1992-12-10

Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker. it is my pleasure to present to the House, on behalf of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, in both official languages, the report on the Canadian delegation to the annual OECD debate of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, September 30 to October 2, 1992.
It is important for all parliamentarians of this House to know that at this debate it was firmly established that from now on there will be a formal debate held each year on the doings at the OECD.
Our government is heavily committed to the OECD. This gives parliamentarians a chance to find out the workings of the OECD, how it spends its money, what Canada's role is and to question the future of that assembly.
Finally, parliamentary debate at our delegation's urging has now been established.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Transport which deals with the future of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system.
It calls on the government to eliminate distortions created by the Western Grain Transportation Act in order to ensure that grain transportation is mode, load and direction neutral. It further recommends a three-year freeze on seaway pilotage fees and seaway tolls, as well as federal contributions on all capital funding necessary for the seaway system to be a safe, efficient and reliable transportation route.
I am very pleased to state that we have had a unanimous report on this important transportation issue. I wish to congratulate all members of the Standing Committee on Transport and the members of the subcommittee on the St. Lawrence Seaway for a job well done.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


LAND TITLES REPEAL ACT
Hon. Epp (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-103, an act to provide for the repeal of the Land Titles Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Mr. Epp (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.

December 10,1992
Routine Proceedings


SASKATCHEWAN TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-104, an act respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 22, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Keeseekoose, Muskowekwan, Ochapowace, Okanese, Piapot, Star Blanket, Yellow-quill, Beardy's & Okemasis, Flying Dust, Little Pine, Moosomin, Mosquito Grizzly Bear's Head, Muskeg Lake, One Arrow, Pelican Lake, Red Pheasant, Saul-teaux, Sweetgrass, Thunderchild, Witchekan Lake, Canoe Lake and English River bands, and respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 23, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Nekaneet band.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Mr. Epp (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMPENSATION ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-105, an act to implement certain expenditure restraint provisions of the economic and fiscal statement tabled in the House of Commons on December 2, 1992.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Epp (for the Minister of Finance) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


CANADIAN PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-106, an act to amend certain petroleum-related acts in respect of Canadian ownership requirements and to confirm the validity of a certain regulation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Epp moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


EXPLOSIVES ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-107, an act to amend the Explosives Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Epp moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-108, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
December 10, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Mr. Dorin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the permission of the House to table a committee report at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
16TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and deposit insurance, in both official languages.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-390, an act to amend the Criminal Code (stalking).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation would amend the Criminal Code to put more teeth into the area dealing with harassment and with wilfully following or stalking individuals. It is my hope that it will provide a more effective means of protection above and beyond the issuance of a peace bond and will give individuals, particularly women, but all individuals more protection under our Code. That is the reason I am introducing this bill at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Rideout moves that Bill C-390 be read the first time and printed.
Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-391, an act to amend the Income Tkx Act (tools).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill, if it were to proceed, would provide the following. My colleagues know that tradesmen who have an independent business are able to deduct from their revenue, their earnings of that year, the cost of the tools and equipment used in that profession. Tradesmen who work for someone and receive a salary, however, even though those tools and equipment are needed, cannot deduct the cost from their earnings.
This would permit mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, people from all trades who must supply tools and equipment to do their job for an employer to make the appropriate deductions from their earnings.

Canada's workers would certainly welcome the implementation of this proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Duhamel moves that Bill C-391 be read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1) the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


RECALL ACT
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-392, an act to provide for the recall of members of Parliament.

December 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and it is my duty and honour to introduce today a bill which is an act to provide for the recall of members of Parliament.
This bill would allow the electors in any federal constituency to recall their member of Parliament by circulating a petition containing the names and addresses of a majority of the voters enumerated in that riding in the previous election. If a recall petition were to be deemed successful by the chief electoral officer a byelection would be called for that seat.
The bill also contains a number of limitations on the recall process designed to avoid superfluous and mischievous employment of this device.
I believe that this bill would do more to ensure democratic parliamentary reform than all the committees this House could put together. It is time that members started representing the interests of their constituents in Ottawa rather than Ottawa's interest in their constituencies.
The passage of this bill may convince them to do just that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Ms. Grey moves that Bill C-392 be read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-393, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for London-Middlesex for seconding the introduction of the bill.
This is a bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to permit a police officer to arrest a person without warrant for breaching a condition of parole and statutory release.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as members of the House and the public are aware, police officers or peace officers can arrest a person who they believe on reasonable and probable grounds is about to breach the Criminal Code.
That is not so with respect to the breaching of a condition of parole and statutory release. They have to go away to try to get a justice of the peace to issue a warrant and then come back to try to find the person. If that happened in a normal situation under the Criminal Code, all sorts of crimes could be committed prior to the obtaining of the warrant. That is the problem here.
Members of the public cannot understand why, when they ask a police officer to arrest somebody who is about to breach their parole, the police officer shrugs and says: "I have to go away". This bill will correct that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Redway moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: That, six members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel to New York City to study the role of the UN from December 14 to December 16, 1992.
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the chief Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions for that review, from any envelopes by filing notice thereof with the clerk of the committee and such substitutions shall be effective for the entire period of travel and should be effective immediately when they are received by the clerk of the committee.
December 10, 1992


FINANCE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That, five members and three staff persons of the subcommittee on international financial institutions of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., in relation to their study on the IMF and the World Bank for four days in January or February 1993.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Mr. Speaker, we objected to this yesterday, and I do so again today. We thought substantial amounts of money could be saved by cutting on trips.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I do not think there is unanimous consent. Members cannot explain why they agree or disagree with this motion without prior notice.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a chance to be recognized on a point of order.
Yesterday, because of the late voting, there was a change to the sequence of private members' motions and bills with the consequence that the bill of the member for Mission-Coquitlam that was to be discussed on Friday will not be discussed.
There have been consultations among all the members of the House representing parties and individuals, and I would seek unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That Bill C-333, an act to amend the Canada Health Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission -Coquitlam on the Order Paper, be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and Status of Women.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the reasons given by the NDP House leader, we in the Official Opposition give our consent.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. As Independents we give our consent to this bill as well. It is an excellent bill and an excellent initiative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might briefly explain why we withheld consent. Is that in order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the floor to the hon. parliamentary secretary?


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, just now you would not let me explain why we were against trips. I do not see why we should agree to hear the reasons for withholding consent for a bill that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and I would like to make it clear that when unanimous consent is sought, the Chair must listen and wait. However, with the unanimous consent of the House, and I think the hon. member will appreciate this, any member may give his reasons for being opposed to or in favour of a motion. I will now ask the House whether there is unanimous consent for allowing the House leader to proceed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.

December 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a number of petitions this morning on behalf of residents of Barriere, Darfield, Vavenby, Heffley Creek, Clearwater, Louis Creek, Bremner Creek, McLure, Little Fort, Birch Island, Skwaam Bay, Adams Lake, Blue River, Valemont, Upper Clearwater, Avola, Chu Chua and Canuck Lake.
All the petitioners add their names to what must be now in excess of 30,000 names, pointing out their opposition to diverting any rivers in Canada in order to sell water to the United States and northern Mexico.
They are asking that the Government of Canada pass legislation indicating and declaring clearly that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from many hundreds of people from central Vancouver Island.
They note that there is a link between violence in entertainment and desensitization to violence in our society, with the result that hundreds of men, women and children are being killed each year and the killers are pointing out that the violence is based on something they saw on television or in the media.
They suggest we are increasingly becoming a culture of violence and that a part of this culture is the serial killer board game which comes from the United States. It contains a bag of 25 babies and the point of the game is to murder as many defenceless children and adults as possible.
The petitioners note that the laws of Canada deal inadequately with these kinds of materials. They are asking Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material such as the serial killer board game and the mass murderer trading cards can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition this morning on practically the same subject.
Your petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that the CRTC carefully regulates the language used in radio and television broadcasts. It is their experience that quite often, unfortunately, the inappropriate language heard on radio and television undermines the efforts of families to create a healthy home environment.
Your petitioners also emphasize that it is unnecessary to use inappropriate language to inform people.

As I was indicating, it is unfortunate that inappropriate language is often used on radio and television. These petitioners would like it controlled because they see a link between language and abuse and they feel it has no place in Canadian society.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions, one from the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area and the other one from Ottawa and Montreal.
The petitioners are pointing out the hypocrisy of Canada in supporting United Nations resolutions for the self-determination of East Timor. As well we talk a good line about linking human rights considerations to foreign aid and international diplomacy. At the same time Canada allows the brutal repression of the East Timorese people to continue to the point where the situation is bordering on genocide.
Therefore the petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn the Indonesian military occupation of East Timor and the genocide of the East Timorese people, to support publicly the right of the East Timorese people to determine their own destiny by referendum and free elections, and to support these causes in the United Nations and all other international arenas.
December 10. 1992


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions both from my riding, one from the town of Caron and one from the town of Shamrock, concerning the future of Canada Post in those two communities.
The petition from Shamrock is signed by virtually every user of the post office there. They call upon this government to reverse its policy of closing down rural post offices in Canada.
They know the government is driving a stake into the heart of rural Canada every time it closes a post office. Communities like Shamrock need their federal outlets. They need their postal service. They have a right to the postal service.
They call upon this government to do the right thing and change its policies toward Canada Post in closing rural post offices.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 56(1), I would like to move two motions for authorization to travel:
That six members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel to New York City to study the role of the UN from December 14 to December 16,1992;
And that five members and three staff persons of the subcommittee on international financial institutions of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., in relation to their study on the IMF and the World Bank for four days in January or February 1993.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since fewer than 25 members have risen, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3), the motion is deemed adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We just said we were opposed to excessive spending on trips outside the country, and now they are taking advantage of the Standing Orders of the House to pass-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.


Gilles Rocheleau: You are wasting taxpayers' money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I will remind the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer that Standing Order 56.1 says:
(1)	(a) In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.
(2)	The questioji on any such motion shall be put forthwith, without debate or amendment.
(3)	When the Speaker puts the question on such a motion, he or she shall ask those who object to rise in their places. If twenty-five or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn; otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all the questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, be read the third time and passed.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this House to conclude the debate on third reading of Bill C-91.
Since the government announced almost a year ago that it intended to make further amendments to the Patent Act, I think that all concerned have had plenty of time and opportunity to express their opinion.
On our side, we listened very carefully to all the opinions expressed, whether here in this House or in other forums outside. We have taken account of them to a large extent in drawing up and improving the bill, especially in the amendments we tabled that were adopted last night.
I think that the time has come for members of this House to conclude and settle the debate, for the greater benefit of the Canadian economy and also Canadian consumers.
On several occasions since June, I have had an opportunity to explain the main objectives of Bill C-91 and I would like to come back to them a little.
First, Bill C-91 is meant to continue the major undertaking of modernizing Canadian intellectual property legislation, which began some years ago. In the present economic context where knowledge and innovation are the watchwords, I think that everyone will agree that it is an essential element of our competitiveness.
Our purpose is also to align our laws with those of most of our international competitors, so that Canada can provide the same benefits and be as attractive as other countries in terms of international trade and investment.
This bill will help us to stimulate research and development in Canada, as well as growth in a leading-edge sector.
With Bill C-91, we also wanted to strengthen consumer protection, so that consumers can continue to obtain patented medicine at reasonable prices. I think that all Canadians are entitled to that.
To attain these main objectives, we basically are proposing two new provisions. First, Bill C-91 proposes the abolition of the compulsory licensing system for patented drugs. Let me emphasize that Canada is currently the only country in the industrialized world
applying this system. Holders of pharmaceutical patents will thus be assured of the 20-year protection that is already provided to all other patent holders in the Canadian economy.
Second, the bill increases the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. These new powers will enable the board to more effectively control the prices of both existing and new patented medicines. The bill provides for fines and prison terms for those who do not comply with the board's orders.
We remain convinced that Bill C-91 strikes a balance between two government objectives: economic growth and consumer protection.

Hon. members will remember the first step was made when Bill C-22 was passed in 1987. Today we can say, without exaggeration, that the impact of the 1987 amendments has been extremely positive, both for economic growth and job creation and for Canadian consumers, as far as patented drugs are concerned.
It seems appropriate, in the circumstances, to look back on the process that started in 1987. The innovative sector committed itself at the time-provided the amendments to Bill C-22 were passed-to doubling its spending on research and development as a percentage of sales from 5 per cent at the time to 10 per cent by 1996. The industry had set a time frame of about 10 years, or actually nine.
However, last year, five years ahead of schedule, the commitment to increase research levels was practically met. We have every reason to expect that this percentage will increase substantially in the years to come, provided we align our intellectual property policies with those of other industrialized countries.
Since 1987, the innovative sector of the pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $1 billion on research and development. Investment in basic research has more than tripled, rising from $30 million to $94 million between 1988 and 1991.
In 1991 alone, innovative pharmaceutical companies invested $376 million in R and D, an increase of 23 per cent over the previous year. This is just for 1991: $376 million. Between 1988 and 1991, the increase in R and D spending was an impressive 113 per cent, the highest in any Canadian industry. Not bad. Sometimes people say: "Look, we give industry a chance and it is not responding". In this case, I think we can say we were on target.
December 10, 1992

The innovating sector in the pharmaceutical industry is a very dynamic one today and employs more than 18,000 people in Canada. This has meant a very significant increase in the number of researchers as well as in new drug innovation and development here in Canada.
We know that pharmaceutical research, and I would even say research in general, needs a critical mass. We need to create an environment where enough researchers are brought together in one place so that this sector can develop.
I have personally visited companies where considerable investments involving hundreds of millions have been made over the years and I met young researchers who had left us. They had been trained here in Canada, and we know how much money and energy we put into our education system. We trained these researchers who have doctorates, Ph.D.s, and they went to Switzerland, to California and other parts of the United States to work. To earn their living in a leading sector, these Canadian brains had to go to the United States. These people came back. Just in the company that I visited, I believe that from 15 to 20 people had come back to work here in Canada for years to come.
Meanwhile, with the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, we were able to keep the price of patented medicine at a very reasonable level. In fact, between 1987 and 1991, the price of existing patented medicine rose at an average annual rate of 2.9 per cent, well below inflation for the same period, which was around 4.4 per cent. In actual figures, this means that prices in general rose at the fairly low rate of 4 per cent, but drug prices rose even less. Today, drugs cost less in constant dollars than they did five years ago. That is astounding. This has happened in few other sectors.
Despite this undeniable progress, we are still behind our international competitors in the amount of intellectual property protection given to the pharmaceutical sector. Indeed, our present system is by far the least generous of the industrialized countries. Our compulsory licensing system not only discriminates against drug patents-just look at the number of years-it also discourages investment in R and D and new drug innovation and development in Canada.
Government Orders
What kind of investment can we expect in this country if a company that does not do basic research can sit and wait until another company has spent 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars on research to develop a new drug? All it has to do is sit and wait until the drug comes on the market, copy it, wait two or three years for the copy to be approved, and then put it on the market, not at 10 per cent but 80 per cent of the other company's price. That is the kind of choice Canada has to make. We have a choice. Do we want a country that encourages copiers or do we want a country that encourages research, that encourages our budding scientists who are still in school and who in some cases spend 15 to 20 years of their lives getting an education? Would you rather we told those people: "There are no jobs for you in Canada. You better go to California to get a job. All we do here is copy. We will leave innovation to people in other countries. We will let them do the creative work, and you can come and copy what they do". No, Canada can do better than that.

We cannot tolerate a situation that for Canadians means the potential loss of productive jobs in a leading sector so important to our future. It is time to correct this situation and to encourage new investments in research and development in Canada. It is important to offer new export markets for Canadian products so that we can be more competitive internationally.
By adopting C-91, this House will be committing itself to this path of innovation and progress essential to the Canadian economy. Since last January innovative pharmaceutical firms have already announced additional investments totalling some $635 million by 1996.
When the innovative pharmaceutical industries committed $1 billion dollars, they delivered. Now they announce another $600 million investment. That is $1.7 billion of investment. It is a lot of money. This is over and above the approximately $2 billion the brand name industry will invest in research and development by 1996. This sharp increase in research activity means job creation. Notably it will provide better opportunities for our researchers so they will not be forced to leave the country to find employment that corresponds to their education and ability.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders

What we are talking about here are high quality, high paying jobs that generate employment in related fields.
It is estimated that a single job in the scientific sector generates a dozen more. That is one the reasons why it is so important to stimulate research activity in this country. These companies need services and supplies. The economic spin-offs and the multiplier effect on jobs are vital for Canada.
Increasing research is essential for our universities and hospitals which are actively involved in research, especially in the health sector. I think we all realize that research requires a lot of money and drug companies invest in research. For instance, the University of Alberta has developed exceptional expertise in clinical research in recent years. In British Columbia they are now looking at the possibilities, while companies are also looking at the maritimes. Hundreds of millions of dollars are involved. We are going to develop this industry over time, not the way some people in the opposition would like to see us do, which would make us a nation of copiers, a nation of people without a desire to innovate.
In the New Democratic Party, they say: "No, we do not have the resources. It is not our market. Let other people innovate in other countries, and once they have a successful drug, we will go and copy it". It is easy. All we have to do is copy the drug. We do not have to invent it. Let these young people go down to the United States to work for the multinationals. Let them innovate down there, and we will do the minor stuff like copying. We will copy the pills and try and put them on the market. We do not want that. Canadians can do better than that.


An hon. member:: Of course, they can.


Pierre Blais: Canadians can do better than that. This is not a nation of copiers. Canadians are innovators. Canada is the best country in the world. I have confidence in these young people and I am glad to see some of them here today. I am confident that these young people will be even better than we are. They will invent even more than we have, because that is the way of the future.
We do not have to be satisfied with crumbs, as those people would have us believe. The future is ours, and I am not afraid of it. Canadians are the best in the world and we have to prove it in fields like this one.
In 1991, the innovative drug sector spent $84 million in universities and hospitals doing medical research. Passing this bill will of course consolidate and even increase this essential role that our research and training institutions play. Canada has an increasingly solid nucleus of internationally known researchers and institutions in the field of medical research. It is very important to maintain and develop this nucleus. That is precisely what this bill will help achieve.
We have people like Dr. Labrie, who does basic research on prostate cancer at Laval University. This is very important, because a few years from now, as many as one out of three Canadians may get cancer. That is where we should put our money, because it will save hundreds of thousands of lives in this country. That should be our focus. We must help the people who work in our research centres, hospitals and universities across Canada.
Improving patent protection will also offer an incentive for Canadian-owned companies to develop their own patented drugs. Eventually they could also obtain exclusive research mandates from the big drug companies. That is the way to go. We have to start somewhere to create the critical mass we need.
Eliminating compulsory licensing will stimulate research activity, which will have a very positive impact in our competitive position internationally. The resulting new pharmaceutical products developed in this country will lead to increased sales on foreign markets because of the international exclusivity granted companies located in Canada. This means increased exports in a rapidly expanding sector of our economy.
Furthermore, Bill C-91 will promote research on new treatments for chronic diseases and help reduce health care costs in the long run. In fact, as new drugs appear on the market, they may reduce the need for operations and prolonged hospital care.
December 10, 1992

Recently, I read an article in a medical journal about a drug that will soon be on the market and can be used instead of surgery to deal with prostate-related problems. This means saving thousands of dollars that would otherwise be spent on surgery and hospital care. Imagine the tremendous saving in health care costs. It is incredible. Let us remember we stand to benefit in the long term.
[English ]
The bill before us is also based on an obvious concern for fairness. It is fair that the pharmaceutical products sector be entitled to the same patent protection that is given in all other sectors of the economy. I would even say that this is of special importance to pharmaceutical companies which often invest between 10 and 12 years in research, not to mention significant financial resources in developing new medicines.
Critics of Bill C-91 focus of course on the price of patented medicines. You would have to agree, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition has changed its argument very little since the debate on Bill C-22 in 1987. It even called to its aid Mr. Ralph Nader, a citizen of a country where the cost of prescription medicines is 32 per cent higher than in Canada. Mr. Nader would clearly be far wiser to defend American consumers than spend his time here with the critic of the Liberal Party.
What did Mr. Nader say? Basically he said the same thing as he did in 1987 which was that increased protection for intellectual property in the pharmaceutical field will create an explosion in the price of prescription drugs.
[ Translation ]
However, as I said earlier, the price curve of patented drugs since 1987 clearly indicates that the opposition and even Mr. Ralph Nader, at the time, were wrong. They were wrong then and they are still wrong today.
Perhaps I may recall that since 1987, we have had a quasi-judicial agency which has proved its mettle in monitoring the price of patented drugs. I am of course referring to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, whose powers will be enhanced under the new legislation. The board will thus be able to provide all Canadian
Government Orders
consumers with even more effective price control. These new powers will authorize the board to order a reduction of prices it considers too high. It will also be able to impose fines of up to $100,000 a day to compensate for previous overpricing and to discourage such practices.
The board's orders will have the same force and effect as a Federal Court order. This means that non-compliance with these orders is equivalent to contempt of court, which carries particularly severe penalties. I am convinced that these new provisions will assure Canadian consumers, of reasonable prices, like those they have had since 1987.
At that time, and this is the other aspect, the generic industry said that Bill C-22 would mean death for it. Surprise, it has continued to grow and everything indicates that this will continue after Bill C-91 is passed.
It has grown so much that a very prosperous Canadian generic drug company has even bought companies in the United States, where they do not have compulsory licensing, the same system we will have here. It is strange how they want to frighten people. I do not know if they think someone is behind me making me do this, Mr. Speaker. I will turn my back to the camera to show that is not so. We do not have to believe that kind of nonsense which was not true in 1987 and is still not true today.
The only difference is that these companies will now be on the same equal footing. They will have to comply with the same rules as the generic industries in other industrialized countries.
In recent months, we have heard some very pertinent observations from consumers, provincial governments, researchers and business people throughout Canada. Of course we will follow up these concerns in the amendments that we proposed which were adopted yesterday.
[English)
We shall continue to take whatever action is necessary to improve the effectiveness of our patented medicine price control mechanisms. We intend to get interested parties, especially the consumer and provincial health ministers, involved in the activities of the review board as well as in future appointments to the board.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
We believe it is essential to move ahead quickly with Bill C-91 and pass it without delay. I assure you that after discussing the issue for one year, everyone has had the opportunity to express his or her point of view. It is now the duty of the House to make a decision.
The pharmaceutical industry is now involved in a major-


An hon. member:: We only spent a few hours on the bill.


