. As a matter of fact, over the past seven years, of 145 drugs introduced in Canada, one was copied. Application has been made to introduce 41 new drugs on the market. Forty will be brought on in the next four years and one in the next five years. These drugs will assist in fighting disease. We look forward to those generic drugs coming on the market. In the past it has taken 9.9 years for a drug to come on the market. Why should the manufacturer not have 10 years' patent protection?
Aside from strengthened generic competition we will have stronger consumer protection, and that is very important. Bill C-22 does that by ensuring that all drug prices are reviewed. That is all drug prices, not only those for which there is generic competition. If this new policy had been in effect since 1969 it could have saved consumers between $226 million and $366 million by 1983. Those savings would have resulted from both the impact of modified compulsory licensing and the effect of the review board in moderating prices. Those savings compare more than favourably with the $211 million in savings estimated by Dr. Eastman in his report. Moreover, the estimated savings under the existing system do not reflect the addition of $70 million in research funds which would have been invested under Bill C-22.
The opposition Parties are going to have to learn sooner or later that they are here to oppose bad legislation, and rightly so. 1 respect them for that. If bad legislation is brought in I will assist them in opposing it. However, I will never assist them in opposing good legislation just for the want of opposing something. The NDP and the Liberals have found that their campaign has fizzled. I mean fizzled. People in Canada are ready to give pharmaceutical companies the rights they deserve in order to manufacture drugs and protect Canadian lives. I urge everyone to stand with me half an hour from now and support Bill C-22.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? Debate.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I was rather interested in the speech by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Nickerson:: You should be, he knows what he is talking about.


Neil Young: I am not sure about that.


Mr. Siddon:: I think he does.
Patent Act


Neil Young: The Canadian people will make that judgment come the next election.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They sure will.


Neil Young: I can tell all those Tories who want to say a few words while I am speaking that even under the most generous conditions, even under the most optimistic projections, at least 100 of them are not coming back here after the next election.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Do you want to make a small wager on that?


Neil Young: I am being extremely charitable in making that prediction.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You are going to eat those words, Neil.


Neil Young: At a very minimum, 100 Tories are not coming back. I want them to think about that when they are leaping up and down supporting measures which are clearly seen by the Canadian public as not being in their best interest.
In the few remarks I want to make about Bill C-22 I think it is worth examining how that Bill came before this House for debate. It came about in a very unusual way. Numerous studies have been done over the past number of years since 1969, and prior thereto, into the pharmaceutical industry in Canada and indeed in other countries around the world. The latest study that was completed by the now famous Dr. Eastman was recognized as the most exhaustive study that has ever been completed not only on the pharmaceutical industry in Canada but elsewhere. Dr. Eastman concluded in his report that Canada's policy that was adopted in 1969 to amend the Patent Act as far as pharmaceutical products are concerned had been a good policy for Canada and certainly for Canadians. He estimated that in 1983 alone Canadian consumers saved $211 million on drug prices as a result of the present policy, which the Government now wants to change.
I think we all must recognize why Professor Eastman was asked to examine Canada's policy and, indeed, why seven commissions prior to Doctor Eastman's inquiry were formed to look into the pharmaceutical industry. Anyone who wants to be open-minded and look at history will discover that Canada has this present policy because prior to 1969 Canadians were paying among the highest drug prices in the world. Governments commissioned these studies to discover why Canada, of all countries, was paying the highest prices in the world for pharmaceutical products.
Those studies came to certain conclusions. The first was that the pharmaceutical industry, which was primarily controlled by multinational corporations, enjoyed a monopoly in price setting on drug products. All of those studies concluded that the only real answer was to remove patent protection and eliminate that monopoly practice from pharmaceutical products, and inject some kind of competition into that industry. Therefore, they recommended to Governments that