Pierre Blais: We know that the people opposite are not interested in that, but the pharmaceutical industry is now involved in a major global restructuring.
As I speak, important decisions are being made on the location of plants, on research investments and on mandates for subsidiaries.

Maintaining uncertainty under such circumstances will undermine Canada's credibility. It would cost us many investment opportunities when our whole economy urgently needs them.
By passing this bill quickly, we are going along with the great trend of globalization. We are resolutely putting Canada on the same footing as other countries to attract productive investments. It is time to choose. Do we want to be a land of copiers, of second fiddles, or do we want to be a land of researchers, of people who have confidence in their youth and in the future? Do we want to be a little country of copiers, a little country that counts on others and will try to get investments through the back door, by accident, or do we want to think of the future, the future of our industry in a rapidly growing leading-edge sector?
Over the past few weeks, distinguished Canadians involved in scientific research came forward to reaffirm their support for the proposed reform before the legislative committee. They had no ulterior motive. Their only concern was the best interest of all Canadians.
Allow me to quote in this regard the vice-rector, education and research, at the University of Montreal, Dr. Rene Simard, who is also a past president of the National Advisory Council on Pharmaceutical Research. Dr. Simard recently said:
The government must hasten the adoption of regulations to allow
Canada to compete with nations of the European Community, the
United States and Japan.
The provisions of Bill C-91, if passed, will give universities a
major incentive to expand higher studies to produce Ph.D.s capable
of meeting the tremendous needs emerging in that field.
Let us face it. Now is the time to act.
By passing Bill C-91-and I will close on that-this House will give a clear indication of the fact that Canada is entering the global economy, accepting the rules of international competitiveness and firmly positioning itself as regards R and D.
The Canadian government cannot look to develop an intellectual property sector, an international intellectual property sector, knowing that one job out of three in Canada depends from international trade-we are among the best in the world-and expect special treatment. We want foreign countries to respect the rights of our scientists and inventors when they work abroad while we have the right to say: "You know, we see things quite differently here in Canada". We want to be respected when outside of the country, but at home, we do not want to have to abide by the rules because we are in a rush to copy.

You cannot have it both ways, as we say, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. When we want to have rules and when we want to be respected around the world, when we want people to respect us for what we are, we must do things like the rest of the world. You cannot speak from both sides of your mouth.
These people can, and have succeeded admirably by doing so over the last few years. However, in the end, Canadians will be able to appreciate the facts, the courage of our government which dared to act in this area and to explain very clearly to Canadians the path we intend to follow. We are moving toward a developing economy, toward global markets.
I am convinced that Canadians will support these things and the policy of the government. I urge members like my friend from Dartmouth, who has been uttering enormities for a year on this subject, to come to their senses and try to understand that these investments are essential to our economy, everywhere in Canada.
December 10, 1992

I hope that my colleagues here, those on the other side of the House, will understand that it is for Canada that we introduced this bill and that we must all support it.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I sat here with a great deal of interest listening to my hon. colleague, the minister, trying to defend the indefensible. These individuals opposite know now that the Canadian public has seen through their very thin veneer, has looked at the arguments that they have made and found each and every one of them to be wanting.
The minister would like the Canadian public to believe first of all that Parliament has had a chance to debate this issue thoroughly. What nonsense. As a member of Parliament, forget that he is a minister of the Crown, he should be cowering in his seat when he sits down after talking about the rights of parliamentarians to debate this issue. He and the Minister for International Trade were the guys who rode shotgun with this bloody bill. This minister did the whole thing and made sure that Parliament did not have an opportunity to speak on this. He said that it has been before the Canadian public fora year. What nonsense. What utter nonsense. On June 23 the bill was introduced into the House. It was the last day we sat before the break for the summer. At that point in time the minister got up and he gave a good speech.


An hon. member:: Now the truth comes out.


Ronald MacDonald: He gave a good speech. We had two and one-half hours of debate on June 23. We came back some time in September, we had a couple more hours of debate and then the government shut the debate down. It used the big bloody instrument of closure when we came back after the referendum.
The government says the Canadian public has had a chance to look at this, that the Canadian public has had this issue before them for a long period of time. What utter nonsense.


An hon. member:: Absolutely.


Ronald MacDonald: It is very very clear why the government followed an agenda of search and destroy with regard to anybody who wanted to have a say on this bill. It either tried to discredit them or it used and abused the rules of Parliament to ensure that those
Government Orders
individuals did not have an opportunity to speak. Why did the government do that?


An hon. member:: It ought to be ashamed of itself.


Ronald MacDonald: Why? The government knew the longer the debate went on, the lower the numbers got for the Tories. The longer the debate went on, the more it would dip lower and lower and lower because the Canadian public would sit back and ask what in the name of goodness is that bunch opposite doing to Parliament.
One of the biggest problems we have as members of Parliament in this wonderful institution which has served us so well for over 125 years is with credibility.
People ask me when I speak, for example, in Alberta or Manitoba or back in my riding in Dartmouth: What in the name of goodness is wrong with Parliament? Why is it that individual members are not allowed to speak their minds? Why is it that everything is pro forma? Why is it that every time an important issue comes up for debate in the Parliament of Canada this government uses closure?
It is because this government is morally bankrupt. It does not have the right to go forward in this way when it is at 14, 16, 20 or 22 per cent in the polls and in the fifth year of Parliament. It does not have the moral authority to proceed with legitimate debate in the Parliament of Canada.
It has used this over and over again and it has done it again this time. It came in and used that blunt, bloody instrument called closure and time allocation because it knows full well that its arguments on bills like Bill C-91 will not hold any water once the Canadian public has a chance to look at it.
I want to set the record straight at the beginning of my speech. We started debate on this very important bill when it was tabled for first reading on June 23. We came back and had a few hours of debate the last day that we sat before the referendum.
Then we came back after the Canadian public had told us clearly that it wants us to go back and start dealing with real issues that affect Canadians. Did the government come back and put a bill forward to try and help the two million people who are unemployed or on welfare, give them some dignity back, give them some employment, put some money in their pockets? The government did not do that.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
The first day we were back-after collectively this institution got its butt kicked in the referendum-the first bill the government put was Bill C-91, this bill we are debating today.
This bill does not help Canadians. It is not going to put legions to work in Montreal, Quebec, Dartmouth or Winnipeg. It is a bill that is going to take $4 billion to $7 billion out of the Canadian health care system and deliver it on a silver platter to multinational drug companies south of the border.
The government did not just come in and say here is our agenda, this is what we are going to do. It came in after two and one-half hours of debate and invoked closure, time allocation. It shut down the voice of Parliament. That is exactly what it has done.
After a few more hours of debate it went to committee, and I think it is very appropriate that this be put today, before we even looked at one list of witnesses.
This is a very important bill on our side and I think the Canadian public agrees with us. It could have the impact of undermining the integrity of the Canadian health care system; something that we have held near and dear, something that makes us vastly different from other states around the world.


An hon. member:: The envy of the world.


Ronald MacDonald: This bill, coupled with the cutbacks in transfer payments for health care that the government has perpetrated over the last few years, this bill could have the impact of undermining the availability of quality health care for Canadians.
Is there a full debate on this? No. The government sent it over to the committee. The chairman of the committee or the former chairman is not here today. At committee, they did not even bother to look at the list of witnesses. They did not say to the member from the New Democratic Party, the health critic: Could you tell me who you think has to be heard on this bill? They did not come to me as the Official Opposition critic for consumer and corporate affairs and ask if they could hear my witnesses. They did not do any of that stuff. They said: "We have made a decision. We do not want Canadians to
be heard on this issue. You are going to have three days of debate in committee. You are going to have three days to examine witnesses and if you do not like the fact that we are telling you that Canadians are not to be heard on this, we will shut you down. We will have a motion in the House and we will have the committee report without any hearings".
They walked into the committee and they had a gun at the temple and the itchy trigger finger of the minister opposite prepared to blow the brains out of anybody who dared say to the Government of Canada that this bill was improper and that there had to be full debate on it.
What did we do? Before they even looked at one list of witnesses, they shut us down. The Liberal Party had nearly 85 or 90 witnesses who absolutely demanded to be heard. The clerk of the committee, without any prodding from the opposition, had received 59 requests from witnesses to appear before the committee. How many did we have? The Canadian public has a right to know. Because of the blunt, bloody instrument of closure which they invoked on the committee, we had 18 witnesses.
The New Democratic Party was told it could have six, we were told we could have six and the government would have six. There were 18 witnesses who showed up at the committee. That was it, 18 witnesses. Incredible. A bill that has the potential to undermine the integrity of the Canadian health care system and they would not even let the witnesses appear. They would not let the provincial ministers appear, the individuals who are charged with the responsibility for making sure that the Canadian health care system works because health care is a provincial responsibility. This minister and his gang of thugs opposite made sure those ministers would not be heard. That is what they did.


Mr. Harvard:: Nine out of 10 opposed the bill.


Ronald MacDonald: Nine out of 10 ministers opposed the bill. We were allowed to hear one witness. The hon. parliamentary secretary should be ashamed of her behaviour on the committee. She tried to discredit the minister of health for British Columbia, an incredibly articulate individual whose primary concern was maintaining the integrity of the health care system in Canada.
December 10, 1992

But, no. The Tories had their marching orders. We heard the jackboots through the committee. We heard the jackboots daily-bang, bang, bang. "You are not allowed to debate this thing". Do you know what they wanted to do, Mr. Speaker? They wanted to make absolutely certain that by the time this bill came back to Parliament and went over to the Senate that it would be competing with Santa Claus. That is what they wanted. They wanted to make sure that people in Canada were out doing their Christmas shopping while this bunch opposite participated and planned the biggest rip-off of Canadians in the history of this country.
With Bill C-91, these individuals opposite have ensured that the Canadian health care system which is currently under tremendous pressure may collapse over the next few years. That is what they have done. They do not have the guts to have a full parliamentary hearing on this. They knew that every single day that it was before the public of Canada, every single day it was before the legislative committee studying this and every single day it was before this place, there were tens of thousands of Canadians who would wake up and say: "What in the name of God is our government doing to us? What in the name of God would drive these individuals opposite to come forward with a bill that may cripple our health care system?" If there are some obvious benefits to Canadians, I am waiting to hear what they are. All that we have heard is: "We have to do this".
I do not know the reason. Maybe there are some golden parachutes for some of the ministers opposite. We know that there are going to be a lot of ministers opposite looking for more than parachutes after the next election.
However, I am going to tell you something. We have heard testimony at the committee on this bill that it is going to cost between $4 billion and $7 billion. I do not want to underestimate that. It is b-i-l-l-i-o-n-$4 billion to $7 billion that is going to be sucked out of the Canadian health care system. It is going to be sucked out of the wallets of consumers. It is going to be sucked out of the wallets of the elderly, like consumers in Chicoutimi, Quebec, who perhaps have to be on a heart medication like Vasotec that probably would have had generic competition in the next few years. We would have seen the drug price drop by maybe 32 per cent. That is the government's own estimate, about 32 per cent.
Government Orders
What has the government done with this bill for the poor consumer in Chicoutimi, Quebec? It has said: "You are not going to get the benefit of lower drug costs like you used to under generic licensing. That is not going to happen any more".
This guy over here, the minister opposite, is absolutely enthralled by companies like Merck Frosst. He goes gaga when they show up in his office. Merck Frosst is getting 14 extra years of protection, not three, like the minister says, but 14 extra years of protection for a drug that is in the marketplace.
It means that the consumer in Chicoutimi or Dartmouth or Winnipeg, or wherever, is not going to benefit from competition on that particular drug. It means consumers are going to be paying 32 per cent higher for 14 years on that drug. Where does Merck Frosst take its profits? It does not reinvest them in Quebec, like the minister would like to have us believe; it goes to other places. It goes to Caribbean countries where there are better tax laws, it goes to Swiss bank accounts, and on and on.


An hon. member:: Tell us about the bill.


Ronald MacDonald: I am telling you about the bill. The Canadian public absolutely wants to know what the impact of the bill will be. Members want to talk about the bill, so let us talk about the bill.
They are saying opposite: "Tell us about the bill". I am going to tell them about the bill and they are going to start yelling to tell them about something else because they do not want the Canadian public to know this. In the 1960s-


An hon. member:: Read my speech.


Ronald MacDonald: You cannot even read your speech. He does not read it very well, that is the thing. He can still read but not terribly well.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have notes, I am not reading from a speech like the minister. I do not need departmental assistants to tell me what is right and wrong. I know what is right and wrong because I represent the vast majority of the Canadian public who are opposed to this bill.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
Let us talk about the background. The hon. member for Winnipeg South is in a fit or something over there. I do not know what the heck it is but perhaps she could go and have a drink of water and maybe calm herself down.
In the 1960s a number of reports were commissioned by the Canadian government to try to figure out why the drug prices in Canada were higher than they were in corresponding nations, like the United States or Great Britain or France or Switzerland, or wherever. These studies conclusively proved that drug prices in Canada were much higher than the average, given the comparable state around the world.
The minister opposite says that is not true. I can quote from his own departmental documents. The minister has had 40 minutes to put his case. He has not put it and now he persists in trying to interrupt when the case is being put properly. The minister, if he has so much to say, should have shown up at committee, should have allowed the committee to sit like it wanted to sit, and we would have been able to question the minister longer than 25 minutes, which is the amount of time we got because he did not want the facts to be known.
Back in the sixties the Canadian government reports said that drug prices in Canada were too high. The right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, a colleague of ours in the House of Commons, at that point, in 1967-68 introduced a bill which set up a system called compulsory licensing. That system, as set up, recognized that there is intellectual property rights for patents in Canada and around the world, but it recognized that in Canada there is another interest, the Canadian health care system. In order to protect the Canadian health care system, a system called compulsory licensing was set up which allowed competition, because competition moderates prices, it drives prices down.
We embarked on a regime in 1968 which worked. It does not matter who you talk to, you could talk to the Senate subcommittee on aging in the United States, or you could talk to the general accounting office, or even if you talked to departmental officials such as Mr. Eastman, who is the chairman of the PMPRB, everyone says the system works. We can give quotes all day long that he gave.
It is a clear fact known around the world that the system of compulsory licensing, which was introduced into the Canadian health care system by the right hon.
member for Vancouver Quadra, has saved Canadians billions of dollars over the intervening years. Through 1968 and 1987 it saved Canadians billions of dollars in drug costs. When competition goes into the marketplace-and the government's own figures tells us this-the price of the drug goes down generally by about 32 per cent. Canadians benefit. Canadian health care plans benefit. Private insurers benefit because the price goes down.
Everything was working okay. There was not a big problem with generic licensing. However, this bunch opposite came to power in 1984 and after they got in power they just dropped down dead to the American agenda.
It is clear and there have been books written on this, one of the big things the Reagan administration wanted was for Canada to get rid of its system of compulsory licensing.
It had nothing to do with whether or not it was working. It did not care whether or not it was working. What it cared about was kissing up to the Americans down south.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Ronald MacDonald: This Prime Minister was more concerned about whether or not he was going to get the opportunity to sing. Remember in Quebec City when he sang When Irish Eyes are Smiling? Every Irishman in Canada was embarrassed by that.
There is a book out that said when the shamrock summit took place in Quebec City, the number one agenda item was not dealing with trade barriers. The number one agenda item was whether or not Canada would get rid of its compulsory licensing system.
The Prime Minister of Canada indicated clearly: "Ronnie, is that what you what? Ronnie Reagan, is that what you what? No problem. I will get my minions to work and we will kill the system. We will get rid of the system that has saved consumers in Canada billions of dollars".
That is what the government did. In 1987 a bill was introduced in this House called Bill C-22. Liberal Party members opposed it because it significantly altered the system of compulsory licensing in Canada. We fought it hard. We said Bill C-22 would lead to increased drug costs without any real increase in research and development investment in Canada. That is what we said.
December 10, 1992

We fought it very hard. The Senate of Canada did its job. The Senate of Canada sent the bill back. It had a number of amendments and it said: "No, this bill is not proper. We want the thing changed". But the government had its way like it usually does. It did not succumb to public pressure. That was in the glory days when it thought it could live forever. How things have changed.
The government pursued Bill C-22 and the system of compulsory licensing. At that time, the government gave a commitment, a solemn undertaking to Canadians and the ministers of health around the country, the system it put in place would remain in place until 1996. It said: "Do not worry about it. We know this is a great disruption to the system. We know it may lead to higher drug costs". The former minister even indicated at that time he knew it was going to lead to higher drug costs.
The government members said: "That is okay. There are going to be all these benefits, but do not worry because we are going to have some stability in the marketplace. We are not going to change the bill again. It is going to be like this until 1996".
Lo and behold, another call came from the lobbyists down in Washington about one year and one-half ago. They said to the Minister for International Trade and probably to the Prime Minister directly: "We do not like your system of compulsory licensing. We want it gone. We want it dead. We want it buried. We want it out of the system".
There have been articles written in The New York Times, and in papers all over the world about the U.S. drug lobbyists. They go around saying: "Great job. Not only are we influencing the agenda in Washington, but we have hijacked a government, the total Canadian government. We have put our agenda forward to the Canadian government and it has not even put up a fight".
It said: "Boyv-what do you want?" They said: "We want rid of this thing called compulsory licensing because we do not like it. We think what we need here is a wide open system where we can charge whatever we want. We want to get rid of competition in the marketplace, but most of all we do not want an example of how you can regulate the drug industry for the benefit of
Government Orders
consumers because there is change coming down in Washington. Down in Washington, we have a new administration coming in, President-elect Clinton. He clearly indicated the big multinational drug lobby that ran the Reagan-Bush administration is no longer going to be running the show down in Washington".
He has served them notice in a number of speeches and in his acceptance speech when he was elected just one month ago. He served them notice he was going to go after them. Health care policy in the United States would no longer be dictated by special interest groups like multinational lobbies. It would be dictated by what was in the best interests of American consumers.


Ms. Clancy:: Tell us about the dinosaurs here.


Ronald MacDonald: What do the dinosaurs over here do? They fall down dead. They say: "What do you want? What are your interests? No problem, we will do it. How quick do you want it? Shut down Parliament? Not a problem, we do that all the time. Hear from Canadians? Ah, they do not have to be heard from. You just have to ignore those people. You just have to ignore the Canadian public".
So the government came in with a bill which effectively is going to shut down the compulsory licensing system in Canada. It is going to do it well before the 1996 review and it is going to do it at the expense of the Canadian consumer and the Canadian health care system.
I started by talking about the unholy haste of this bill. Let us talk about some of the specifics of the bill.
This bill is specifically going to eliminate the system of compulsory licensing in Canada. The system has saved Canadian consumers billions of dollars over the last 15 years. It has saved billions of dollars for the Canadian health care system, dollars that go toward opening new treatment facilities, new hospital beds and things like that.
The government members say: "No, no, no, we do not want debate on this. We are going to change the system to the benefit of multinational drug companies to the detriment of Canadian consumers. We are not only going to do it effective the date the legislation passes, we are going to do it retroactively."

December 10,1992
Government Orders
I think the Canadian consumers should know this piece of legislation is retroactive. It goes back to December 20 of last year. All these products currently in the marketplace were priced for 17 years of exclusivity with some competition at the end. They are going to get not three years but in the case of drugs like Vasotec, up to 14 additional years without competition.
What does that mean? It means Canada is going toward a system similar to that of the U.S. I want to read this. We are now harmonizing with U.S. legislation. What does it mean?
Let me quote from the U.S. Senate subcommittee on aging. This is important. It says: "The average American pays 62 per cent more for prescription drugs than the average Canadian citizen". Why is that? It is because they do not have a system of compulsory licensing. That is the system this government is driving us toward.
Families U.S.A., September 10, 1992, reported the top 20 prescription drugs purchased by the non-elderly rose in price by 82 per cent in a six year period in the United States. That is the system this bill is going to give us.
The U.S. House subcommittee on health, and Congressman Henry Waxman say U.S. brand name prescription drugs cost on average 32 per cent more in the United States than in Canada. The report adds Canada's controversial drug patent system and compulsory licensing contributed to lowering of prices on drugs in Canada. What in the name of goodness is this minister opposite doing? He is introducing a bill in this House which effectively is going to cost Canadian consumers $4 billion to $7 billion more for the drugs they have to purchase.


Pierre Blais: Untrue.


Ronald MacDonald: The minister says it is untrue. Balderdash. The minister should read the minutes of the committee hearings, even those of the truncated committees. Elizabeth Cull, the minister of health from British Columbia was the only one we were allowed to hear. She represented nine of the 10 Canadian health care ministers.
The minister of health from Quebec decided he was going to opt out because of pressure from multinational drug companies. Elizabeth Cull said B.C.'s own study indicated it would cost over $140 million more for two
drugs in British Columbia alone, as a result of this bill. That is just in B.C.
She indicated B.C. members had talked to the minister of health opposite and begged him not to proceed with this. As the protectors of Canada's health care system they knew this drug was going to put strains on it that may ultimately collapse the availability of quality health care for Canadians. However the government does not care.
The minister opposite talks about research and development. Give me a break. The multinational drug companies have rolled into town with their high-priced lobby. They have spent tens of millions of dollars to influence this bunch opposite and try to destabilize the opposition, which has not happened by the way, but they were absolutely enamoured by the international drug lobby.
These companies roll into town and say: "Okay, not only do we want the drug patent law in Canada changed, but we want it changed retroactively. We want it by December 31, 1992. If we do not get it Mr. Minister, you are not going to have those fancy announcements where you stand up and do your ribbon cuttings. You are not going to have the $500 million in research and development we are now promising. Either you get it done by December 31, or we are going to come after you, Mr. Minister. You are not going to have those photo ops we are now planning for you."
This government has caved in for photo opportunities with vague promises of $500 million for research and development. I think most Canadians out there who have a basic understanding of math will understand if you give $7 billion to multinational drug companies and they say: "We will put $500 million back", it is a pretty good deal for the multinational drug companies.
If the minister gave me $600 million, I would give $550 million back and retire for the rest of my life somewhere with $50 million in the bank. So this government says: "What a deal we have for you. Because we are going to eliminate compulsory licensing, we are going to give multinational drug companies up to $7 billion and out of that $7 billion, what a deal we got back from them. They are going to agree to put $500 million back into Canada for research and development." That is absolutely obscene.
December 10, 1992

The government sits back and talks about research and development in Canada. It knows full well the impact the drug patent laws have on research and development is minimal. It knows full well a big international drug company like Merck Frosst locates primarily in the country where it has its home base.
Let us get real here. Canada represents only 2 per cent of the international drug market. That is it.
This government would have you believe by giving another 3 to 14 years of protection we are somehow going to become the Mecca for research and development. What utter nonsense.
Mr. Cote, who was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or Industry, Science and Technology back in 1987, made statements all over the place. When the government came in with Bill C-22 he said: "This is going to change the system. We are going to have research and development coming out of our noses and our ears and other orifices." Well it did not happen. He said there were going to be 3,000 jobs created in Canada as a result of Bill C-22. There have been 1,345 jobs created as a result of Bill C-22.


An hon. member:: Two thousand four hundred.


Ronald MacDonald: There have been less than 1,500 jobs created. The government promised these high-tech jobs and said: "You know these jobs are going to go to places like Montreal and Toronto." They include such things as janitors and floor washers. Those are the high-tech R and D jobs this bunch opposite negotiated with the multinational drug companies.


An hon. member:: Government advertisers.


Ronald MacDonald: Jobs have been created for sales individuals, advertising firms and probably lobbyists.
The one thing this drug bill has done is increase the profitability of some of the lobby companies in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, I will tell you that much.
This bunch opposite said: "If we give even more protection to the international holders of patents on pharmaceutical drugs we are going to get more research and development in Canada." The Liberal Party said: "Okay, if you are so sure of that put it in the bill. Put a requirement in the bill that the international drug companies will have to increase their investment in Canada." The government opposite said: "We could not possibly ask them to do that. We could not possibly
Government Orders
require them by statute to put 15 per cent or 16 per cent or 17 per cent investment back into the Canadian economy because we like these guys. They buy us great dinners. There are a couple of golden parachutes too maybe for a couple of the front bench ministers, maybe even the Prime Minister, who knows, we will see in the future". We have heard that.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Oh, I am shocked.


Ronald MacDonald: So the government has not even required additional R and D in this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. [Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the hon. member should at least take the time to think before-


An hon. member:: He is short of arguments.


Pierre Blais: You have to be short of arguments to say such things in the House, Mr. Speaker. I think it is unacceptable-


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Just because the minister does not agree with the comments does not make them unparliamentary.
If the comments made were unparliamentary that is one thing, but clearly that is not the case. They might not be the comments the members like, but they must not be ruled unparliamentary. The minister must be warned not to interfere.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. [Translation]
I would like to ask the hon. member for Dartmouth to be more careful in his remarks.


Ronald MacDonald: The truth hurts does it not? The truth shall set you free. The truth is this government has caved in to a multinational drug lobby which is going to take $4 billion to $7 billion out of the Canadian health care system. It is going to deliver it to multinational drug companies, not Canadian-based drug companies. It will devastate the Canadian success story called generic drug manufacturers, an industry that was bom and has been successful in Canada because of compulsory licensing. It is going to do all that and the minister gets upset when I put the fact to the record.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
I can understand why the minister would be upset. I would be upset if the Canadian public thought I was an accomplice in giving away $4 billion to $7 billion.


Pierre Blais: You are a liar.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, privilege. Withdraw.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The minister opposite has just called me a liar. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask the minister to withdraw that statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Does the hon. minister wish to comment?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, you can understand my outrage when they accuse ministers of profiting from this bill. I may have called the hon. member a liar, but I would have liked him as well to retract the insulting insinuations he made concerning my colleagues and myself.
I am willing to retract, but I think my colleague should also retract the hurtful insinuations he made concerning this side of the House.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. minister has withdrawn his remarks. I want to thank the hon. minister for doing that.
I also want to point out to the Chair that when remarks ot that nature are made in the House, there are no preconditions which are set for those remarks. If the minister cannot accept the heat of debate in the House of Commons, perhaps he ought to do the honourable thing and resign or leave the Chamber.
I would hope that the Chair would take under due notice that my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth, has made no unparliamentary suggestions in his remarks whatsoever and we accept the apology and the withdrawal of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have listened carefully to the debate from the beginning and I think that both sides of the House have uttered, in the heat of the debate, things that seemed almost unwise to me.
I have urged the hon. member for Dartmouth to be careful and I see that the hon. minister is also showing his good faith by retracting what he may have said. I think that in both cases co-operation is still evident and I call upon members from both sides of the House to carry on debate.
The hon. member for Dartmouth.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying-


David Charles Dingwall: Why would the minister be afraid?


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this begs a question. Why would the minister be afraid of full debate? Why would the minister be afraid to debate the facts? Why would the minister be afraid to allow full and open committee hearings and hear the 150 or 160-odd witnesses who wanted to appear? Why would the minister on behalf of his government be afraid of a full debate in the Parliament of Canada?
It is fairly clear why he is afraid. The facts are not on his side. The facts are on the side of those who are opposing the elimination of compulsory licensing in Canada. The facts are on the side of the just and the good who say that this government has capitulated to a multinational drug lobby based in Washington. That is a fact. If the minister has trouble dealing with the facts, he knows what he can do.
They want more facts. We had at our committee an internationally renowned expert, Dr. Stephen W. Schon-delmeyer, whom the government used to quote but no longer quotes since he came up with an unflattering analysis of what this bill was going to do. He is a pharmacological economist from the United States of America. I am going to read from the executive summary of what he gave us in those truncated committee hearings.
December 10, 1992

He said that total savings to Canadians from generic pharmaceuticals in 1992 was about $420 million in 1992 alone. Compulsory licensing saved Canadians almost $0.5 billion in 1992 alone. He also said that the added cost from one drug alone, Vasotec, to the Canadian health care system-the drug that has caused Merck Frosst to say to the minister that this bill must be retroactive because it has a drug in the pipeline and if there is a licence issued it will lose a lot of money-is an additional $50 million per year. This would be the value to Merck Frosst.
Whose interest is this government looking after? It certainly is not Canadians. It is certainly not the Canadian health care system. Listen to this, Madam Speaker. This is absolutely startling. This independent analysis states that the cumulative cost of Bill C-91 from 1993 to the year 2000 will be $1.7 billion by 2010 and the cumulative cost from 1993 will be $4 billion. This is the multibillion dollar, multinational drug bill. The ministers opposite, who have ridden shotgun over the parliamentary process to get this bill through with unholy haste, are delivering a multibillion dollar Christmas bonus to multinational drug companies.


David Charles Dingwall: Oh, there is a Santa Claus.


Ronald MacDonald: There is a Santa Claus and his name is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but the only individuals who are going to get gifts this Christmas are executives with the multinational drug companies. Consumers will probably get a lump of coal in their stockings.


An hon. member:: That is right and they will have to pay for that coal from Cape Breton.


Ronald MacDonald: They will probably have to pay for that.
I want to give another quote from this eminent pharmacological economist, Dr. Stephen Schondelmey-er. He is the one that the Conservative members used to quote until they read his document and said: "Oh, my God, he has found out what we are trying to do here". He states: "The magnitude of the direct cost over the next 15 to 20 years of Bill C-91 will be $4 billion to $7 billion".


Mrs. Dobbie:: Could the hon. member clarify if that was the same Schondelmeyer who worked for the generic drug companies?
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary does know that this is not a point of order but a point of debate.


Ronald MacDonald: I can understand why the hon. member opposite, who was riding shotgun through most of the committee hearings, is quite concerned. When the facts are put on the record, she has to squirm all over the place. What they did was unconscionable in the committee.
When Dr. Stephen Schondelmeyer, who is a well respected international pharmacological economist came forward, it was shameful. The member opposite tried to discredit the individual, after quoting him so many times in committee and in the House before she knew that he had seen through the thin veneer of this bill and saw what it was going to cost. It was very clear from his testimony and the other testimony that we heard from a number of individuals that this bill is absolutely obscene.
This bill is going to cost through retroactivity alone. I want to talk about that. The Canadian public has a right to know that this bill is retroactive. This bill changes the way that the system worked in the past. It goes back and says that for drugs that are currently in the marketplace where a compulsory licence most likely would have been issued or one was applied for that what the government is going to do is make sure that those licences get cancelled. That is what the government is going to do.
Who is going to benefit from this? Is it the provincial health care ministers? I do not think so. We heard from Elizabeth Cull, a minister from British Columbia, who said that it is going to cost an additional hundreds of millions of dollars to the B.C. health care system. Is it Canadian consumers? We heard from them and they said: "We are not going to benefit". We heard from all kinds of individuals.
Do you know what, Madam Speaker? The only group of individuals who are going to benefit are the shareholders of multinational drug companies. This is pretty interesting. Of drugs in the pipeline, we heard that there were 24 applications to get a generic on the market to lower the price for Canadians. This bill retroactively is going to wipe that out. It is going to wipe them out. Anything that was applied for that had not been given-


An hon. member:: How much is Santa going to give?

December 10, 1992
Government Orders


Ronald MacDonald: Santa is going to give a lot to Merck Frosst, Glaxo and a couple of the other companies.
What we found out is that drugs in the pipeline, as they call it where a licence should be issued but because this government is going retroactive it will not be issued, is worth about $340 million per year.
It gets better. One drug, Vasotec, which is under patent to Merck Frosst, is worth $100 million of the $340 million of all the drugs in the marketplace. One drug is worth 30 per cent of the total value of all those drugs caught in this limbo of retroactivity.
Merck Frosst has been pretty good. Santa has delivered for Merck. Merck does not get three extra years for that drug, it gets 14 extra years for the drug. The effect of the retroactivity in this bill is to give Merck Frosst for one chemical entity called Vasotec in excess of $500 million in additional profits, sucked out of the wallets of Canadian consumers, of Canadian health care providers, of provincial governments and insurance companies. Not a bad gilt tor Christmas, $500 million, and every penny being paid for by the consumers of Canada. This is third reading debate. I am being told to wind up even though I could go tor days on this. This is one of the most obscene bills we have seen in the Parliament of Canada since I was elected.
Members opposite are getting pretty skittish on this.


An hon. member:: Particularly the minister.


Ronald MacDonald: They know the longer this bill is before the public, the lower its popularity numbers go. I urge the government members opposite who have a sense of decency to re-examine what this bill does. Look at it in the context of the Canadian health care system. Look at in the context of consumers who
live in their ridings. Most of all, I say that right is right and wrong is wrong. We will not support this bill.
I urge -members on third reading to find a little bit of guts and a whole lot of conscience and vote against this obscene piece of dirty work which is effectively going to gut the Canadian health care system for the benefit of multinational drug companies.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among all of the parties and the independents and others within the Chamber and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That Bill C-333, an act to amend the Canada Health Act, standing
in the name of the hon. member for Mission -Coquitlam on the
Order Paper be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter
thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare,
Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite correct. There have been some consultations and I wish to give the consent of the Official Opposition to that motion.


Mr. Danis:: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to intervene.

Before giving consent, since I am unaware of this, if you could just put it on hold for a few minutes. Of course, I do not doubt the word of my colleagues. I just want to be absolutely positive before we give consent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. members for Kamloops and Cape Breton-East Richmond agree, the Chair will wait for a few minutes before putting the motion to the House.
Resuming debate.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, nobody on this side and most Canadian people cannot be happy that we are debating this bill this morning. That this bill should be here at all is reprehensible. That it is here because of the pressure of the American government and American multinationals is contemptible. That its inevitable passage has been assured by an abuse of the Parliament of Canada is despicable. Worst of all, that this government should argue that this bill is for the benefit of Canadians is hypocritical. Virtually all Canadians would agree that this is a reprehensible, despicable, contemptible, hypo-
December 10, 1992

critical government that cares not for its people. This is not a government for the people; this is a government for the multinationals.
Its resolve is to further the ideological attack of this government on the Canadian system of social democracy in an effort to pursue a United States agenda to make us more like them, a society with an almost complete lack of sympathy for the poor, the aged, the ill and the disadvantaged.
Canada has become for many nations in the world a model of how we can approach the issue of the cost of drugs and the cost of medicare in a creative and successful fashion. You will recall. Madam Speaker, that in 1969 legislation was introduced in this House to provide for compulsory licensing of patented drugs by generic companies. What Canadians who are listening ought to remember is that before that time the prices of patented drugs in this country were the highest in the industrial world. This government says that legislation was an attack on intellectual property.
What people seem to forget is that the generic companies did not simply copy the drugs; they paid royalties for them. For those who consider this an attack on intellectual property rights, let us remember that published songs or published books provide royalties to their creators, just as is done in this instance.
So this was not an invasion of the sacred territory of intellectual property. On the contrary, it ensured that competition would be the mechanism assuring reasonable drug prices in this country. We were successful. During all of that time the profits of the drug companies went up and up, as they have continued to do.
In 1986, this government introduced Bill C-22, a bill that extended longer protection to patented drugs. Why did it do that? In the midst of claims that drug prices have not gone up, the government did that in spite of its claim in order, quite specifically, to increase the profits of the drug companies. There is no other reason for having done so. That is perfectly clear.
But we have to remember that Bill C-22 was introduced just before the free trade agreement was signed with the United States. It was a condition imposed by the American government under Ronald Reagan for pursuing negotiations of the free trade deal. I hear the hon. member across the way say: "That is not so". Well, let us just review a couple of facts.
Government Orders
The chairman of the U.S. trade advisory committee was Mr. Pratt. Remember Mr. Pratt, the president of Pfizer? He had a significant role in impressing upon the President of the United States that the Prime Minister had to be told that if he was going to have a deal, he was going to have to give something up.
When the Prime Minister asked what should be given up, the reply was: "Well, how about that generic deal you have going over there, where Canadians actually get drugs for a decent, fair price?" The Prime Minister agreed. Even before the free trade agreement ever entered this place, the deal was cooked.
If there is any doubt about that, let us look at the record out of external affairs. External affairs observed specifically that the trade-off which would have to be made in order to get the free trade agreement would be the elimination, as much as possible, of compulsory licensing of generic drugs in Canada. That is what Bill C-22 did. It provided extended patent protection as was wanted by the American concerns.
Of course, the government did not come in here and say: "Look folks, we have to get this deal so that we can negotiate a worse deal, the free trade agreement". It did not say: "We are going to pass this bill to increase the profits of the multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers that hold the patents". Oh no, it did not say that. What it said was that prices would not increase.
Can you imagine the sophistry of passing legislation in order to increase profits but at the same time telling us that prices will not increase? Why will they not increase? We are going to have a Patented Medicine Prices Review Board which will keep things under control.
Meanwhile, Canadians were promised $1.4 billion in new expenditures for R and D. The then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that we were going to get 3,000 jobs for scientists and technologists out of that and new R and D. That was the justification and argument. What were the real results?
With respect to research expenditures, it has to be admitted that more than $1.4 billion is credited now to the pharmaceutical manufacturers, that is, the multinationals, in terms of increased R and D expenditures.
However, those 3,000 new research jobs did not materialize. The drug companies, the pharmaceutical manufacturers, that is, the PMAC members themselves, said that as of 1990-91 they had created 1,386 new jobs. Let us give them credit for another couple of hundred.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
They were not those great science and technology jobs. Two-thirds of those jobs were for sales and administration. The research jobs that were created were in fact for that kind of research that is involved in clinical testing by and large.
We do not have and we never will have the basic original research thrust. It will remain in the United States. Not only that, 850 production jobs were lost in that period of time since that legislation was passed. Those are the benefits.
What about prices? The government claims that prices have risen at a rate of 2.9 per cent per year for patented drugs. However, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board said that new drug prices were from 40 per cent to twice as high as what they were before Bill C-22 was passed.
That is apparently the cause of the results reported by Green Shield. It finds that the costs for drugs have gone up 11 per cent per annum since that time.
Indeed, Stephen Schondelmeyer, whose name has come up previously, said that before Bill C-22 was introduced the Canadian prices for single source drugs were 17 per cent lower than U.S. prices. After Bill C-22, the prices for single source drugs in Canada suddenly rose to 12 per cent higher than in the United States of America. What benefits? The consequences of this were inevitable.
The burden on drug benefit plans has been tremendous. In Ontario, there has been a 50 per cent increase in per capita costs. As a result of that, a number of drugs have been deinsured. The deductibles have been raised for senior citizens in pharmacare plans. Therefore, the impact on seniors, on governments and on the taxpayer is clear: It has been more costly.
Now we have Bill C-91. For those watching this debate. Bill C-91 will essentially double the period of patent protection. It is a direct attack on the generic industry. It has the same purpose as Bill C-22. That is to increase the profits of the drug companies. I repeat that. Let us be clear and unambiguous. There is no other reason for this legislation than to increase the profits of the multinational patent drug makers. What are the benefits that we are going to get from this?
Of course, there was an alliance out there forged by the multinationals, led by the American government to get the rules of GATT changed and the Dunkel provisions to provide increased intellectual property protection. Of course, this GATT proposal has not been approved and it is somewhat weaker than what is provided in the proposed North American free trade agreement.
The North American free trade agreement has the same history as the free trade agreement with respect to the legislation we have before us today. We have another free trade agreement that has a proposal for intellectual property protection, but before that agreement is even ratified, the legislation is in the House. The multinationals said: "Jump," and the government asked: "How high?"
The arguments of the government are again the same as they were for Bill C-22. There is nothing about the increased profits for the drug companies, but again we are going to get more research. Another $400 million or $500 million in new research money is being promised by the PMAC.
Of course, we were promised that drug prices would not increase. The drug prices will increase because profits must increase. What must be understood is that NAFTA and this bill are part of a campaign to make sure that multinational drug profits will increase and be maintained.
It is particularly important that Canada's system be under immediate attack because Canada is a model for the Third World. Without the kind of leadership Canada provides with its system the Third World peoples will not have a chance in fighting the multinationals.
It is important to get this legislation through right now in a hurry. That is why Parliament has been abused. That is why this government has been so anxious to keep a tent over the entire process, to keep people from knowing what is really going on. Unfortunately, people do know what is going on and hold this government in contempt for what it is doing.
It is very important for the multinationals to get the legislation through Parliament and eliminate th# model that we are providing not only for the Third World but also for the United States. The Clinton administration is being made aware that the generic drug system control-
December 10, 1992