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
patent protection be removed and that some compensation should be paid to the pharmaceutical corporations for their cost of research and development.
The conclusion of all those studies was that the pharmaceutical industries had spent a maximum of 4 per cent of total sales on research and development and therefore, if a generic company wished to copy a brand name product it would be required to compensate the multinational corporation with a 4 per cent royalty for making use of that product.
When government Members describe Canadian generic drug manufacturers as a bunch of thieves, as was suggested by one government Member, they should also be honest and point out that those multinationals are being adequately compensated for the use of their product.
All of those commissions concluded that Canada's present policy is a good one for Canada and Canadians. In fact, the House will be interested to know that nearly every other country in the western world has looked at Canada's present policy and found it to be extremely attractive from the point of view of allowing their consumers to reap an equal benefit to those that Canadians now enjoy. Furthermore, during the U.S. Senate hearings in the last several weeks, I believe, a number of witnesses from the United States appeared before that committee and made the very argument that the United States Government should copy Canada's policy for the benefit of U.S. consumers.
I suspect that Canada is changing this policy not because of any pressure from within but primarily because of external pressures placed upon the Canadian Government. In fact, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) admitted as much already, and blamed his European counterparts for placing that pressure on Canada to amend the Patent Act. There is, however, increasing evidence that the pressure is primarily coming from the United States Government, through U.S.-based pharmaceutical corporations, in the free trade negotiations that are currently taking place between the United States and Canadian Governments.
There is ample evidence to indicate that the purpose of changing our policy is not to benefit Canadians but to benefit primarily U.S.-based multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers. I also suspect that a similar reason that pressure is being applied in Canada is that the multinationals recognize that Canada's policy is attractive to other countries and have decided to put the fight on in Canada before these other countries attempt to adopt our policy.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has compared a drug product to that of a widget, or the author of a book. He asks: "How would you like to invent or produce a widget and find someone the next day copying that widget, producing it under another name, and reaping the benefits from that invention?" I reject that absolutely. First, we know that it cannot possibly happen because copyright laws are quite different from Canada's patent policy.
Second, I totally reject the argument that we can compare health products to widgets. A person who requires medication does not have a choice of medication because the doctor makes that decision.
I also argue that pharmaceutical products and their affordability are an integral part of our health care system. We cannot compare people's health and their ability to receive affordable medication with that of manufacturing a widget, as the Minister likes to argue.
The Government makes another argument which is not too convincing but helps to confuse the debate. It suggests that the NDP should not be so concerned because if this policy is adopted it will not increase prices. However, when the Government introduced this legislation it also stated that it would compensate provincial Governments by some $100 million a year for the next four years for any increase in drug costs that they may have to carry under the various drug plans they have for senior citizens, those on welfare and those who cannot afford to purchase their own medication. If this legislation will not result in increased costs, why does the Government propose to provide the provinces to the tune of $400 million over the next four years to compensate for additional costs? That defies logic.
The fact is that this legislation will increase costs. Why do the multinationals want that kind of freedom in the marketplace if it is not to increase profits? If it is to increase profits, we can be sure that the cost of pharmaceutical products in this country will increase as well.
The other part of the argument the Minister makes is that drug prices will not increase, but if they do increase, Canadian taxpayers should not be too concerned because seniors are covered under most provincial drug plans and the disabled receive assistance under the drug plans as well as, in many cases, single-parent families. Where does the Minister think those Governments receive the funds from? They receive the money through taxes. Someone pays the provincial and federal Governments. They do not go to the bank and say: "Give me a chunk of money". Taxpayers will pay for these increased costs if, indeed, provincial Governments decide that this is the way to go to cover the additional cost to their Treasuries. A number of Governments have already sharpened their pencils. They have come to the same conclusion as we have that there certainly will be higher drug costs in the future.


John Horton McDermid: Crystal ball gazing.


Neil Young: No, I do not think it is crystal ball gazing because the Minister himself has said that it will cost $400 million over the next four years to provincial Treasuries, and that is why he is proposing to transfer $400 million in additional compensation to the provinces to cover those increased drug costs. The Government has recognized the possibility of drug price increases, and that is why it proposed this additional compensation to the provinces. The provinces have also
May 6, 1987