Ling drug prices through competition is a reasonable one to be adopted by the Americans as well.
We have Senators Henry Waxman and David Pryor suggesting that Canada has found ways to control prescription drug prices and it is time for the United States to get on the bandwagon. They say this in observing that patented drugs in the United States cost 32 per cent more than they do in Canada even under Bill C-22. Bill C-91 will bring them into line and that is dangerous.
What does Bill C-91 provide? It says in effect that patent protection will be extended from 10 to 20 years to make things simple. It will destroy the system of compulsory licensing. It will virtually eliminate the generic role in providing competition to keep prices low.
As has been mentioned before, it is not enough for the government to rush in with this legislation and get it done now. It is retroactive to December 10, 1991.
Why do you suppose that is so? Because the intellectual property committee advising Carla Hills, the U.S. trade representative, which is dominated by the multinational drug manufacturing representatives insisted that the United States tell Canada to make it retroactive. This is in spite of the fact it will eliminate a number of generic products that were already in the pipeline. How outrageous.
This legislation does not even require that the patent be worked in Canada. The drug does not even have to be manufactured in Canada and there is no provision for the fine chemicals that go into the drug to be made in Canada. There is no real advantage in this bill to Canadians if you look at the balance.
What are they going to get in return? They are going to get another $400 to $500 million in research. They say that drug prices will not increase because the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board will have its mandate for controlling the prices of drugs strengthened.
Come on. This bill is intended to increase the profits of drug companies. We are being told that this institution is going to make sure that does not happen, except there is one fatal flaw. It is very doubtful whether this new power which they pretend to want to confer on this board will be constitutional. There is a very good chance that it would be considered by the courts to be unconstitutional.
What we have here is nonsense because, remember, it is the multinationals that want Bill C-91. They are very clear about another thing. They not only want to get rid
Government Orders
of compulsory licensing. They also want to get rid of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Obviously that must be their ultimate goal.
These sneaky devils have said they would put it in the bill, knowing that ultimately it probably will not work but the people will be fooled. There are other ways in which the people are being fooled.
One hon. member said there would be $170 million invested by Merck Frosst in Ontario. That is big stuff. B.C. is not going to be so happy. It is to get $15 million out there if and only if the government puts some money in for the construction of the building. A real advantage.
Let us look at this a little more closely. What the companies are actually promising amounts to not a whole lot. But let us add up the figures of the previous promise and the current promise and let us suppose that they are going to put $2 billion of new investment in R and D. What does that really mean? In Quebec it means that the drug companies will put in 30 per cent and the governments will put in 70 per cent. In Ontario it means that the government will put in 60 per cent and the drug companies 40 per cent.
If we look at it across the country and put it all together the $2 billion drug companies are promising to put in research has $1 billion coming out of my pocket and your pocket, Madam Speaker.
What are going to be the increased costs? The government says it will be $125 million over a decade. There are various figures being bandied about but this much is clear. It is going to cost between $4 billion and $6 billion more in increased drug costs. The governments are going to put in $1 billion in research money. In order to get $1 billion more in research money we are going to take $6 billion or $7 billion out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, out of Canadian governments and out of ordinary Canadian people who are ill or need these drugs. That is no deal at all. It would be better if the government just gave them the billion dollars and let them go on their way.
This bill is a contemptible additional step in the attack on Canadian civility and humanity. It is an attack on the people. It is there for NAFTA. This bill should be rejected and if NAFTA is passed, it should be annulled and all in it, such as this bill as a consequence of it, should be similarly abrogated. We should start back on the civilized path, the civilized vision of Canadians, not the ideological meanness that characterizes this government.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, histrionics aside, I wonder if the hon. member could explain some things to me. Over the past number of days, this morning in the House and again when this member was speaking, we heard a lot of different figures being bandied about as to the cost of Bill C-91.
I would refer to an ad produced by the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, that is the generic companies, last January that said this bill would cost $300 million a year. After that in April, just a few short months later, they put out another almost identical ad, identical wording, except that suddenly the cost had jumped according to them to $1 billion a year.
We heard this morning what the hon. member of the Official Opposition was saying. He read Mr. Schondel-meyer's report, as if he were a great expert, saying that this was going to cost $1.7 billion a year until the year 2010. We just heard my hon. friend saying it is going to cost $7 billion until the year 2010.
There are some inconsistencies here. I wonder if the hon. member could explain what they are. The federal government's figures have been consistent throughout this whole period of discussion about Bill C-91. We have projections done by our federal public servants in whom I put a lot more confidence than I do in some American expert, some weekend expert who pulls his figures together on a Thanksgiving long weekend down in the United States. Our federal public servants have said consistently that there will be a cost attached, but it is a small cost in exchange for the huge amount of investment in research and development that will accrue from it.
They are saying that the cost will be $129 million over the next five years. That is about $1 per person per year, less than the cost of a prescription. They know how dangerous it is to try to project into the year 2010. It is almost impossible to figure out at this point in time with technology changes what will really happen. But as far as they would project, to the year 2000, they say that the cost may rise to a total of 2 per cent over that period of time.
Those are consistent figures. My hon. friend has given us a whole range of other figures that do not add up when we start to examine them, when we take a look at them. Perhaps he can explain why those figures are so inconsistent and where he got them from. What is the foundation, the basis, for these wild rhetorical projections that he has mouthed in this House?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was in committee when I was there. I said to the hon. member that so many figures were being bandied about there ought to be adequate time before committee to hear the experts and cross-examine those experts to find out what the real figures were. If those figures are confused, largely it is because this government did not want those figures and did not give the opportunity to have those figures considered carefully enough to determine who was right.
The hon. member ought to be ashamed to display such ignorance as would have her describe an internationally known expert as a weekend expert. That is shameless.
Let us look at where the possible sources of the discrepancies, if there are discrepancies, are and what the sources are of my figures. Elizabeth Cull said that it will cost $1 billion additional money for the Government of British Columbia alone. Elizabeth Cull said that two drugs would cost an additional $145 million over six years. In Ontario it was suggested that additional costs would amount to $500 million a year in that province. Other experts suggests even more.
I do not know whether the hon. member knows it, but there are 10 provinces and 2 territories in this country. All we have to do is extrapolate the figures and we come up with exactly the same kind of figure as Schondelmey-er of between $4 billion and $6 billion over the next decade.
It does not make any difference. Let us suppose the figure is $4 billion. We are promised $2 billion in additional research investment. I did not hear the hon. member respond to the fact that of that amount of money no more than half will come from the drug companies. The other half will come from the provinces, from the governments, the federal and provincial governments.
December 10, 1992

If we are going to get $1 billion in additional research money actually put in by the multinationals, it is going to cost at minimum between $4 billion and $5 billion out of the pockets of'Canadians. Madam Speaker, I know you know that does not add up to an advantage for Canadians.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I listened with attention to the remarks of my colleague this morning. He talked about trade as part of the debate. That brought another issue to my attention.
I have in hand a copy of a magazine called McKesson Today, published by this organization, McKesson, which by the way has acquired recently the Medis Corporation, a company that distributes 44 per cent of all the pharmaceutical drugs in Canada at the wholesale level.
Quite apart from the debate we are having today, there is another one which is attached to it, namely what the revocation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency of some years ago is doing to not only manufacturing, which is what we are debating today, but wholesale distribution which is falling into the hands of multinational corporations based outside this country. This company is advertising for itself in its own magazine which reads:
With a population of 26.8 million, Canada represents a substantial
market that has barely been scratched in terms of wholesale
pharmaceutical distribution.
This is from an organization that already owns 44 per cent of that distribution in Canada.
With this bill, in combination with the bill of a few years ago and in combination with the revocation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency legislation, does my colleague agree that we will in fact see more and more corporate concentration, particularly corporate concentration based outside Canada, distributing, manufacturing and selling prescription drugs to Canadians?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. Whether they have been pharmaceuticals or scientific equipment provided to hospitals, there is no doubt that the provisions of the free trade agreement eliminate any performance tests and eliminate for all intents and purposes all tariff and non-tariff barriers. It is obvious that distributorship is being transferred to American companies.
Government Orders
When the member said something about import and export I thought it might be worth while to look at some of the claims that the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology advanced at one stage. He said that Bill C-22 encouraged the export of drugs from Canada and that our export market was going to be expanded. I do not know whether he said this-he may have left it unsaid- but what was unsaid was that exports of patented drugs increased from $200 million to $230 million. That is an increase, but it is also true that between 1987 and 1990, the same period over which that figure was gathered, our imports went from $700 million to $950 million, an increase of $220 million.
That just does not add up, and I am sure the hon. member knows that.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I think it is important to follow up on the costs of Bill C-91. There have been some outrageous claims made.
I sat and listened to Dr. Schondelmeyer in committee where he estimated billions of dollars to the year 2010. There were four mistakes in that estimate. First, we cannot project to the year 2010 in this industry. Five years is as far as we can go. There were wrong sales figures in his estimate. There were lists of drugs that were off patent on that list and there were wrong patent expiry dates on that list.
There are government officials who have studied this matter for years. They have an analytical model based on five years. They have the products that are affected directly. They have made assumptions. For example, they assumed that every product will be copied, which is not the case, and they assumed that every generic will come on market immediately when it can, which is not the case either. That estimate is $25 million a year over five years; $1 per Canadian.
Could the member comment on that?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to. I tell the hon. member what I told him and his colleagues in committee, as all of us on this side did in committee. If they had not limited that committee, if they had not done everything they could to disarm that committee and limit the number of witnesses and the length of time, we could have cross-examined on the various numbers from various sources.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
He is getting his numbers from the government and we are supposed to trust that. He does not trust what we get from provincial governments, experts which the hon. member over there calls weekend experts.
The fact of the matter is that this bill was rushed through. We did not have the opportunity to engage in the kind of careful deliberation and study of these numbers that would have permitted a reasonable conclusion for our ourselves or for the Canadian populace. However, we do know that it is going to cost a lot more money, because that is why there is the bill.
No one can be so thick as to believe that eliminating generic compulsory licensing has any other purpose than to increase profits, and therefore increase costs. I do not know what is wrong with those folks over there. They know that is the reason for this bill. Why not admit it? It is going to cost us more, and we are not going to get anything out of it.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think that you will find that there is unanimous consent to extend the sitting hours through the midday interruption.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, we have come to expect the sort of intervention that we have just heard. I always listen very carefully to what my hon. friend from Windsor says and how he says it.
When his voice goes up two or three octaves we know that he is getting into the political rhetoric. When he is talking in a low voice we know that it is fairly sensible stuff. Ninety-five per cent of the time his voice was up at least two octaves. That gives us a pretty good sense of the sort of stuff we are hearing from him.
During the course of this debate the greatest casualty of the debate has been the truth. I want to try to put some things on the record today that will present to Canadians who are listening the other side of the debate. It is based on careful work that has been done by members of the Public Service. They are people who
have no political axe to grind, but who have done work based on the facts. They have made a careful analysis in supporting the positions they have advanced to us as ministers, which we are now presenting to the House.
We announced our intention to change the patent legislation on January 12,1992. There has been plenty of time for people to understand the facts and get a clear understanding of what has been happening here. We are hearing in this debate the same phoney charges, the same hysteria, the same twisting of the facts that we saw in Bill C-22 some five years ago.
The opponents of Bill C-91-


Mr. Milliken:: Nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend opposite said nonsense. He unfortunately was not here because I am sure that he would have put a more sensible slant on the debate from his side of the House. However, the same outrageous statements are still being made.
Opponents have said recently that the innovative companies have failed to keep the promises they made in 1987, pursuant to Bill C-22. The companies said at that time that they would increase their percentage of sales devoted to research and development to 10 per cent. It was 4.9 per cent at the time. They said they would do that by 1996, and in 1991 it was 9.6 per cent. They have almost reached that objective, well ahead of schedule.
They invested $1.1 billion in research and development during that period and increased the amount of basic research from 17 per cent of total R and D to 26.5 per cent, a considerably higher dollar amount than was the case prior to Bill C-22.
Opponents said, and we have heard it again from my friend from Windsor, that they would never create the expected 3,000 jobs by 1996. In fact, they created 2,400 jobs by the end of 1991. These are figures for all to see, not the ones we have just heard unfortunately from my colleague from Windsor. Depending on the companies, between one-third and one-half of those jobs are in research and development. They are important jobs that people in this country are seeking governments to encourage.


Mr. Mills:: They are sales and marketing jobs.
December 10, 1992

Government Orders


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend is denigrating sales jobs. All I said was that one-third to one-half are research and development jobs. I do not know what my hon. friend is getting so exercised for. If he disagrees with that fact, then say so. He should not get exercised just because he has a different interpretation of it. The facts are the facts.
Opponents said that the 1987 legislation would destroy the generic industry. In fact, the sales of the generic companies increased by 180 per cent. We do not know what the profits are, but clearly the companies have been making profits because they have been investing in research and development. They have also been using some of those profits to buy generic companies. Where? In the United States where there is no compulsory licensing system. Let us put all these things in context.
The critics of Bill C-22 said that the prices of patented medicines would sky-rocket. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board reported that the increase would be 2.9 per cent, well below the 4.4 per cent inflation during that period.
My friend talked about the fact that in 40 per cent of the cases there were excess prices. Let us put that into context, as well. It was about $700,000 in total in 1991. What the new legislation does do is provide for a roll back. In this bill we have improved the operations of the prices review board to deal with that particular concern.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Green Shield.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend has just yelled across at me: "Green Shield". That was a report that talked about total drug usage, not just the patented medicines affected by this legislation. It is very important to realize that the amount of drugs covered by this legislation is 20 per cent of the total.
When we consider the usage as well as the impact of prices on the non-patented medicines and the patented medicines not covered by this legislation then it is an apples and oranges comparison. It is very clear that people who are reviewing what Bill C-91 will do should not just take at face value what the Green Shield report says but look behind it. That is what the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has tried to do.

Bill C-22 was a success as anticipated. It has improved the environment for R and D and has favoured job creation while maintaining reasonable drug prices and fostering generic concurrence.
But the world is going through many changes. The global climate surrounding the international drug industry is developing rapidly and Canada must be in the vanguard if we are to continue to lead the way.

Opponents are saying that we are doing this simply for the sake of the multinationals. They are wrong again. We are moving to do this for the sake of Canada and Canadians, for the sake of those who will benefit from new medicines, and for the sake of Canadian scientists and researchers and the growing number of innovative Canadian companies. I will just mention some of them: Quadra Logics in Vancouver, Biomira in Edmonton, Biochem Pharma in Montreal, Allelix Biopharmaceuticals in Toronto and Diagnostic Chemicals in Charlottetown. These are companies which will benefit from this protection of intellectual property. They are Canadian biotechnical companies. These are the companies that are developing the next generation of medicines for the sake of Canadian jobs in a dynamic, high-tech industry. Canadians, whether they are young or old, stand to live longer and more comfortable lives as a result of pharmaceutical innovations.
On the basis of the announcement last January and the tabling of the bill in June, the innovative drug companies have come forward with millions of dollars of new investment that will benefit all regions of the country.
The House may recall that I spoke about $500 million during the second reading of this legislation. That $500 million amount has now increased to $635 million over five years in new manufacturing investments and new research.

Astra is presently looking at various locations in Canada where it could set up a research centre with a world-wide mandate, and that represents an investment of $150 million.
1502G

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
Nordic Merrill Dow and Smith Klein Beechman have each announced investments of $40 million to increase research and development work.
Just three days ago, Ely Lilly announced new investments of $170 million for R and D for high-tech modernization and production.
There is more. Above all, the industry will invest more than $2.5 billion in Canada by 1996. This is good news. The economy needs good news.

I began my remarks by stating that there is a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation in the public domain on this legislation. Let us stop the scaremonger-ing and look at the facts.
First, opponents say that drug prices will soar as a result of Bill C-91. They will not. They have not in the past and they will not in the future. The board, as I said a minute ago, has been given new powers over both new and existing patented drugs. The bill has teeth, it has very sharp teeth. It has some very substantial criminal law penalties that are quite significant.
Seniors have been especially concerned. Again, let us look at reality. Seniors are covered by drug plans in all provinces, and under current provincial plans at least 71 per cent will not pay one penny more as a result of Bill C-91. For the remaining 29 per cent, three-quarters or more of their drug costs are covered by provincial drug plans.
I believe what has caused some of the confusion is that some drug prices are rising faster than the rate of inflation. However, these are not the patented drugs. They have nothing to do with Bill C-91. There was a column in the paper the other day by Dalton Camp. He identified six drugs and talked about how much they had increased. None of these drugs will be affected by Bill C-91.
Eighty per cent of all drugs are not patented and therefore are not subject to any form of price control. The price increases of the remaining 20 per cent, the patented drugs, are under control pursuant to this legislation and Bill C-22 of 1987. These drugs have remained well below the inflation rate, as I mentioned earlier.
The second misconception relates to what my colleague from Windsor has been ranting about just now, which is the cost impact of Bill C-91. The government
has over a period of time, from the ground up, made a drug by drug assessment of the cost increase. It would be $129 million over five years. I want to repeat that, $129 million over five years, roughly $25 million a year, $1 per Canadian per year. That would be offset by the tremendous benefits in new research and development and the new cures. I think that is something that Canadians can endure.
The opponents of this bill have offered cost projections that are all over the map. I listened carefully to my colleague from Windsor's response, but he did not give any substantiation for the wild figures of $4 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion that he threw around. However, Dr. Heinz Redwood, an internationally recognized industry expert, has reviewed the figures that have been developed in the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. He concluded that they are based on substantive analysis. I will quote him. He said: "They are based on acceptable methodology and reasonable assumptions".
He went on to say: "The cost to Canada may well turn out to be lower than forecast, thus adding a safety margin for possible but currently unforeseeable additional costs". Dr. Schondelmeyer, who my friend from Windsor referred to, projects this will cost $7 billion over 17 years. That projection may be sensational and you will probably read about it in the papers tomorrow morning. You will not read about the $129 million.
This is a gross overstatement because the professionals in the department of industry went through his analysis which he produced over the Thanksgiving weekend in the United States. They went over the analysis and pointed out there were drugs in there that were off patent. He was extending terms far beyond what he should have in order to come up with the analysis. What do they come back to? They come back to the $129 million we had developed.
We tabled Dr. Redwood's report in the committee and that is there for all members to see and review. I would like to talk about another element of this and that is the question of drug usage.
Drug costs are driven up more by drug usage, the type of drug, the size and the number of prescriptions. If each Canadian used just one less prescription per year, we would save almost 20 times the additional cost to the drug purchasing system we calculate.
December 10, 1992

Another misconception I want to address is the mistaken notion Bill C-91 will double the patent period for pharmaceuticals from 10 to 20 years. Unfortunately, we heard that again this morning from the hon. member from Windsor. It has been documented time and time again by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The increase as a result of this bill is three to three and a half years in the market protection provided to these companies. It is not 17, 10 or 20 years or whatever the figures are that get thrown around by the opponents of the bill.
Once the patent does expire, the generic drug companies in Canada will be able to compete openly with the company that invented the medicine, as is the case in any other sector of technology. This legislation is bringing the intellectual property protection for pharmaceuticals in line with what is there for all other types of inventions.
I think this point bears repeating again and again. We are not singling companies out for more favourable treatment, but bringing them into line with other industries.
Opponents say this bill will mean the end to the generic industry in Canada. As I said earlier, the generic industry has grown by 180 per cent since 1987. Our projections indicate in the new environment there is no reason why they should not be able to grow at rates equal to those of the rest of the pharmaceutical industry.
Close to 60 per cent of generic business is now generated from drugs that are already off patent. Furthermore, there are nearly 2,000 off-patent products available to the generics right now that have not been copied by them.
The U.S. generic industry operates in an environment without compulsory licences. It is growing and thriving so much the generic companies have bought U.S. generic companies using the profits they have generated here in Canada. Clearly, there is no reason why this sector should not prosper in Canada.
Yesterday morning Ralph Nader said on Canada AM: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" These types of opponents ignore the changing realities of the global marketplace.
Government Orders
Mr. Nader talks a great line about all Canada's inventions but he is really saying he would like to see us keep on inventing, but he would not provide the encouragement and protection to the inventors.
He would have us hand these inventions over to countries where there is this protection so they can commercialize the inventions for world markets and take the benefits outside Canada. I do not agree with that. We want to keep the jobs and benefits here in Canada and that is what Bill C-91 is all about.
An international consensus emerged in the GATT about a year ago on world standards for intellectual property. It is critical to Canada's future prosperity that we participate in this consensus. If we do not accept this proposal, Canada will put at risk many of the benefits of the Uruguay round and jeopardize our over-all trade relationships.
These are days of great change in this particular industry. I referred to Business Week, November 16, in my intervention earlier on second reading. I pointed out where a lot of change is happening. Jobs are being lost in other countries. Here in Canada we are gaining these jobs and we are doing so because we do have competitive advantages. We have world class scientists, excellent medical institutions and a reputation of high standards in the area of medicines. We have a tremendous international reputation in the type of health care system we have.
We are trying to achieve balance in this bill. I expect you would think people on both sides of this House would have an axe to grind at tilting the balance one way or the other in the course of the comments they make.
I want to quote someone who is probably quite objective. This person must try to find the right balance between attracting investment and controlling costs. I am speaking here of Premier Rae of Ontario. These are quotes from a press conference on December 7. He said:
Just because we have some questions about Bill C-91 does not mean
we are against this kind of investment.
For example, research and development, and high value-added manufacturing.
The federal government has to take its responsibilities with regard to
intellectual property and we respect that.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
That is what we are doing with Bill C-91.
Then he went on to say:
Whatever regime of intellectual property is worked through, this jurisdiction has to be competitive with others in attracting investments.
Again, this is what we are trying to do with Bill C-91. He went on to say:
We want to have a competitive balanced industry which can compete with anyone in the world. We need to have a reasonable regime for the protection of intellectual property and at the same time we have to take our responsibility for trying to manage the costs of a publicly insured plan.
This explains in a nutshell, the balance we are trying to attain with Bill C-91. I would encourage the members opposite to recognize those benefits we are bringing here, help us get this legislation through and then work with us in developing with the provinces and other players in the industry the best, most effective, most equitable type of price control regime we can provide for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
That is the balance we should be trying to achieve in this House. We should not be trying to destroy the whole bill and with it the investment, research and development and good jobs that come from it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister. He seems to refer to this GATT agreement repeatedly not only in the House but in other conferences.
Yesterday my colleague from Winnipeg-St. James quoted from article 31(b) of the proposed GATT agreement. It reads as follows: "Where the law of a party allows for the other use of subject matter of a patent without authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or third parties, the following provision shall be respected. Such use may only be permitted if part of such use the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization and this requirement may be waived by a party in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use".
What is the public health care system of Canada if it is non-commercial use? Would that not be a legitimate and valid argument for pleading for special status in exemption under the GATT?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am surprised my friend of all people would miss the point on this. We are not trying to find a way to avoid attracting investment in Canada. We are trying to find a way to attract investment in Canada.
As I pointed out in my remarks, we have seen the changes that are happening world-wide where new mandates for research and development for manufacturing are being established. We are getting these in Canada.
If I took the approach my hon. friend is implying through his question, we would not get this investment. That is the balance we are trying to achieve in this legislation.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister. As a member from Quebec, I was particularly interested in what he had to say, because if we believe what he just said, it seems that this will benefit everybody. There should be a very minor increase in drug prices, and a lot of jobs would be created in Quebec.
I am not so sure about that. The Syndicat des enseig-nants du Quebec already said that it did not believe the minister. Moreover, if we believe the internal reports of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that department said that the projected spin-offs from Bill C-22 enacted a few years ago did not materialize.
A review is scheduled of the effectiveness of Bill C-22, which was enacted a couple of years ago and which was no small gift to the drug industry. Why do we not wait for that review which is already scheduled I think for 1996 before passing another bill which gives more or less the same results? Why is the government in such a hurry to legislate, to pass this new bill now? How can we trust a minister who, when he was the Minister of Finance, was never able to balance his budget? Is he relying on the same officials to get his figures?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think these personal shots are not very appropriate and I am not going to respond to them.
December 10,1992