sharpened their pencils because the $400 million will not be nearly sufficient to cover their additional costs.
What are the provincial Governments going to do? They receive their revenues from the same place as the federal Government, and that is, from the taxpayers. They are going to have to take a look at their drug plans, and those provinces which provide free drug coverage, such as Ontario, will have to decide whether they can continue with those programs. If it is decided to continue with the programs, how are they going to be funded? Will the provinces go back to the taxpayers and increase provincial taxes? If they decide that this would not be a politically astute thing to do, they may decide, since it has become too costly, to charge a deductible for that program. In other words seniors or disabled individuals may have to pay the first $100, $200, $300, $400 or $500 of drug costs before the provincial plan kicks in. The provinces may decide, rather than impose a deductible, to cut back on the program in some other way. The provincial Governments will not have any choice. They will have to come up with the funds for those plans which are fully paid for.
If the provinces do not want to go in either of those two directions, they could take a look at other social programs they provide and cut back on those in order to cover the drug plans. One way or another, provincial taxpayers are going to pay through the nose as a result of Bill C-22.
The previous speaker said the New Democratic Party has been distorting the facts during this debate. He said that somehow or other the New Democratic Party is the villain in this piece rather than the Government. I have a great deal of respect for some of my friends opposite and I am sure they recognize, as I do, that in the heat of debate very often some Members-not all of them, certainly not the Members in the House at the present time-become strangers to the truth. However, just to satisfy those people who may be listening to this debate that indeed the New Democratic Party has not been distorting the facts, I thought I would indicate what a whole number of obviously knowledgeable people across the country are saying about the Government's proposed legislation.
Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the Toronto Star consistently opposes what the Government has been doing primarily based on the arguments we have been presenting. One of the headlines of an article on February 19 of this year reads: "Why the drug patent legislation is all wrong". The article goes on to give a very detailed analysis of the legislation and points out quite clearly why this legislation should not be supported either by Members of this House or by the Canadian public.
The Financial Post, which one could hardly call a socialist newspaper, on December 15, 1986, carried a headline which read: "Catch-22 triples in Tory drug Bill".
1 will not quote the whole article but it makes a couple of points in refuting the arguments of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The article reads, and I quote:
Business of the House
First, the Minister argues that giving firms the exclusive right to market new drugs for 10 years won't raise the prices of such drugs. But the reason you want the patent in the first place is to give the firm a monopoly so it can charge a monopoly price and make what may look like a monopoly profit, but is really (at least in part) a return to its R and D investment. If prices aren't going to rise, the patent has no value. So why give it?
That is the first Catch-22. The article goes on to say, and I quote:
Then the Minister argues that under the current system of compulsory licensing, generic firms take 10 years on average to bring their copies of new pharmaceuticals on to the market. But if inventors already have 10 years of effective protection, why do we need a system of 10 year patents?
It terms this as "Catch-44". The articles continues:
Finally, the Government wants to establish a drug prices review board to ensure that abuses do not take place. But if we want monopoly prices in the first 10 years after a drug's invention (so invention will be encouraged), and if competition from the generics will be available after that, why do we need such a board?
And it terms that "Catch-66". My time has almost expired but I could quote The Globe and Mail whose headline reads: "Patent change may not mean better drugs". I could quote nearly every editorial from any newspaper across this country which has come out in opposition to what the Government is proposing in this legislation.
In conclusion, may I say that while I have heard speakers from the government side urge Members of the House to support this legislation when it comes to its final vote tonight at six o'clock, I will make the opposite plea. If those 100 Tories about whom I spoke about earlier, who are facing certain defeat in the next election, want to save their hides, they should vote against this legislation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect to House Business, I would like to indicate to the House that tomorrow will be designated as an allotted Opposition Day, as will Friday.
On Monday we will be debating a resolution having to do with the Constitutional Accord which was agreed to by First Ministers on April 30 which I filed with the Clerk, namely:
That this House endorses the Meech Lake statement of principles approved by all First Ministers, April 30, 1987 as a basis for Quebec's participation as a full partner in the Canadian Constitution, and as a basis for the establishment, in a spirit of equality and fairness, of a process for considering further constitutional reforms.
The motion will be in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
On Monday I will be presenting an appropriate order outlining the hours of sitting and the parameters defining the debate. Hopefully, notwithstanding the present position of the

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
opposition Parties, which have expressed a desire not to vote on this particular issue, over the course of the weekend they may reflect on this very important issue. During the course of the debate they may be of a disposition to reconsider their positions. I think it is important to do this in order to have a clear reflection of where the Elouse stands on this very important issue. I think it is important to have a clear expression of opinion by Parliament on this very important issue. I say that only in the manner of making a suggestion. We have had some discussions. There has not been agreement reached with respect to voting on this issue. However, hopefully, members of the Opposition will change their minds as the course of the debate proceeds.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Notwithstanding the points made by the Government House Leader, at the moment are we to proceed with the understanding that an order will be brought in on Monday and for the moment that order will state that we will debate this important item during the day and that if there are speakers still interested in speaking at six o'clock the understanding is that the debate will cease at that time, unless there is some further change in the understanding that the House Leaders have between now and then? Is it the understanding, then, that the debate will cease at 6 p.m. on Monday?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is my understanding.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We will, of course, have to look at the order. We have already said to the Government House Leader that there are many people on our side of the House who may want to express their views. I cannot say that all those who want to express their views will be able to do so in the ordinary hours of sitting.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in negotiations on the floor of the House. However, I think that if that is a preoccupation of my friend, as always, we are willing to accommodate and provide opportunity for debate. In the interest of being accommodating, those are matters that we might be able to discuss on Monday either prior to or even after the order is submitted.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend a couple of questions with respect to the campaign for
fair drug prices, a campaign of the New Democratic Party which went out across almost all of the land. Lirst, I want to comment on a three-page letter signed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party which does not mention one word with respect to research and the importance of it or even the lack of research in Canada.
The New Democratic Party is always talking about honesty and openness and how frank it is with the Canadian people. Could the Hon. Member answer these questions? How much money has been raised on this campaign? How much money was spent to promote the campaign? What has the New Democratic Party done with the money that it raised? Has it gone to promote just the New Democratic Party? How is this money to be spent? Even better, will the New Democratic Party table the books with respect to this campaign which will show how well it did in raising this money?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the same difficulty, I suppose, that some cabinet Ministers find themselves in when they are asked questions on how their Party formulates things or how their caucus does things. Quite frankly, I do not have answers to these questions because I was not involved in that part of the campaign. As the Hon. Member knows, my role in our fight against this legislation was to go out into the country to meet with senior citizens' groups, with members of disabled organizations and disabled people. I went to the Atlantic provinces, for example, and had an excellent meeting with all types of service organizations-


Robert Nesbitt Horner: And misled them!


Neil Young: I had an excellent reception in Edmonton, Alberta, and in Saskatchewan and Manitoba-all over the place. 1 realize that the Hon. Member asks me these questions honestly and that he expects frank answers. All I can suggest to him is that I do not have the information about which he asks, but I would be pleased to try to find it out for him and to provide it to him. I am sure he would be quite interested, as I would, with respect to how effective the campaign was.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member from Mississauga interject the comment that when my friend, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), was travelling across the country and talking to groups he misled them. I note that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and organizations such as the Consumers' Association of Canada opposed this Bill when it was first introduced and have opposed it since. Will the Hon. Member for Beaches tell us whether he believes that we are so efficient and so effective that we could mislead the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and organizations such as the Consumers' Association of Canada?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no hesitation in assuring you and the House that, first, it was neither the Official Opposition nor the New Democratic Party which took off in opposition to this legislation. Senior citizens' organizations in the country were way ahead of the political Parties in terms of expressing their opposition to this legislation. It was
May 6, 1987