I will say to my hon. friend, his province of Quebec supports this quite aggressively. It sees the benefits of the new research and development and manufacturing, balanced by the protection on costs that are important to the management of the health care system in the province of Quebec.
My hon. friend asks why do we not wait until 1996. I guess we could wait until 1996, but we would forgo that investment. We would also have to run counter to the proposals in the GATT. As I said, that would put our position within the GATT at risk. That is something we on this side of the House are not prepared to risk.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I am seeking a clarification from the minister. I ask this sincerely with regard to whether or not the minister believes there is a conflict between the wording of the Dunkel report on GATT and the proposed NAFTA agreement, particularly as it relates to intellectual property.
It is my understanding that article VI on pharmaceuticals of annex 1001.2a, chapter 10, pages 10 to 55 of NAFTA the text reads: "Until January 1, 2002, this chapter shall not apply to the procurement by the Secretaria-and the Secretaria de Marina of drugs that are not currently patented in Mexico or whose Mexican patents have expired". Then there is another sentence and this is where I need the clarification. It says: "Nothing in this paragraph shows prejudice rights under chapter 17, intellectual property". Am I right to conclude that under the NAFTA agreement, the Mexican pharmaceutical industry will have a transition period of eight years under NAFTA, which is not the case under GATT?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend would have been able to get a better answer had he given me some notice of this question. I would be happy to respond to it.
My sense though is that what that particular provision provides for is a transition in the procurement as opposed to the intellectual property. My friend would be quite interested to know that patent protection in Mexico, a country that is fast developing and seeking this type of investment, is greater for the innovators than is the protection provided in Bill C-91. They have seen
Government Orders
that it is important for them to have this degree of protection.
As a country that will be competing with Mexico for investment, as we compete with Europe and other countries, we have to be competitive as well. This is what Bill C-91 is all about.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, my question really falls into line with the question that we just heard posed.
There have been a lot of charges from the opposition that we are making this bill retroactive and that somehow that is unfair or unusual. I wonder if the minister could tell us why the effective date is December 20,1991.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the importance of that date is to provide some certainty in the marketplace. If we had not established a date when the new provisions take hold, there would be chaos in the marketplace. Neither the generic companies nor the patent medicine companies would know where they stood with regard to new investments that either one of them might want to make because of the cash flows from drugs that are currently under development now would be quite up in the air as to who would get access to that cash flow.
I want to point out that it was in the interests of the generic companies that Mr. Dunkel provided the transition that he did provide. If he had not provided transition, the compulsory licences that were in place now would have been cancelled. However, he has said to leave those compulsory licences operative so that the companies can take advantage of those and provide for an extension of the patent protection on others.
It was a grandfathering of compulsory licences that were already given. That was done in the interests of the generic companies. By picking that specific date in compliance with the Dunkel proposal, we guard against the market distortions that clearly would have been there if we had said that we were going to wait and establish a date sometime in the future.
Therefore, that is why we have done it the way we have. It is quite consistent with long-standing tradition here in this country on the implementation of budget measures.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
Bill C-22 provided for that board, but what it really does is monitor wholesale prices but does not monitor retail prices. As the minister knows, most of the wholesalers are subsidiaries of big manufacturing companies. Naturally this is why we only have an increase of 2 per cent. At the retail level prices go up 50 per cent to 100 per cent. Therefore, can the minister comment on that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A brief comment, Madam Speaker. The federal government does not have the power constitutionally to control or to influence in a regulatory way retail prices. If there were to be controls, that would be the responsibility of the provincial governments. One of the important influences that we have in this country and one that can serve to help keep retail prices down is through the lists that the provincial governments put out indicating what drugs they encourage people to buy, the so-called formularies.
In this way they can keep an eye on what the retail prices are of the various drugs on the market and encourage people to use those when they are making their purchasing decisions.
This is one of the real strengths we have in Canada. It is one of the ways we want to work together with the provinces where we, through the prices review board, control prices at the manufacturing level and they, working through their formulary and the power that they have through the provincial drug programs, control the price at the retail level.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few points with regard to the bill which is before us and its subject matter, but first on the process.
This subject matter is of considerable interest to Canadians in every walk of life: seniors, health care professionals, individuals who have made careers in advocating certain provisions with regard to intellectual property. All have a great deal of concern about this bill and its consequences.
The arrangements which were made at committee were insufficient to deal with the subject matter in any extensive way.
There are those on the opposite side who would conclude because opposition parties sat down and heard a few witnesses that that should be the extent of the debate at committee. In fact members of that committee had hoped to have heard a far larger number of witnesses and wanted to have much more extensive hearings.
The able critic for our party, the hon. member for Dartmouth, repeatedly made that case only to be stonewalled because the government indicated that it was either a few witnesses or no witnesses at all. The motion which went on division was certainly done under duress and we are not being very well served by having a shortened debate on a subject matter which is of considerable interest to Canadians.
Also, I think it would give us a better opportunity. We have heard in this Chamber this morning the charges which were being made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that our facts were wrong. Those of us in opposition made the claim that our facts were right and theirs were wrong. However, that is the essence of parliamentary debate. If we had had longer hearings at committee we probably would have been able to have a much fuller examination of those facts and figures. That is not to suggest or impugn upon anyone who appeared before that committee and gave evidence or testimony.
That is the reality, Madam Speaker. We did not have enough time. We saw at a later stage of the debate of this bill numerous amendments which were not debated. Some of them were adjudicated in this Chamber but again they were not debated because the government was using the guillotine of closure and time allocation to shorten debate on a very important subject.
We are now at third reading on a bill of considerable concern to Canadians and all we have had is a cursory examination of many of the salient parts of this particular bill.
Many of us who have studied this particular issue-I had an opportunity on a previous occasion in 1987 to have such an opportunity to examine this bill-and I want to repeat for the record that I do not concur at all with the findings of the government opposite that we as a
December 10, 1992

separate and independent nation must move toward this new form of intellectual property rights at this time.
I want to be clear. I have great concerns about brand name companies operating in this country. I also have concerns about generic companies operating in this country. For the government of the day to say to Canadians we are now only going to have one industry which it will regulate in its entirety, that being brand name companies, the multinationals, to me is not fair. It is inappropriate and poor public policy.
We are not advocating as a national party, as the member for Dartmouth has indicated time and time again, that we get rid of one at the expense of the other. There ought to be a balance with regard to public policies which we believe compulsory licensing has been able to provide to Canadians over the years.
It was interesting to note that in 1987 the present government House leader, who was the minister responsible. said on the floor of the House of Commons on numerous occasions that the price of drugs in this country would not rise by one red cent. That is what the minister said. I wanted to make this statement, as I know the House would be interested in it.
My colleague, the member for Dartmouth, has repeatedly found information which has been placed on the record that this proposition and thesis just does not stand scrutiny by any test-the test of the opposition, the test of the New Democratic Party or the test of independent third parties. The cost of drugs has increased substantially-
In terms of the government's previous policy, it has not been able to live up to those promises, namely, that prices would not rise one red cent.
However, in this bill it is a little bit different. The government no longer takes out the argument that prices will not rise one cent. It takes out the argument that they are going to rise. Some may say by billions, but they are wrong. It is not billions, they say, it is millions. That is what they say. If you prorate that over a decade it becomes billions quite quickly.
I am astounded to find that the government opposite has seen fit to acknowledge and affirm our claim that prices will rise in this country. The mechanisms it has put
Government Orders
in place to try to deal with that, as again our critic for the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Dartmouth, has repeatedly put, are not effective ways in which to deal with that.
The whole question of compulsory licensing and the rights of those individuals who have intellectual property is an argument that has been made in this House time and time again. We are a party that believes both systems can work in this country. They have been working up to now. They have been saving consumers thousands and thousands of dollars on an individual basis.
In point of fact just the other day I had to get a prescription for my son. I asked the pharmacist, who happens to be a friend, because a brand name was prescribed by the physician, if there was anything in stock equivalent to the brand name. The brand name product was $18.29. The generic product for the same thing, to treat the same illness, was $4.22-a sizeable difference.
I am not here to cry about the fact that I cannot afford the difference between $4 and $18, but the fact of the matter is that there are millions of Canadians who cannot afford that kind of difference. Why would we as a nation throw that system out when it has been balanced?
I know that my time is relatively short. I do want to say that I think there is room and there ought to be room in this country for the two systems of compulsory licensing as well as the brand name drug companies. I think we should keep the system that we have. It has been working well and it has been very effective for Canadians.
This particular piece of legislation does very little in terms of the guarantees for research and development. It does not address in any fundamental way the concerns that we have expressed in terms of pricing. Even the most objective soul in this world-I look to the Chair for guidance in that-would have to agree that a retroactive piece of legislation in itself is damaging.
A retroactive piece of legislation which is financial in its substance is far more damaging to the entire system than probably any other aspect of this particular bill. The government is ready to proceed as Santa Claus will proceed on Christmas Eve as he goes down the chimney and into the living-room to leave the gifts.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
What a gift. The Conservative government opposite, consisting of the Minister of Justice, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the Minister of Communications, the Minister of National Health and Welfare-the Prime Minister will not be here shortly- has given this gift to the multinational corporations. It is at the price of taking the hard-earned dollars out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians across this country who work their 40 hours a week, who bring up their children, feed them, put them through school but who now have to be taxed by this government.
It is tax under Bill C-91 in order to facilitate the objectives of the multinational corporations whose primary concern as we all know is the bottom dollar. That is not fair.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I heard the member say that compulsory licensing works, that it is a good system and that we should keep it in place.
I gather that he is parroting the words of Ralph Nader, the American expert the Official Opposition brought to Canada to support its arguments in favour of compulsory licensing. He said: "If it is not broke, do not fix it". I would suggest that it is broke. Because of compulsory licensing, Canada's growth in the development of the pharmaceutical industry has been severely retarded.
Until 1987 nobody wanted to invest in R and D or in new plants and equipment here in Canada because of the patent licensing regime that was created by the Liberals. Perhaps the hon. member would like to tell us how he thinks compulsory licensing worked to attract that kind of investment. How does he think the compulsory licensing helped to employ Canadians in high value-added jobs? How does he think that compulsory licensing contributed to the universities in Canada?
It did not work. Perhaps he could tell us how he thinks he could create that kind of investment climate under a compulsory licensing regime.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at the question.
I guess I am surprised at the quality of the question, its lack of clarity and understanding of the role that parliamentary secretaries play in governing this country. The hon. member opposite has a responsibility to consumers in this country.
If the hon. member is trying to suggest that compulsory licensing has not contributed to lessening the costs that Canadian consumers have to pay in this country for prescription drugs, the evidence is there in abundance. It is clear. It is on the record. It has been given there by third party individuals and organizations time and time again.
I suggest to the hon. member that the argument that she raises today is an argument which ought to be debated in the fullness of time. She strikes but one side of the coin. We as a national party believe in intellectual property and that individuals ought to be rewarded for their particular discovery. There is no question about that, but equally so we are a national party that also believes that Canadian consumers have a right to be heard.
They have a right to have people accountable to them in terms of the price they pay for their prescription drugs. I thought the hon. member was going to ask me the tough question: What do you mean there are concerns about the generics? I will tell you what I mean by concerns about the generics as with the brand name companies: price and research and development. We have a good system. We could make it even better if that were the focus of this particular debate. However, that is not the focus of this particular debate.
The hon. member is suggesting to her consumers, her constituents, that we want to wipe out completely, forever and a day, compulsory licencing so you as consumers will have to pay top price. That is the difference. That is the ideological difference between Liberals and Tories.
The Tory agenda is clear. One primary objective is to put money in the multinational corporations at any cost. Consumers be damned, research and development be damned, the health care system be damned. The objective is the bottom dollar of the multinational corporations that happen to be driving the agenda of the neo-Conservatives opposite in this House.
December 10, 1992


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to continue debate on Bill C-91 but it seems beyond imagination to understand why there is a debate.
It is very obvious that the people, the consumers in this country, are totally opposed to this bill. I see it in my own riding where I have received many, many letters in opposition and encouraging me on behalf of my constituents and others across Canada to oppose this bill.
It is incomprehensible why this government at this time is having to pass legislation which will bring further benefit to only that sector of our North American economy which at the present time has the highest profit margin. Why is it necessary at this time to give it the opportunity for yet further profit, and not only profit but profit at the expense of every single Canadian citizen and consumer? As well as costing more per person, it puts our health care system in jeopardy.
To quote the Consumers' Association of Canada when it spoke before the legislative committee last week: "With a new administration about to take office in the U.S.. Canada has no reason to proceed with Bill C-91 on the grounds of previous deals with the old U.S. administration to eliminate compulsory licencing".
It said that in view of the fact that the government uses the excuse that it has to put through this legislation at this time. This is in order to comply with rules of the new GATT, which has not yet been approved, and with the rules of NAFTA, which has not been approved either and which we on this side of the House will fight until we get satisfaction that certain minimum standards are met.
When we look at the GATT we see that there is no reason under the articles of GATT that Canada would have to bring in this legislation at this time. There are exceptions expressed explicitly in the GATT legislation which say it is not necessary for Canada to introduce this legislation which would eradicate compulsory licencing in this country.
Furthermore, in NAFTA we see not only the fact that exceptions are allowed, but that our government in negotiating the NAFTA has given a special exception to Mexico that it can have a transition period of eight years before it has to do any alteration to its legislation having
Government Orders
to do with patented medicines, pharmaceuticals and such.
However, in Canada before the trade legislation is enacted, we are bringing forward the legislation today which will have a very negative effect on consumers, on our health care systems, on the generic industry in this country. We are also making that legislation retroactive.
The minister said just a few minutes ago the generic companies have had some benefit since C-22 was passed some years ago, which extended patent protection of the brand name drug companies. But listening to the generic companies it is obvious when C-22 was brought in, it was to be in place until 1997 and would not be altered until there had been a full review. On the basis of that, the generic industry adjusted, made plans and did some research. Yes, they had opportunities to develop their market, but so did the brand name companies equally if not more from that same legislation. Here we are passing retroactive legislation, which will seriously penalize them financially to the point their very existence in this country will be jeopardized.
We stand on this side of the House and make our points. It is constantly stated there is contradictory evidence out there. The fact is this government cut off debate. It cut off once again the voice of the Canadian people who had important things to say about this legislation and very important concerns which we share with them.
The minister said a little while ago anybody who is opposed to C-91 is ignorant of a changing, global marketplace. However, day after day we hear this government using the excuse for our economic woes in this country that we live in a global marketplace. We must be globally competitive. Our government is making us adjust unnecessarily to the agenda of the multinational corporations which are dominating the economy of our world more and more. This is absolutely not necessary.
We do live in a globally competitive marketplace, but this legislation only serves to enhance and benefit the multinational corporations. We do have a national agenda which is to represent the best interests of the Canadian people and we do not see it here.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
The government says that and promises to go on to another point. It says powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board will be increased and there will be more investment in research and development. None of this is legislated as part of Bill C-91 before us today. There is no compulsion upon multinational corporations which benefit to increase their research and development.
Yes, there are promises. I got a letter yesterday from Eli Lilly, Canada saying it is going to put a $170 million, five-year investment in Canada. It added such legislation as C-91, which gives pharmaceutical manufacturers greater intellectual property protection is critical to attracting this investment and enabling the industry to expand in Canada. Eli Lilly makes this announcement before the legislation C-91 has been passed on the assumptions it is going to pass and there is no debate in this country on anything, in this case on C-91. It also has an underlying message that if for some reason C-91 does not pass then it is not going to make this $170 million investment in this country, which we all know will benefit Eli Lilly tremendously to the detriment of Canadian consumers.
The powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board were supposed to be sufficient with Bill C-22. It is very obvious from reports of different groups its powers were insufficient and prices indeed have risen far more than was anticipated by the government when Bill C-22 was passed.
We can look at the reports of various groups. The Ontario government drug plan reports increases in drug prices of 13.2 per cent. Green Shield health insurance company reports increases of 11.4 per cent. The Manitoba health insurance plan reports increases of 12.3 per cent. All these increases are much beyond the levels of inflation.
The minister would say: "Well that is because they are talking about all drugs, not just patent drugs". However, the fact is any ordinary drug that shows a good profitability for a brand name company can be reformulated and have a patent applied to it, so for time after time after time profitable drugs for the multinational brand name pharmaceutical companies can be put on to patent at our personal expense. This country cannot afford to have the cost of pharmaceutical drugs increase. This country cannot afford this government.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: I would like to make a comment, Madam Speaker, and clear up a matter that has been discussed twice just recently by members of the Official Opposition. It is the question of GATT. Some of the statements they have made are quite erroneous. I would just like to assure them NAFTA carries the very same commitment as the GATT Dunkel text in terms of intellectual property.
Mexico does not get an eight-year delay in having to comply with drug patent requirements under NAFTA. The fact is all the parties have to comply on the same basis. That is the whole idea behind this international discussion of trading rules. There must be a level playing field for everybody. The eight-year transition period the member opposite quoted a few moments ago when the minister was speaking has to do with the procurement of drugs and not intellectual property protection, which is what we are talking about here with Bill C-91 and the question of patent protection for drugs.
I would also just like to ask the member a question.


An hon. member:: Point of order, point of order.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: The time is for comments and questions, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member on a point of order.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I just want to be sure, after 13 years of being here which is not a long time, what the proper role of questions and answers is relative to debate. I understood it is to allow appropriate questions by those members in the House interested in the debate. It does not allow debate and rebuttal by the government systematically to every speaker. I have noticed the hon. member opposite has been given repeated opportunity to rebut speaker after speaker on this side when there are many other members in the House who seek to be heard and ask a question or offer a comment.
The Speaker's job is to provide fair opportunity, which this Speaker has done in a totally exemplary fashion time and time again. I just want to be sure I understand well the role of questions and comments. I believe it is to provide as many members as possible a chance to involve themselves in the debate and not allow one parliamentary secretary to rebut every speaker who has spoken. I think that is wrong, Madam Speaker.
December 10, 1992

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for telling me I normally do not have anyone unhappy with the way the Boor has been given to different members. I have been trying to allow a first question after a speech to someone from another party. I have done this for the last six years, and this is the very first time it has been brought to my attention.
Earlier in the noon hour we had probably the best period of questions and comments 1 have seen in the House in a long time, following the Minister of International Trade's intervention. There were short questions and short answers. I think five different members from different parties and an independent were involved. At this time when we only have five minutes, I think it is normal to try to get questions from all sides.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As long as it is not the same person over and over again.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Well, the Chair cannot decide who is in the House. Order, please.
Just before the hon. member was in the House, the hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River was up. I can assure the hon. member I will make sure people from all sides of the House get a chance to speak, but I cannot decide who is in the House from one party or another. This is totally out of my hands as the hon. member will understand.


Christine Susan Stewart: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to respond to the comments of the parliamentary secretary across the way. I would like to quote again very specifically from the NAFTA text which gives Mexico exceptional treatment. If it does not apply as an exceptional treatment for Mexico then why was that particular section not also equally applied to Canada? The section says very explicitly until January 1, 2002 that this chapter shall not apply to the procurement by ministries. That could be provincial governments under our health care plan or the federal ministry. Why did that not also apply to Canadian provincial ministries of health on drugs that are not currently patented in Mexico or whose Mexico patents have expired? Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice rights under chapter 17, intellectual property.
If that was not giving special benefit to Mexico in NAFTA then why did it not explicitly state Canada would have the same advantages as Mexico? It seems very clear to this side of the House this government has bowed once again to the lobby of the multinational brand name pharmaceutical companies and we, on the backs of Canadian consumers have given them, not us, a definite benefit.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I was wondering about the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board and whether this member agrees with the minister when he says it is not constitutionally allowed for the federal government to monitor retail prices. He said we cannot monitor retail prices, only wholesale prices.
Does she agree with that statement?


Christine Susan Stewart: I am not a constitutional expert but it seems bizarre to me the government or any body would only be able to supervise or review wholesale prices and not retail prices. That just does not make sense to me, but as I say, I am not a constitutional expert.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to rise today and speak on this bill. I will try to deal with some of the issues that have come up in a factual way, one by one, to dispel any doubts or concerns my friends opposite might have.
It is clear to me they are still confused about a number of issues, not the least of which is the difference between procurement and intellectual property. To respond to the question that was inherent in the hon. member's last intervention, we are talking about procurement and not intellectual property when we are dealing with the text she quoted from the NAFTA.
We are dealing with Bill C-91 in the House today which is an act to amend the patent protection act.
I want to begin by going right back to the beginning and asking what is a compulsory licence. A lot of people must be scratching their heads and asking what does compulsory licence mean. If you have a patent does that not give you some protection against infringement on that patent for* number of years? Is that not something

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
everybody would just take for granted? That is what a patent means, is it not?
That is what a patent means in most countries and that is what a patent will mean in Canada after the passage of Bill C-91. Much to my dismay when I came here I learned that currently, a patent can be infringed upon by a special system set up by the Liberal government that provides for something called compulsory licensing. Those words mean we give someone the special privilege to copy a drug while it is still under patent protection.
This bill removes this artificial and damaging provision that has been inserted into our Canadian intellectual property rights. It creates an atmosphere of fairness and a level playing field. It brings Canada into the 21st century with the rest of the G-7 countries and all the rest of the industrial world, with the exception perhaps of India, which is not exactly one of our key trading partners.
It allows us then to be able to attract investment and research and development dollars, which means more jobs for Canadians. They are not just jobs that do not pay well or that are difficult to attract key people to. We are talking about high valued-added jobs that will create opportunities for the development of information based technologies for the future.
The opposition has claimed that somehow the federal government of the day is trying to pass Bill C-91 because it has some nefarious plot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is, as I have said already, this bill will allow us to attract more investment and it will create more jobs. Since we announced that we were going to proceed with Bill C-91 a year ago-there has been ample time for the country to think about this bill and ample time for debate and discussion, in spite of what my friends opposite have said-we have had announcements of $502 million in investments to the benefit of Canada.
In my own home province, a local company that has been there since maybe the 1960s has doubled its investment by $60 million in the last two or three months. What this means in terms of real jobs and real investment for Manitobans is a spin-off benefit of $145 million a year. That is a tremendously significant boost to the Manitoba economy.
For the agricultural sector, it means jobs. It means opportunities to expand into other areas at a time when traditional agricultural products are difficult to market.
It means that young people coming out of our universities will have an opportunity for employment and will be able to use their degrees and make their degrees worth more in the future. It means that young people coming out of our universities, not just in Manitoba but around the country, will not have to go to the United States or Europe to ply their trade that they have spent so many years developing.
It also means more research. Universities like the University of Alberta, the University of B.C. or even the University of Manitoba, not to mention all the eastern universities, have received something like $84 million in increased research and development funds since 1987 when we passed Bill C-22 limiting the amount of time for compulsory licences. I think even members opposite would admit that this is a very important investment in the future of our young people and the future of our country.
I would also like to point out that the international trade consensus through GATT, which represents 108 countries, is that we must have level playing fields. Regulations such as compulsory licensing are totally unfair. Creating barriers to trade is no longer going to be tolerated in this world.
It is also important to recognize that this is part of the government's over-all plan to create an atmosphere in Canada in which there are jobs available for people, there are investments, there is real trade. Canadians will be far more prosperous in the future because they have a good strong foundation based on common sense rather than government interference.
Since we made the change with the introduction of Bill C-22 back in 1987 there has been a tremendously good pay-back. One of the things that the opposition will claim is that if we pass this bill-and it did this when we were passing Bill C-22-there are going to be huge price increases for drugs. Another claim it made was that the generic companies were going to go crumbling into oblivion because of the passage of Bill C-22, and now with the passage of Bill C-91.
December 10, 1992

The fact of the matter is that the increase in drug prices has been kept to 2.9 per cent over this period of time because of the PMPRB, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. One of the hon. members mentioned a few moments ago that part of my job is to protect consumers. That is precisely what the PMPRB has done since 1987 and precisely what it will continue to do except that now it will have an even better ability to do this than it did before. It will have more teeth. Under the new PMPRB we will be able to send people to prison for up to a year if they do not comply with the policies.
We can fine corporations up to $100,000 a day. These are real penalties. We can order roll backs. We can order a double indemnity if the company refuses to comply with the policies of the PMPRB, and ask it to pay the government double what it would have made in profits over the period of time when it was pricing excessively.
All of these things are issues that are not terribly well received by the innovative companies, by PMAC and others. However, they are things we think we have to do in order to protect consumers because, as the member opposite rightfully said, that is our job.
I would like to point out also that while we have heard a lot about how compulsory licensing has kept prices down there is just not any real evidence to demonstrate it over a long period of time. We have heard the GAO quoted several times and I would like to quote it myself.
The study the United States General Accounting Office conducted pointed out two things. I am going to quote it so that members opposite will understand exactly what I am saying. It said: "Price differentials appear to be driven by factors that influence how much manufacturers can charge for a drug product in the U.S. and Canadian markets. Specifically, manufacturers selling drugs in Canada face two constraints that do not exist in the United States: federal regulations that are designed to restrain introductory prices for new patented drugs as well as price increases for existing patented drugs; and provincial drug benefit plans".
The report then goes on to elaborate on this and mentions that: "The PMPRB appears to restrain Canadian drug prices" and it explains that its mandate is to review patented medicine prices and ensure that they are not excessive.
Government Orders
The key to lower drug prices in Canada has been the PMPRB. With this new bill and the PMPRB's expanded ability to control prices we will be able to have an even stronger handle on the increase in drug prices, particularly with regard to introductory prices.
Provincial formularies play another important role. In fact, the federal government is also examining the possibility of establishing a formulary, which would give us an even stronger handle on what drugs are being sold in our country.
It is not true to say that somehow if this bill passes consumers are going to pay some exorbitant price increase. I want to say to all the people out there, seniors particularly, who have been frightened by the fearmong-ering tactics of some of the opposition that they will not be forced to pay exorbitant price increases for their drugs as a result of Bill C-91.
Most seniors are covered by provincial drug plans, but even for those who are not the price increases they might face are really quite minimal. Overall, no matter who pays for it, the price increases we are facing-the federal government agrees, our officials have told us, that there will be some small price increases despite the PMPRB.
We are looking at $129 million over five years. That is all. That is less than the price of a prescription per year per person. It is about $1 per person per year over that five years. Even if we go beyond the five years to the year 2000 we are looking at an increase over today's costs of about 2 per cent. That is all.
I hope those who are being frightened by the tactics of some who would lead them to believe that prices are going to be out of control after this bill passes will set those fears aside because they are not warranted in any way. The members opposite should be ashamed for using such tactics to make their point.
On the question of price increases, we have heard a lot about Mr. Schondelmeyer who appeared before the committee and talked about numbers that were all over the map. As a matter of fact, some ads were put out. In January some of the generic companies got together and put out an ad that said that prices would increase by $300 million a year. That is a pretty scary figure, but I guess it was not scary enough because two or three months later they came back and said that prices were going to increase by $1 billion a year. They were at the committee

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
a week ago, maybe eight or ten days ago, and guess what. Now the figure was not $300 million or $1 billion.
Now they are talking about $2 billion a year. That is utterly ludicrous. There is just no evidence to support such ludicrous and outlandish claims, but these are the kinds of things that are being said. They are very worrying to people on fixed incomes, and to seniors particularly, who have to rely on the system. They are concerned about costs.
Mr. Schondelmeyer admitted in committee, when I asked him a direct question, that he worked for the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association which represents the generic companies who are in opposition to this bill. I do not fault the generic drug companies for that. I can understand that they like things the way they are. They have a special licence to copy patents before they have expired. That is nice.
However, that is limiting the kind of investment we can have. I do not blame them for putting their point forward, but they should base it more on factual evidence than they have.
Then Mr. Schondelmeyer admitted to me in committee that not only was he working for the CDMA but in fact he had pulled his figures together over the Thanksgiving weekend. He told me that. How credible can figures like this be when someone admits that he is already dealing with a vested interest and that he has pulled these figures together over Thanksgiving weekend?
That was not enough. The opposition had to go out and find Ralph Nader. To be frank I thought he had passed on. He has not been a real factor in consumerism in North America for years. But here he was. Those members brought him out of moth-balls, propped him up and got him to say a few things about drug prices in Canada.
I do not know where he got his facts because the things he said were really quite irrelevant. He was reduced to the point of mouthing platitudes. He said: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". As I mentioned before, the fact of the matter is that compulsory licensing, the regime set up here by the Liberals, is broken. If it had worked, we would have had the kind of investment and development
in the industry that we are getting now and that we have been getting since 1987.
The instant American experts of the opposition do not have the facts at their disposal. I, for one, place a lot more reliance on our federal civil servants. They have taken the time to set up the models and to develop them over a long period of time based on veiy clear empirical evidence. We know that they found that drug prices will rise by only $129 million over five years, $1 per person per year. That is all.
There are a number of other issues I want to get to, but let me just touch on a couple of other things that might be of interest to the members opposite because they obviously lack information or they would not be making such outlandish claims all the time.
Eighty per cent of all drugs in Canada are not affected by Bill C-91. Did you know that? All we are dealing with is 20 per cent of the drug bill. All we are dealing with is 3 per cent of the over-all health care bill. Yet those members are making claims that are so outlandish that we would have to be dealing not only with the drug bill but the entire health care bill not just for Canada, but probably for the United States as well.
The opposition has said that the generic industry will be absolutely destroyed by this bill. It has made that claim several times. It also made that claim back in 1987 when we passed Bill C-22. Let me just share a few facts.


An hon. member:: How about it?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Clean out your ears and listen a little bit, because you may learn something.
Since 1987, with that nefarious Bill C-22 that it was so worried about, the generic companies' sales have risen by 180 per cent. That is 180 per cent. So much for a suffering industry.
The fact is there is no PMPRB overseeing what price increases the generic companies put into place. They are totally uncontrolled. Not only that, but 85 per cent of the generic drug industry is controlled by two companies. It is controlled by just two companies, and they are not public companies. They are not accountable to us. They are not accountable to anybody because the two companies are owned by two individuals. They are private companies. Therefore, we have no idea how much they are making in profits, none whatsoever.
December 10, 1992

Yet we hear across the way that somehow there is something despicable about the fact that these innovative drug companies made 8.3 per cent in profits in the last few years for which I have figures available. They were number six behind a long line of other companies. One of the ones right ahead of them was a mop and brush company.
I am not carrying a brief for the innovative drug companies. All drug companies make a fair profit, and perhaps some even more than a fair profit. However, the fact of the matter is that we do have control over price increases put on the table by the innovative drug companies. We do not have control over the generic companies. The other fact is that the generic companies will be able to continue to copy drugs once this bill has been passed. They cannot copy drugs that are under patent. They will have to wait another three years or maybe three and one-half years until the patent expires, which is only fair under international intellectual property law. That is just the standard across the world.
They will still be able to produce drugs under generic brand names. The fact is that right now only $167 million of their $400 million in sales per year are copied patented drugs. There is something I would like to explain to members opposite if they will be quiet long enough to listen for half a second. Just to go back, the generic companies have sales of about $400 million a year. Of that $400 million, only $167 million are for sale of drugs they have copied that are under patent. The other 60 per cent are drugs they are producing that are off patent already.
That reminds me of something. Going back to Mr. Schondelmeyer, when he put the figures before us he admitted to the committee that the list of the 42 drugs he supposedly used to create his outlandish figure of $1.72 billion was the same as the list we had. We found that half the drugs he had on his list or at least quite a number of them were already off patent. His figures were totally out of line.
The generic companies have done very well in Canada. That is all well and good. It is appropriate. I like to see Canadian companies do well. I might say that they took their profits and invested them in the United States to buy drug companies there.
Government Orders
The bottom line here is very simple. We are passing Bill C-91 because it is good for Canada, it is good for Canadians, it is going to create more jobs, and it is going to create more opportunities. I would like to close by challenging the Official Opposition to tell me, if it comes into government in the next year, whether it will withdraw Bill C-91 and reinstate compulsory licensing. I submit that it will not.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, that was indeed an entertaining diatribe by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I was curious as to why we had six or seven people lining up for the Liberal nomination in that riding and now I know why.
The member opposite just said, and Canadians listening to this debate should note: "Trust us, the additional cost of drugs in Canada will only go up by $129 million over five years". This is from the same government that told us last February the deficit was going to be $27.5 billion. It came in at $34.5 billion. This is from the same government that said it would create 500,000 new jobs in the budget last February. They are currently down;
250,000	jobs have been lost since it made that projection.
Why would anybody take seriously a commitment from this member that drug costs will not rise dramatically when it comes from the party that called senior citizens pensions "a sacred trust" and whose first act when it came into office was to attempt to deindex senior citizens pensions. It took a wonderful lady from the province of Quebec to call the Prime Minister "Charlie Brown" and bring him to his senses for attempting to mislead the senior citizens of Canada before the government finally backed off.
I want to ask the member and all these members who at some time, when they screw up their backbones and courage to do it, have to go back and face their constituents: Are they really serious when they say that the sick, the poor, the elderly, and those who live on fixed incomes have to subsidize R and D in Canada?
Are they really serious when they say that the only way the universities, the post-secondary institutions, the centres of excellence of Canada will have any money for R and D is if we take it out of the pockets of Canada's senior citizens and Canada's sick?

December 10, 1992
Are we so bereft of national vision, of commitment, of belief in the excellence of Canadians that we have to reach out and literally act as a bunch of back-room muggers, knocking off the elderly, knocking off the weak and knocking off the disadvantaged to pay for R and D?
Let me say the following to the member. If she is so convinced the people of Canada are with her, she should take this policy to the people of Canada in the next election and see what percentage of them are prepared to pass to this government the right to rape them daily in the cost of their drugs. She should take that policy to the people in an election.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, clearly I got under the member's skin when I asked if they were prepared to withdraw this bill if they came into power. It is clear to me that they are not.
I know most members opposite support the bill. In fact it is a previous Liberal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is leading the innovative lobbyists who want this bill passed. It is pretty clear to me that they do support this bill and they would not withdraw it.
I just want to correct the record. Again my friend is using emotional tactics to try to create fear in the hearts of a lot of people who cannot defend themselves. Read my lips. I would not say that to you, Madam Speaker, but I will say it to the hon. member. The PMPRB will protect seniors, provincial governments and others from inordinate price increases. The PMPRB has been effective over the past five years.
I will repeat this so that my friend can hear it, just in case he cannot read lips. He may not be able to. Since 1987, when the PMPRB came into place, patented medicine drug prices in Canada have been kept to increases of 2.9 per cent. That is in spite of the fact that the Consumer Price Index was 4.4 per cent. The PMPRB was effective then. It will be even more effective with its expanded abilities to roll back prices, to imprison or impose fines upon drug companies that do not live up to the policies they set in terms of prices.
I say to the hon. member: Do not use scare tactics to try to frighten senior citizens and other people who cannot defend themselves. It is unconscionable.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, we thought we had heard it all from the hon. member for
Winnipeg South. When she asks members on this side to read her lips, does she know that no one is prepared to use that line because we know what happened to the last guy who said: "Read my lips". The Americans down south did exactly that and Canadians will very likely do so in the next election.
This member has the audacity to suggest that it is not good enough that the multinational corporations in the pharmaceutical industry own and have captured 92 per cent of the Canadian market. At least we on this side of the House are advocating status quo. The Canadian compulsory drug licensing industry has 8 per cent. It moderates prices and creates jobs.
The member talks about only raising prices $158 million when in fact over the course of 15 years the price-tag will be more like $4 billion to $7 billion. Why did the government move on retroactive legislation to last December, giving the windfall of $2 billion just in retroactivity and $1.3 billion of that total going to one multinational corporation, namely Merck Frosst?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When we resume debate, there will be two minutes left for the hon. member for Winnipeg South to answer.

It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Warren AHmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the government will present a resolution to constitutionally entrench the equality of French and English languages in New Brunswick.
I want to congratulate the legislature and Government of New Brunswick for this outstanding initiative and tell them that we are strongly supportive.
This constitutional provision from a province with a two-third anglophone and one-third francophone population presents us with a model for several other provinces with substantial linguistic minorities, in particular Ontario and Quebec.
December 10. 1992

The argument by some critics that this provision was part of the Charlottetown accord and consequently rejected in the recent referendum is not valid. This provision only affects New Brunswick, and New Brunswick overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum.
Another argument that provision to protect collective rights is out of place in our Constitution because it will reduce individual rights is equally invalid. Since 1867 we have had numerous provisions in our Constitution to protect collective minority rights including linguistic, religious and cultural rights. This has been balanced with substantial protection for individual rights.
Once again, congratulations to New Brunswick for its leadership, tolerance and fair-mindedness. Hopefully other provinces will follow suit.


ELDER ABUSE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, elder abuse is a dreadful problem that exists in Canada. Too many seniors are suffering from poverty, financial exploitation, neglect, emotional and physical abuse.
In every part of the country and in families of every social, economic and cultural background, seniors are being abused at the hands of their family members and people they trust. This is a far cry from the days when seniors were more respected because of their wisdom and experience.
The federal government has made it clear that fighting against elder abuse is a priority, but we must go further in our efforts to eliminate the abuse of Canada's elderly.
We live in a civilized society and elder abuse of any kind must not be tolerated.

[ Translation]


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent -Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, a 16-year old teenager killed himself playing Russian roulette under the bewildered gaze of his friends. He probably hoped the magazine was empty each time he pulled the trigger. Unfortunately, the second time he put the gun to his
head, the bullet was in place and he killed himself. For him, the game was over.
How did he happen to have this gun in his hands? Where are our gun control laws? When will the next death defying game take place? We must tighten controls and monitor more strictly the sale and registration of fire arms right now. This accident is a useless loss of life, one death too many.
.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in this government's continuing effort to encourage small business growth, the Minister of Finance announced in his economic statement first of all the introduction of a one-year unemployment insurance premium cap, which will reduce costs to employers by about $500 million, and a 10 per cent investment tax credit. Investments in machinery equipment for farms, mines, oil and gas, fishing, manufacturing, construction and long haul transportation will qualify.
The benefit will reduce small business taxes by $300 million over the two years. The small business financing program will be extended until the end of 1994. The ceiling for guaranteed loans to small businesses under the Small Businesses Loans Act will be further increased to $250,000. The rules will be changed to further encourage investment in small business by RRSPs and labour sponsored venture capital funds.
I applaud the minister for his efforts to assist the Canadian small businessman.


INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, today is International Human Rights Day and despite great strides and unprecedented change in global order, there is still an abundance of suffering in the world.
As a country long respected for its commitment to human rights and as a country with a diverse ethnic composition, Canada can and must use its influence to encourage other governments around the world to heighten their human rights standards.

December 10, 1992
Closer to home, I am concerned about a number of human rights issues here in Canada. While pleased that the Minister of Justice today began to address some of the concerns that Liberals have long expressed such as our country's treatment of our aboriginal people, people with disabilities and with regard to sexual orientation, there still needs to be much more work on these issues and others such as race relations. Indeed, the increase in both hate crimes and hate propaganda is a disturbing trend.
Today, as we pause to recognize Human Rights Day, let us all remember that as a country we must continue to endeavour to meet the many human rights challenges that face us both domestically and internationally.



Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, once again, today marks International Human Rights Day. This event is even more important this year as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a beautiful opportunity for all of us today, and for every Canadian, to reflect on the significance of our common values, of our citizenship and to take stock of the progress accomplished so far to eliminate the obstacles to equality faced by a number of Canadians.
Because of the international role Canada tries to play in the defence of human rights, Canadians should feel especially concerned by such a day which is aimed at reminding all of us of just how important our rights and freedoms are.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of Human Rights, all Canadians are saddened by the escalating level of violence and death as a result of the wide-spread bloody rioting throughout India following the destruction of a 16th century mosque in the northern town of Ayodha.
This incident could have been averted if the Indian government had ordered sufficient security to protect the site and adequate police to uphold the order of the Supreme Court to protect the shrine. This crisis has been in the making for the last three years and the Indian Prime Minister must accept full responsibility for the mayhem that has occurred.
It appears that the UP state government and federal government may have mishandled this issue in pursuit of narrow political ends. We trust now that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that other mosques are not demolished and the violence is quelled.
I ask the Prime Minister to contact the Indian government and ask that the government urge all parties in the Indian federal Parliament to co-operate, take action and take every effort to end what is seen by many as a serious crime against a minority.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago, Canada's John Humphrey was instrumental in developing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and today we commemorate the adoption of that document which laid down the fundamental rights and freedoms for all mankind.
Also today, at the United Nations, the hon. Monique Landry introduces a resolution proclaiming 1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People. Canadian government and indigenous representatives have led in UN efforts to advance indigenous rights world-wide and will continue to do so in the years to come.
The rights embodied in the universal declaration represent both central organizing principles of Canadian society and a cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy. The end of the cold war has set in train unparalleled progress in the building of a more secure and prosperous world based on respect for individual rights.
Canada has been a constructive force behind the historic trend bilaterally and in the UN, the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the Organization of American States, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
December 10, 1992

Daunting obstacles remain in the quest to translate the principles of the universal declaration into universal reality, but these challenges only serve to reinforce our resolve.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


CADET OFFICER TRAINING
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago a young man from my riding, Mr. Darrell Blue, and two other young men were expelled from the cadet officer training course which was being held in western Canada.
Since that time one of the young men has been reinstated but the other two, Mr. Blue included, have not been reinstated. I have contacted the Associate Minister of Defence but still no action has been taken to readmit my constituent to the officer training course.
I call on the minister to immediately rectify this case, or to publicly publish her reason for admitting one cadet but not reinstating the other two cadets. This, in my opinion, is a case of fairness being put aside and justice being denied.


CHRISTMAS TREES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a very important government document issued by the Fire Commissioner of Canada, Mr. T. J. Danfield. It is Fire Prevention Bulletin No. 1988-2, our file No. 46003. It is issued to all heads of departments and agencies. The subject is the use of natural Christmas trees.
It says in part, and I quote: "The Canada Labour Code, part IV and the pursuant Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations outline fire safety requirements within the federal jurisdiction. This legislation does not prohibit the use of natural Christmas trees". The document proceeds to outline fire safety precautions that should be taken in the use and display of real Christmas trees in federal buildings.
Given that real Christmas trees are beautiful, fresh and safe, given that real Christmas trees are a centrepiece of the Christmas celebration, given that right down the hall in this very building the Senate foyer is adorned with a magnificent 25-foot natural Christmas tree, why are the halls of the House of Commons lined with a bunch of fakes?
Why does this House-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, this government in its immigration plans is officially turning against real refugees.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has asked Canada and other well-to-do countries to resettle a total of 72,000 selected refugees in 1993, higher by 68 per cent than their 1992 request.
Nevertheless, this government has chopped Canada's planned share of refugees for selection overseas by
14,000,	cutting government sponsored refugees by 3,000 and privately sponsored refugees by 11,000.
At the same time, Bill C-86 further restricts those who come to Canada to seek protection through the Immigration and Refugee Board. Likely almost half of those who arrive will be sent away without a hearing before the board.
Shame on Canada's government for cutting back help to refugees when the need has increased.


INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ken Janies (Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, December 10, 1992, is International Human Rights Day and the 44th anniversary of the United Nations adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Today is a good time for all Canadians to reflect on our common values and to renew our commitment to tear down barriers to full participation that can exist in our society. Canada remains known around the world for its caring and compassionate position, qualities that reflect our citizenship values and our ongoing desire for a society where equality and justice prevails.
[Stage Direction]
December 10, 1992
Canada has played and continues to play a lead role in the field of human rights. We will continue along this path.
Only by working together, governments, individuals, businesses and community groups, can we fight racism, injustice, discrimination and achieve a fair and decent quality of life for all.
The Government of Canada cannot do this alone. We need the partnership of all Canadians to help promote awareness of human rights issues.

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I make reference to the recent UI changes announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The so-called just cause clause makes reference to sexual harassment, hazardous working conditions, obligation to follow a spouse and discrimination.
Should the just cause clause be questioned and the legitimacy of the individual leaving his or her work place be in doubt, the minister did not bother to define anything and did not indicate that the appeal process could take years before final resolution of a dispute could be reached.
Another flaw was the lack of a clause allowing voluntary retirement to be a just cause to leave the work place. If unions, governments, employees and employers reach agreement that older workers be encouraged to take early retirement making positions available for younger workers, surely this is a just cause.
I ask the minister, is this just another Tory cause, is it just because or is it truly just cause?


COMMONWEALTH PLYWOOD
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, Commonwealth Plywood announced this week an investment of $7,107 million for the reconstruction of a sawmill in Belleterre, Temiscamingue. With that investment, the company will be able to replace the previous building complex destroyed by fire in 1989.
The president of Commonwealth Plywood, Mr. Caine, said that it would have been impossible to realize this project, so important for the economic recovery of the Temiscamingue region, without a federal contribution of approximately $1,401,750 through the Federal Office for Regional Development. This ultramodern plant will create 70 new jobs and will confirm 30 existing ones.
Mr. Speaker, with Christmas coming, this is excellent news for a population hoping for such job creation projects and I would like to take this opportunity to wish Mr. Caine a very merry Christmas.


SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL AUXILIARY
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, one year after Scarborough General Hospital first opened in 1956 a group of 20 community-minded women, mostly the wives of doctors, decided to volunteer their services to the hospital.
This year marks the 35th anniversary of the hospital auxiliary which has grown from the original 20 founders to more than 400 male and female volunteers aged 13 to over 80, a full-time director of volunteer services, and a full-time manager of the gift shops.
The auxiliary's philosophy is the same today as it was 35 years ago: a smile for patients and an extra hand for staff. The dedicated volunteers provide patient care but also help to raise donations. In fact over the last five years the auxiliary has donated $1.1 million to the hospital.
Without volunteers, many of our most cherished institutions, groups, clubs and organizations would cease to exist. The spirit of volunteership is alive and well in the Scarborough General Hospital Auxiliary. All citizens of Scarborough salute these dedicated people this year celebrating their 35th anniversary of service to the hospital and the community.


ELIZABETH DOWDESWELL
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the appointment of a prominent Canadian public servant to
December 10, 1992

an important international post, that of executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.
It is an honour for Canada and a source of hope for the future of UNEP and of the international environment movement that the UN General Assembly has this week appointed Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell to that post.
Ms. Dowdeswell, who currently heads the Atmospheric Environment Service of Environment Canada, will bring to this senior function outstanding qualities as a skilful manager and negotiator and an uncommon sense of vision and determination at a time when creative thinking and energetic action are needed in the wake of the earth summit.
Ms. Dowdeswell played a key role throughout the international negotiations that led to the signing last June of the framework convention on climate change. It is appropriate that she was nominated to the UNEP post by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali on the very day last week that the Prime Minister signed the ratification papers for the climate change convention and one on biodiversity on behalf of Canada.
I am sure we all wish her well in this important post.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that problem number one in Canada was still the fight against inflation, while inflation is at 1.4 per cent and unemployment is virtually nine times higher at 11.8 per cent.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada that the number one economic problem in Canada is still inflation? Yes or no.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, containing inflation is a very key component of our over-all medium term macro-economic policy because in order to maintain
Oral Questions
price stability one has to have inflation down and control inflationary pressures. That continues to be one of our fundamental policy objectives and in fact one of our key policy objectives.
The other one is the need to engage in fiscal consolidation. Through fiscal consolidation and the containment of inflation we can pursue a policy of price stability and sustainable growth. That is the clear objective of this government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we realize-and the statistics have come out- that there are 1.7 million casualties from this long fight against inflation. Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada who said yesterday that it was just fine, as long as eventually we have our economy in better shape?
I would like to know from the Minister of Finance if the time has come for this government to stop fighting inflation at all costs and, as the first priority of this administration, start fighting unemployment and creating jobs for Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the key to job creation and investment is low interest rates, and we cannot have low interest rates unless we have control of inflation. That is a very key fundamental.
A couple of weeks ago the hon. Leader of the Opposition was complaining about the rise in interest rates. Price stability and fiscal consolidation are key components to containing interest rates. We took steps in the economic plan that I outlined last Wednesday to pursue the continuation of fiscal consolidation, deficit containment, while at the same time taking steps to invest in people, business and infrastructure and to encourage trade and partnerships.
That is a fundamental plan that has been outlined. I heard nothing from the Liberal Party except to borrow $15 billion to spend on infrastructure and to go further in debt.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First of all, we never said $15 billion.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.

December 10, 1992
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I never used that figure. They can say whatever they want, but I challenge them to prove it. I have another question for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada admitted that the unemployment level would still be very high next year. So I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why he refuses to release to us and to the Canadian people the predictions made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and those made by his own department regarding unemployment levels for 1993 and 1994. Why is the Minister of Finance hiding the truth from Canadians in this pre-election year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that five, five and five total fifteen. What he is suggesting is that the federal government go out and borrow $5 billion. He is suggesting that the provinces go out and borrow $5 billion, and he is suggesting that the municipalities go out and borrow $5 billion. There is only one taxpayer.
Financial markets are looking at the totality of Canada's debt: federal, provincial and municipal. The hon. Leader of the Opposition asks for specifics on job creation. Let him reread the statement. We predict
300,000	new jobs to be created in the next year.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance and his predecessors sat comfortably as 200,000 metro jobs were swept away in just the last three years. This is a tale of two Tories who have cast record numbers on to welfare lines and food banks but offer only a pittance to relieve their suffering.
Why did the minister promise Canadians that he would restore hope before he launched his mini budget operation nickel and dime?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the mini pittance that the hon. member is talking about is a 450 per cent increase under the developmental use of the unemployment insurance program to help those very people who become unemployed get the skills they need to re-enter the labour market.
It may not seem important to the hon. member that in a time of fiscal restraint we would increase that amount of money for training unemployed Canadians so that they can re-enter the labour market.
At the time of the recession an interpretation of the help wanted index showed that some 300,000 positions in this country could not be filled by people with the proper skills. The emphasis of the Minister of Finance in his plan for growth in Canada by investing in human resources is the right recipe for Canada and for Ontario.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the government's empty coffers are only matched by its empty hearts. This government talks about responsibility while it is responsible for the highest unemployment rate in the G-7.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The 1.5 million workers who were trapped by unemployment this summer must have winced every time they saw their taxpayers' dollars flashed across their television screens in pre-election "feel good" ads. If Canada were not number one in taxpayer funded political advertising, would there not be more money for job creation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty following the hon. member's question.
The hon. member knows very well that within the fiscal constraints we are operating under we did provide some $1 billion plus toward stimulating economic activity in the country through investments in people, freezing the UI premium, providing a UI cap on employer contributions on behalf of employees, new provisions with respect to investment in infrastructure across the country, investments in infrastructure that will improve the economic and productive capacity of Canada. A number of jobs will be created as a result.
Clearly the best engine for economic activity and job creation is the small business sector. Members opposite allude to this on a frequent basis and I agree with them. We have addressed that in spades, from improvements in investment to incentives and to insurance premium holidays. All these things will stimulate the 900,000 small
December 10, 1992

businesses out there and create more activity and create more jobs in the process.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A report card on human rights shows that this government has a failing record in 15 different areas. It has failed to protect the rights of children, minorities, gays and lesbians, unemployed workers, native women and refugee claimants. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed all ministers, will study this report card and make a commitment to improve human rights protections in the year ahead.
In particular, will the Deputy Prime Minister give his assurances today that his government will strengthen the Employment Equity Act and the Human Rights Commission to remove systemic discrimination against minorities in our own Public Service? We want no more Chander Grover cases.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, that was sort of an omnibus question. The hon. member will know that we have just tabled amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which deal with a broad range of issues including the functioning of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the relationship between the tribunals and the commissions.
I believe the amendments which I tabled today will go a long way toward making recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Commission available to Canadians and will in fact increase the damages which Canadians may get when they have a successful adjudication of a case before the commission.
The Canadian human rights process is alive and well and significantly improved as a result of amendments tabled today in this House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many constituents in the minister's own riding will not agree with the kind of proposal she has tabled today.
My supplementary question, however, is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The government has denied
Oral Questions
human rights protections to many minorities by cancelling funding for the Court Challenges Program and the Race Relations Foundation.
Today I want to suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that his government can take a positive action that will cost very little. When will the Prime Minister apologize officially and discuss redress for past injustices to Chinese Canadians who paid a racist head tax and to Ukrainians, German and Italian Canadians who were illegally interned?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed listened very carefully to the representations that were made by the communities that have been affected. As a result of that very helpful consultation I am now studying a number of options on which I hope to be able to report back to the cabinet and the government in a very short period of time.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker,
I must say that was the answer the minister gave over six months ago. It is time the Prime Minister acted on behalf of all Canadians.
My final supplementary question is for the minister who is speaking for health and welfare today. The government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child to deal with poverty and yet over one million children in Canada are still poor.
Will the minister of health and welfare by February 1993 table an action plan to eliminate child poverty in Canada and will he give particular attention to the plight of native children?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to children and families, the Minister of Finance, when he tabled his budget last February, outlined the new child benefit package and put $2.1 billion into this specific program over the next four years.
Also the Minister of National Health and Welfare tabled earlier Brighter Futures which channels $500 million to those families and those children, who are really the hardest up. We are going out there to prevent, to protect, also to educate the public with regard to youngsters and their difficulties.

December 10, 1992
Oral Questions
I want to add there is a specific area dealing with our native people and the problems they have had. We have done a great deal.


POVERTY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Artisans de Paix in Trois-Rivieres will be feeding
10.000	children this Christmas. In Edmundston, the minister's home town, a Christmas dinner will be held for 250 poor people. The Atelier de Rado will give away
19.000	pieces of second-hand clothing to needy children and families. For the first time ever, children in that town will depend on food banks to get something to eat.
Does the minister still believe that these people are abusing the system? Does he really think that these people want to spend winter in Florida?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to learn from the hon. member for Hamilton East as far as people trom Madawaska-Victoria are concerned, and especially those from Edmundston. I know these people well and I have proudly represented them in Parliament for over six years now.
I have never questioned the fact that we have to rely on a strong economy if we really want to help the needy. Unlike the Liberals who are showing their stuff in front of the media, the Minister of Finance has put forward an action plan based on the fundamentals, to ensure that the economy will recover and that jobs will be created, not only for the residents of Madawaska-Victoria and Edmundston, but for all Canadians throughout the country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking for jobs for other than Tory senators and if the minister and his party are not prepared to offer those jobs, I can tell you there are 40 candidates in the gallery here today on the Liberal side of the House who will-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister. If his policies are working, why is it that the Christmas Bureau in Red Deer, Alberta, is giving food vouchers to 1,500 families this Christmas? Why is the Supateria in Penticton, B.C., feeding 50 per cent more people than last year? Why is the Moose Jaw Food Bank feeding 550 families a month? Why is the Salvation Army food bank-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we must move on.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, a lot of Canadians saw the display by the hon. member and they will soon realize, if they have not already, that she was really quick to talk about the poor, the children, those that miss and quickly thereafter, the Liberal candidates.
This place is not a House of demagoguery. The government is trying to help those people. The difference-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As he will know, a quarter of Canadians live in abject poverty. Most are women, senior citizens and innocent children. That is the legacy of this government.
Newfoundland ranks first. It has the highest unemployment rate by a long shot. It has the lowest in terms of income levels.
With so many people in grinding poverty, why will the minister not do something to ease the pain, to make this Christmas just a little less miserable for Canada's poorest people?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to know the extent of the concern on the part of the government for poor people, he should look at the impact of the moratorium on cod in Newfoundland and Labrador on the fishermen and plant workers. They are poor people.
The answer of this government was to put $700 million into a special program to help those people. The answer of this government was to have a special project in New Brunswick to help welfare recipients in the N.B. work project trying to put those poor people back into the labour market and give them hope.
December 10. 1992

Oral Questions
It was about a project in B.C. and New Brunswick where we are investing $50 million to help welfare recipients by adding more money to their income to again bring them into the labour market.
The difference between those members and we on this side of the House is that we have a plan.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, if your argument is really weak, shout all the more.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: We looked at what the minister did. We looked at what the minister did for unemployment insurance. We looked at what the minister did for family allowances.

For example, in the minister's riding a soup kitchen for students will be opened in January in his home town of Edmundston.

I ask the minister this. Why this despicable treatment of the poor people? Why the capping of payments? Why the tampering with assistance?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. He is absolutely right in adjusting the tone of this question and the height of his voice.
They may try to make the people believe that the measures being taken are irrelevant to the real needs of the people. Even casual observers of the world scene, after looking at the success of Canada on the world market, know we do it because we are an exporting country. We do it because we are producing goods and services that are the best in the world. To do that, we need to invest in human resources.
The statement last week by the Minister of Finance brought the contribution of this government to human resources development to an all-time high of $3.8 billion invested. That will yield results for Canadians and jobs.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, acts of war are the ultimate human rights abuse.
Today, on International Human Rights Day and every day, women and young girls are imprisoned, gang raped, tortured and killed in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Many are forced to bear children. Some die from gang rape and others are-used, abused and then killed.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the government insist that the UN and European missions investigating war crimes in the former Yugoslavia pay particular attention to these bordello death camps where rape is used as a weapon of genocide?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I know that I share, along with all members of this House and all Canadians, the horror at some of the information we have received on this. I can assure my colleagues that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have been working to gather more information and put forward a very strong case.
Let me share with my colleague some of the specific initiatives we have already undertaken. As she knows, the United Nations has established a commission of experts to collect information on these crimes and very specifically to include crimes against women and children. We have a Canadian, Commander Fenrick, who sits on this commission.
We have also been supporting the establishment of an ad hoc judicial tribunal to try those who are charged with war crimes in ex-Yugoslavia and we are actively exploring the establishment of such a body. We are also looking at ways that we might be able to help, as part of our contribution to international relief agencies, to provide assistance to victims of such assaults.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs next week at the meeting in Geneva where they will be discussing the whole issue related to ex-Yugoslavia will, of course, be specifically raising this issue with her colleagues from other countries.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I asked specifically whether these Canadian

December 10, 1992
Oral Questions
representatives would visit these rape death camps and take specific action on those camps?
A regional parliament in Germany has earmarked one million marks for aid to these women and girls. On Monday, in response to a question from my colleague for Victoria, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that she was open to the idea of specific humanitarian aid to these women and girls.
What actions have been taken to target aid to the survivors of these gang rape campaigns?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier answer, that is one of the initiatives the Secretary of State for External Affairs is exploring and we hope we will be able to provide that support in an appropriate way.
We have also indicated that we would be quite prepared to participate again in a mission that would have access to the detention camps. That would allow an opportunity specifically in the mandate of such a mission to look at the concerns relating to women and children.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Unemployment rates for women, the disabled and native people are much higher than for others because these Canadians are paid much less than others. Consequently, they will get much lower unemployment benefits than in the past and they will suffer much more than before. Is the government prepared to correct this injustice? It seems to me that the government should recognize the seriousness of the situation and act immediately.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just referred to the situation of some native and disabled people. He just said to the House and to Canadians that the unemployment insurance benefits of these groups would be much lower when, in fact, the level of benefits which will be paid from April 1993 until the end of March 1994 will be exactly the same as it was in 1992. This is not a decrease. There is not a single unemployed Canadian now collecting unemployment insurance
whose cheque will decrease from one month to the next, contrary to what the Liberals did in 1978.


Ron J. Duhamel: The minister should ask the groups I just referred to which one of us is right.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Certain native programs have been frozen. I suppose the government will deny that. Others have suffered a 10 per cent cut. I suppose that will be denied as well. One example is native friendship centres whose prime mission is to help these aboriginal peoples to acquire the skills necessary to participate fully in their communities.
In trying to cut the deficit and the debt, will the government stop trying to cut comers on the backs of aboriginals, on the backs of women and on the backs of handicapped Canadians?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the grants and contributions have been cut by 10 per cent, but with some significant exemption.
For example, the selected native programs relating to health and welfare, elementary and secondary education, housing, and policing have been exempted, as have training programs, GRIP and NISA and some cost-sharing programs with the provinces. We have been very attentive in making sure that these programs the hon. member referred to were protected.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, there is no way for a member to obtain clarification from the departments concerning the 10 per cent cut in grants and contributions.
In view of the specific commitment of Parliament to official languages, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance which official languages programs will be affected by these cuts? How much will the cuts be in terms of percentage? What steps, if any, will be taken to prevent these programs of national importance from being crushed with all the others?
December 10. 1992


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was probably here on December 2 when we all experienced contributing to a very difficult situation.
We will suffer a 10 per cent cut next year. That is right, but each department will examine their priorities. I am convinced that the Secretary of State will do his best, as always, to protect the official language minority communities. This year, there was over $28 million in this program. I am sure that will be a major concern of his when he is back in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, groups representing official language minorities, communities that are so important to the minister, are nearly exclusively dependent upon the federal government for their survival. He knows that. Everybody knows that.
Will the Minister of Finance tell the House whether la Federation des communautes francophones et acadienne, Alliance Quebec, and other defenders of minority language rights in this country will be subjected to the same reductions of 10 per cent in each of the next two years?
We have lost the Court Challenges Program. Is the government now silencing the official voice of these communities?
I want the Minister of Finance to answer me. I did not get an answer from the minister of whatever it is. The Secretary of State will not answer. Treasury Board will not answer. Finance will not answer. For God's sake, give us a clear answer.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of in our defence of official language minority communities since 1984.
I had the honour and privilege of having served in that capacity for some 22 months with the program in my direct responsibility. We did everything we could to make sure that we heard and considered the plight of the communities from coast to coast, whether they were the
Oral Questions
anglophone communities in Quebec or the francophone communities outside Quebec.
As I said in the other official language, when the minister returns to the House I am sure he will take into consideration the very serious concerns of the member.
However, we have to take into consideration the fact that these are very difficult economic times. There is the fact that we have all had to suffer a 10 per cent reduction in grants, contributions and subsidies. We will do this to the best of our abilities within our own ministries.


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in committee, officials of the Bank of Canada indicated that the consumer price index was overstated up to 1 per cent. This is because there had been a substantial change in the basket of goods making up the CPI since 1986 in terms of the quality of goods and in terms of consumption patterns.
Is the minister going to change the CPI or have Statistics Canada change it in view of the enormous number of payments made by the Government of Canada based on the inflation rate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the composite index is usually fixed for a period of five years. Of course during that period of time there are several changes which can take place, such as the improvement in product development as well as a change in the over-all basket of consumer goods and the utilization of those goods. Therefore, it would be very difficult to change it on an annual basis.
Having recognized the fact that there are some biases built into the system, as time goes by, those are important things which need to be factored in. The suggestion was that there could be as much as one-half to 1 per cent. I am not sure whether that is a scientific assessment, but suffice it to say there is a bias built in by virtue of the product development that occurs and the impact that has, as well as the relative utilization of the basket of goods that was established five years ago.

December 10, 1992
Oral Questions LUBICON INDIAN BAND


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Last month the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, the government's own former investigator into the continuing plight of the Lubicon people, publicly described their situation as a history of abuse.
He charged that promises had not been fulfilled, that government representatives had said things they did not mean, abdicated obligations, engaged in obfuscation and generally prevented any settlement which may have ensured the Lubicons would not have suffered so dreadfully. He said the Lubicon people are "desperately in need of a sincere, honest and simple approach and response to their problems and a process of honest and open negotiations with a sincere desire to make a settlement".
When will the government heed Mr. Fulton's just counsel and begin to negotiate a fair and just settlement in good faith with the Lubicon people?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, of course I have every respect for the Hon. Mr. Fulton and his advice of which I have taken careful note. In fact I have spoken with Mr. Fulton on these matters.
I am sure he was not referring to efforts I have sincerely made over the past 12 months, having met more than a half a dozen times with Chief Bernard Ominayak of the Lubicon nation to find a solution to this matter.
In the time available I can only tell the hon. member that we have made a very generous and honourable proposal to the Lubicon people which would build a new community, create an economic development fund and provide additional incentives to settle exceeding $50 million which, together with the 95 square miles and additional financial support from the province of Alberta, will be more than adequate compensation for their grievance.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fulton delivered himself of these remarks on November 2, after the most recent government offer was made,
after the most recent meeting of the minister with the chief of the Lubicon people.
Will the government at least accept the public conclusion stated on November 2 by Mr. Fulton? That was that the Lubicon claim of $100 million in compensation is, again in his words "justifiable on the basis of the hardships they have suffered, the indignities to which they have been subjected and the misery they have endured over these past years through faults entirely other than their own".


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the significant offer I presented to Chief Ominayak last summer and which I discussed with him on subsequent occasions would more than adequately accommodate all of the aspects of the Lubicon nation's needs, provide a brand new community and significant financial compensation.
The additional $100 million the hon. member speaks of would be for the alleged loss of aboriginal title to oil and gas lands. That would amount to recognition that other bands in the area had no rights while those had been recognized under treaty and would amount to over a $1 million settlement for every family of four in the Lubicon community.


CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who earlier this year said the government would be introducing legislation to prohibit child pornography some time this session.
I understand the Butler decision has expanded the scope of the existing anti-obscenity law which referred to child pornography. I know our law currently makes it an offence to produce, manufacture and sell pornography.
I am sure the minister understands the urgent need to outlaw the possession of child pornography. Therefore, when will the minister take action? How will Canadians know that this legislation is being effectively enforced?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on his question which has set out an excellent brief of where we are in the law. It leaves me very little room to expound in my answer but simply to say that I expect to introduce legislation in the new year.
December 10, 1992

The provision concerning possession of child pornography will be designed to close a loophole in the law where it is perhaps not possible to identify those who have been the victims of child abuse except through this particular type of evidence.
As to the assurance the hon. member asked for about knowing that it is enforced, all I can say is that by changing the law in this way we will put tools in the hands of law enforcement officers to lay charges.
We will have to monitor the enforcement of that provision as we do with any other and as is undergoing now in the parliamentary committee with respect to Bill C-15 which was the most recent legal change with respect to child sexual abuse.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The president of CN Rail confirmed this morning that as many as 10,000 employees of CN Rail will be likely to lose their jobs over the next three years.
As the sole shareholder of CN Rail, does the government support this job cut? If so, does it accept some responsibility for the well-being of the individuals involved?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the new president of CN appeared before the committee this morning and gave clear and precise answers to all the questions asked by the committee members.
I think he also said that the plan that is being developed has not yet led to definite decisions. I remind the hon. member that, generally speaking, the conditions of employment in railway companies are the most generous in the country as far as job loss is concerned.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, such an appearance by the minister before the committee would also be welcome.
Oral Questions

Given the situation in the railways which parallels to a great extent the problems we faced in the airlines, I would like to ask the minister this. In response to his challenge Canadian Airlines has announced a reduction of 15 per cent in its capacity. Does the minister expect a similar announcement from Air Canada?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think that Air Canada is already on record as saying it is examining the cuts that have been announced in the capacity by Canadian Airlines and will probably follow suit very shortly.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the government's so-called commitment to ethics in government.
In February 1988 the government introduced a conflict of interest bill and has allowed it to die twice on the Order Paper.
Given that nearly five years has passed since then, is the government in its dying days in office ready to commit itself again to conflict of interest legislation?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: In front of these 40 job applicants, I will avoid disappointing them in terms of their prospects.
In regard to the conflict of interest legislation, as the hon. member knows, the subject matter of the bill was referred to an all-party committee which produced a unanimous report recommending changes and so on. In fact, the government is examining these. I think I can indicate to the hon. member that fairly early in the new year he will have an opportunity to examine the government's proposals. I hope he will find them much to his liking.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to test the minister's commitment right now.

December 10,1992
Business of the House

Tomorrow, the House will adjourn for six weeks. During that period, the cabinet will still hold meetings. Is the minister prepared to make a commitment, on his behalf and on behalf of the government, that there will be no Order in Council appointments, no patronage appointments, until the House resumes sitting on February 1, so that parliamentarians can question the government on that issue?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a change of subject here in midstream. I just want to indicate to the hon. member that, as he properly indicates, even though the House may adjourn the government will carry on.
It is obviously very much in the interests of the government and the country that we have good people to fill the positions that are required in the boards of agencies and we will continue to maintain the same high standards we have for the last eight years.


HOUSING
Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for housing.
Why does the minister refuse to authorize the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to guarantee the indexed loans or mortgages used by housing co-ops? This would give low and middle-income families a chance to own property, it would help economic recovery and would cost the government nothing.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this government is spending over $2 billion for the needs of housing for Canadians and we are looking at every possible way to address core need.
The question of ILM mortgages and other variations is under consideration. I will simply take my colleague's question as a representation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture in response to a number of telephone calls I have received from people in rural Manitoba. Can the minister please tell the House the status of the interim and final payments of this year's GRIP program?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, once the provinces receive the data they have the ability to flow that money through those programs when they wish.
The province that he comes from, the province of Manitoba, will be making both the final board and non-board payments early in 1993. Alberta will be making its non-board payments starting next week. As for other provinces, they have not informed me as to when they will be making that money available to producers but they do have the numbers and they have the capability to send that money to the farmers in Canada.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the government House leader would indicate to the House the business for tomorrow and in particular the chronology of the business tomorrow in terms of what we will start with and how debate will proceed for the remainder of the day.
I wish to give notice that I do not intend to raise a debate about it but I want to inform the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary that last June the House had given Royal Assent, as they will recall, to Bill C-22 which was the Bankruptcy Act.
At that time the minister in a news release indicated his intention to propose to the House of Commons when it resumed in the fall a special joint committee to be established on the important issue of unpaid wage claims which would report to the House of Commons by the summer of 1993.
December 10, 1992

I believe it has been raised in the other House. I do not know what the response of the government House leader is, but I am wondering if he could take that under advisement and perhaps tomorrow I might get a fuller answer to that question.


Harvie Andre: In terms of that particular question, I am afraid I will have to take that as notice and will talk to the minister and see if we can get back to the hon. member to provide the information he sought.
In terms of legislation for Friday, there are discussions going on between House leaders and parties with respect to obtaining passage of a number of pieces of legislation which have general support and hopefully can be dealt with.
One is Bill C-94, dealing with Gitksan-wet'suwet'en land claims in Yukon and Northwest Territories for which I understand there is general support.
We would also like to proceed with Bill C-96, reorganization of the Nova Scotia courts, for which I understand there is general agreement, plus second reading of Bill C-8, the motor vehicle safety bill, a technical bill and it would be useful to have it in committee for work to proceed while we are adjourned. We would also like to proceed with Bill C-42, the wildlife plant and animal protection act, which has received second reading and committee study and which I understand is also generally accepted.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, has been talking to his counterparts, the critics from the opposition parties, with respect to amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act and certainly if there were a willingness to introduce the changes in that, which would be quite beneficial to the small business sector, I would want to leave that option open.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I thought that perhaps it was an innocent mistake with regard to other business that may be raised tomorrow, particularly in view of what has transpired in other jurisdictions.
Business of the House


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, we are having discussions on that question and I think my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, is working on that and I will certainly get back to the hon. member on that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on this last point, could the House leader be a bit more explicit? Is it the plan to proceed with some discussion tomorrow?


Harvie Andre: It certainly is the desire.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on another point of order. There has been discussion among the parties and among others in the House and I think the Chair might find unanimous consent to permit the following motion:
That the order for second reading of Bill C-333, an act to amend the Canada Health Act, standing in the name of the member for Mission -Coquitlam on the Order Paper, be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I had assumed and thought this was going to take place in the context of the debate on second reading after the debate on private members' business. I am a little surprised at the time it should be brought up. Certainly the government has no opposition to it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, order discharged and bill withdrawn.
Mr. Cote:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the House for unanimous consent to allow me, exceptionally, to table a report, which will only take a few seconds.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to revert to presentation of reports from parliamentary delegations?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

December 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Yvon Côté: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report on the activities of the Canadian section of the Assemble internationale des parlementaires de langue frangaise, at the meeting of the Bureau de la commission de cooperation et de developpement of the AIPLF, held in Paris on November 10, 1992.


WAYS AND MEANS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of Ways and Means motion respecting the Excise Tax Act, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motion.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The concern I wanted to raise while the Secretary of State is here is with regard to the response that we were to receive from the Court Challenges Program.
I believe the committee had filed that report. It is well overdue and I think the opposition has been very reasonable. I think we have been generous, keeping in mind that Christmas is not all that far off, and I would hope that the minister could provide us with a very specific answer to the questions that we have raised on at least four occasions to that particular report.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I do understand the concern and the desire of the member to have the answer immediately.
I am not familiar with how quickly that can be done, but I have been pursuing it very diligently and I am attempting to have that answer for the House as quickly as possible. I hope to be able to have that resolved within days, rather than any longer.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, that answer has been given on at least three occasions when I have raised this particular issue. It being Christmas, I would have thought that the minister would be much more generous, much more reasonable and would give us a specific time.
I have asked the Chair and the Clerk for guidance with regard to this issue. This is a breach of the Standing Orders of the House which all members have agreed to. Here we have a minister of the Crown failing to provide a report which is due to this House.
There were extraordinary circumstances and we were prepared to accept those for a reasonable period of time.
I will conclude my remarks and I will raise this again tomorrow, because I know other members wish to proceed with debate. This is a very fundamental program of the government which it has axed on which the standing committee has made a report, submitted it to the government, and we are awaiting a response.
I would ask the minister again to give us a specific date as to when the report will be tabled. If that answer is not forthcoming, I am afraid I am going to have to raise the matter again tomorrow under another category.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I think that the House would want to be aware of the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Ken Rostadt, the Attorney General for the province of Alberta, and his colleague, the Hon. Steve West, Solicitor General for the province of Alberta.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
December 10. 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does salute our guests and reminds the hon. member that the Chair is the one who should be doing that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House proceeded with the statements by members according to Standing Order 31, there were two minutes left in the period of question and comments. The floor belongs to the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, before I answer the question or attempt to, I might say that this morning I mentioned that there was $84 million in university investments that had accrued to Canada since 1987.
I would like to correct that. In fact, $84 million is the amount that the innovative companies invested in research and development in Canadian universities in 1991 alone. Since 1987 the total amount to universities and hospitals is about $245 million.
I think that this correction to the record shows that by opening up our trade opportunities, by getting rid of compulsory licensing, we are attracting investment, not just in hard goods, plants and things like that, but in the future of our country through the ability of universities to fund training for students, open up new places, new posts for people who have spent their lives trying to develop the expertise that will allow us to create a very viable and important health industry in Canada.
This is important to the future of all Canadians, particularly those who are out there now worried about their health in the future. There is the development of new drugs and the opportunity to come up with new
Government Orders
cures. These are the things that Bill C-91 is all about and these are the things that will have an important impact on the future of everyone, particularly those who are most at risk.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, I thought I would say a few words on this bill after listening to the former Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary who followed the former Minister of Finance when they mentioned attracting investment.
The former Minister of Finance mentioned encouraging investment, giving incentives to create jobs. It was not that long ago that the former Minister of Finance used those exact same words in this Chamber when the Conservatives first got elected in 1984.
In 1985, the minister stood in this Chamber and used the same words in speaking about scientific research. He said that he was going to continue a program which had been instituted in 1984. As some members might recall, it was the scientific research tax credit program and the minister renewed the government's commitment for another year. It ended in 1986.
The minister stood in this Chamber and talked about creating jobs. He said he would put a moratorium on it but that the government was willing to expand employment in this country. He used exactly the same words as he used here today. The exact same circumstances apply. There is no guarantee in this legislation at all that there will be this investment. There is no guarantee that these jobs will be created.
I thought back to some of the horror stories that came out of the Government of Canada at that time. There was the case of a company that was given a $30 million tax credit to investigate the difference between black and white cows and red and white cows.
Another company was given $1.7 million to investigate the construction of miniature submarines in Canada. Another company was given another $20 million to investigate computers that would actually send things through the air waves between Vancouver and St. John's, Newfoundland without having anything in the telephone lines.
It brought back some memories of the minister standing in this Chamber in 1985 and then again in 1986, announcing the $500,000 capital gains write-off with no strings attached at all. There were no strings attached at all as to what you could use for that write-off.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
Consequently, for that $500,000 write-off on capital gains, a great many people were claiming profits from the sale of diamonds, fur coats, yachts. In the following year, 1987, the same minister who stood in the House a moment ago and talked about giving breathing room for people to invest money and create jobs removed the surtax on large corporations. He removed that but he also removed the federal tax rebate of $100 per claimant in 1987.
It was the same reasoning. This will create jobs. This will encourage investment. There were no strings attached. There was nothing definitive in writing, saying you have to do this because you must allow these companies the breathing room in order to make their investments and create jobs.
Then Bill C-22 came in. It talked about the same thing we are talking about here today, namely, all of the jobs that would be created, all of this great new investment into our universities and into our schools of higher learning. I remind the minister that the interest on the $2 billion allowed in write-offs for the scientific research tax credit in 1985, not in 1984, and until it stopped in 1986, would have increased the grants to universities and medical research institutions in this country by a full 60 per cent. That is just the interest on the $2 billion.
The concern was trying to find out what the difference was between black and white cows and red and white cows when this would have increased the total amount given to universities in this country by 60 per cent.
The government was not satisfied in 1987 with giving further tax breaks, without having any restriction at all on the $500,000 capital gains, so it went into the diamonds, fur coats and yachts and things like that. Not content with that, the same minister who spoke in this House a moment ago about giving breathing room to create jobs and to have money invested, turned around in 1990 and removed all restrictions on capital gains to anybody who had large amounts of money in private trusts-tens of billions of dollars.
When he made the announcement, it was that this would actually create jobs. This would encourage investment. It all sounds so familiar. The same minister who talked about giving breathing room, encouraging investments and creating jobs turned around last year and changed the entertainment section in the Income Tax Act. What can you do now? It is not good enough to allow some people to write off the cost of a private box in Skydome. Not only can you write off 80 per cent of that, but we will allow to write off 100 per cent of various types of entertainment.
It was on the radio the next morning after the change was made, I believe it was CBC radio, Peter Gzowski's program. They claimed that escort services were now legal because they encouraged investment. They encouraged investors to invest in Canada.
Look at how far we have come with this rationale to allow breathing room, to allow money to be used to create jobs in Canada when our jobs have gone down at the same time those offers were made. There is only one thing we know about this bill, it is going to increase the cost to ordinary Canadians.
There was only one thing we knew about the tax changes that were made in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1991. That was they increased the cost to ordinary Canadians and shifted the tax burden from the very wealthy and from the people who have all the money in our society, the international corporations, to our ordinary people.
Today we have gone to the GST. We have now gone to cutting back on unemployment insurance while the government says it is going to give more leeway, more breathing room to these big companies with the hope that they will invest, with the promise that they are going to invest in Canada. There is nothing on stride, nothing on paper at all, just a promise that they are going to invest.
I see that my 10 minutes are up. This is not a very intelligent way to deal with intellectual property.
In conclusion, let me say there appears to be a philosophy underlying all the changes that have been made since 1984. That philosophy has caused a major shift in who is paying the bill. The people we refer to as the middle class and the lower class are paying the bill.
December 10, 1992

This bill is just another exercise of that authority. The Government of Canada should be ashamed of itself that it is moving it through this Chamber at this speed.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I could not agree with the member more when he said this was not an intelligent way to deal with intellectual property. There is no question about it. He is absolutely correct.
On that side of the House for the last two weeks all we have heard is rhetoric and nothing but misrepresentation of fact. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have done that continually on every stage of this bill.
The member should go back to the CBC which can use some good actors. All his speech is intended to do is to raise emotions back home. They have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with facts. If he had been in the House this morning and had listened to the minister he would understand that what he was saying was absolutely incorrect.
The minister stepped through the numbers with regard to investment in this country as I did last night at report stage on this bill. They are absolutely incorrect. Bill C-22 did exactly what we said it would do. It led to an increase in investment and jobs in this country, something we want. We want to invest in Canada. We want more jobs in Canada. Every time we want to do it and bring in legislation to do it, they want to kill that legislation.
Bill C-91 is going to work as has Bill C-22. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for standing in the House and misrepresenting that bill.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, Canadians must really be scratching their heads. They have all these Conservative members standing in this Chamber and saying two things, every single one of them-cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, members from the east coast, west coast, north coast and central Canada. First-and they always make sure they make this point-they say drug prices have not gone up. They say that drug prices have not gone up. Do they want me to repeat it again? Drug prices have not gone up.
They say: "We are telling the truth". They say: "Here are the facts and figures to show that drug prices have
Government Orders
not gone up". But the minister stated a few moments ago in the Chamber: "We have nothing to do with retail sales. We cannot control that. We cannot monitor that. We cannot monitor the sale of drugs to ordinary Canadians. We cannot do that".
What can they do? They say the price of drugs has not gone up. Then they say: "Oh, we cannot monitor the price of drugs to Canadians, but the prices have not gone up". Why? The minister says it is unconstitutional for them to monitor the retail sale price of drugs in the country. Every Canadian knows the price of drugs has gone up. Where do they live? It cannot be Canada if they say the prices have not gone up.
Not only that, but by the minister's logic there must be something wrong when nine out of ten governments say they are going to pay exorbitant prices under this new bill, that drug prices have gone up, that it is going to cost ordinary taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and that the sick and the poor are going to pay.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Madam Speaker, in terms of the dispute that seems to have arisen over prices and why governments cannot control them, is the hon. member aware of a case that arose in the United Kingdom? It involved a fellow by the name of Stanley Adams who had worked in the pharmaceutical industry. He was eventually blackballed by that industry for exposing the pricing practices of drug companies.
I will quote a passage from his book. He said: "Transfer pricing had two advantages. It enabled the company to avoid a large amount of taxation and it allowed them to overcharge without appearing to do so. It worked like this. If a Roche manufacturing company needed to buy raw material from the parent company in Basle to make a finished article, then the raw material was not as you might think, provided at cost or cost plus to a certain fixed level of profit. No. First Roche headquarters had to decide what the world market of that product was or, in other words, just how much they could sell it for and still be sure of having buyers. Then they had no further to look than at different levels of taxation in the various countries and then they had to decide, bearing that in mind, just how much