they who asked me to sit down with them last July. I will tell Hon. Members that I met with them downstairs in this very same building at their request. As a result of meeting with senior citizens' groups, consumer groups, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and others the real concern was first raised with us. It was we in our role as an opposition Party who lent assistance to their fight against this legislation.
I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite proud of the role this Party has taken and the lead given to opposing this legislation in the House of Commons. I only wish that we had another six months in which to continue our opposition. Unfortunately, the Government decided to close off debate on this legislation and we are now faced with a vote in about nine more minutes, something which I consider to be quite unfortunate.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on this legislation, the Hon. Member has accused the Government of taking sides with the multinationals. I want to ask the Hon. Member what he thinks of the comments made in the course of this debate by eminent persons across Canada, and I would like to name a few from Quebec, because they are more familiar to me. For instance, Dr. Michel Chretien, Director of the Montreal Clinical Research Institute, Dr. Yves Morin, the famous cardiologist, Mr. Jacques Gagne of the University of Montreal, and all the people who appeared before the Committee, begging the Government to expedite the legislation because no more research was being done in Quebec and all the young scientists and academics were going to the United States or elsewhere. How does he reconcile his position with that of the people I just mentioned, whose purpose in life is not to make money but to improve the health of their fellow citizens?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer that because I also met with those individuals. I do not mind telling you exactly what I told them. I could understand their desire to accept any money that they could find for research because of the way in which the Government had cut back on the amount of moneys targeted for research across the country. By the way, those people were a minority. A large percentage of the people in research fields and universities recognize exactly what the Government is doing and certainly do not support it.
I told them that if they think the answers to their problems in research and development are to be found in this legislation, they are being extremely naive, even though I understand why they could be attracted to the position which they finally took. On close examination of the press releases put out by drug companies promising all kinds of additional expenditures for research and development, if this legislation is passed, you will find that they were not talking about additional moneys for research and development but for clinical research. Anyone
Patent Act
who has even a shallow understanding of the field knows there is a vast difference between clinical research and research and development.


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I see that it is shortly after six o'clock and I do not have much time for debate. This debate has gone on for quite some time. I heard the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) saying that debate had been closed off. This legislation had 82 hours of consideration in committee before which 46 groups or 120 individuals appeared. One hundred and forty written briefs were received, and by the time I finish speaking there will have been 28 hours of debate in the House. I think that probably all of the salient points will have been touched upon by that time. By this time literally hundreds of points have probably been regurgitated too many times.
I am interested in speaking on this subject because I come from the City of Saskatoon which is unlike the Cities of Montreal and Toronto where the bulk of this research will probably take place. However, Saskatoon has a major university, a major private sector in research and development, and a number of federal and provincial government laboratories. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that people in the university community are very interested in, perhaps for the first time in their lives, working somewhere in Canada at least, if not in western Canada, in research after having received a graduate degree from the university in Saskatoon.
I took the time to meet with the faculty and graduate students at the College of Pharmacy of the University of Saskatchewan about six weeks ago. They were elated that there would be a chance to do something right here in Canada with regard to research. Believe it or not, there are already two companies which are potentially interested in locating in little old Saskatoon which has a population of 180,000, if this legislation passes. That is why I am interested in this legislation.
We all remember a lady by the name of Judy Erola who was in this House in the previous administration. She was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and commissioned Professor Harry Eastman to do a study on the pharmaceutical industry. I read with interest a letter that Judy Erola wrote to the Winnipeg Free Press on April 22. She said: "I believe that many people have fundamentally misinterpreted this Bill".
I appreciate that it is the job of the Opposition to oppose certain pieces of legislation. However, when incorrect or slanted information is going to the public and is picked up by the media, it does not take very long to be misinterpreted right across the country. I believe that is precisely the reason so many people are scared to death of this legislation. They are only looking at the nickels and dimes rather than at the benefits. They are not considering the Drug Prices Review Board which will review 100 per cent of the drugs in the country for the first time in the history of Canada. That is what this legislation is all about. It is not only about research

May 6, 1987
Patent Act
and development, although I think that is very important. We must think about consumers.
A poll was done by Decima Research for the pharmaceutical industry. Twelve hundred people were polled between February 26 and March 4, 1987. The results show that 65 per cent of the people in Canada thought this legislation was good after hearing the main arguments for and against it. It is also interesting to note that 82 per cent of the people polled would support the Bill if the Government ensured that drug price increases would be no greater than the increase in the rate of inflation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Drug Prices Review Board will report to Parliament annually. There will be a policy review every four years and a parliamentary review after 10 years. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is consumer protection built into this legislation.
I would like to conclude by saying that I appreciated having these eight minutes to speak on this very important piece of legislation. As the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Judy Erola, said, if you think about it, Bill C-22 is better protection for all Canadians.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! It being 6.08 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, April 15, 1987, in accordance with Standing Order 117, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of this Bill.

Accordingly the question is as follows: Mr. Andre moved that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be now read the third time and passed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
Patent Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.34 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 7, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers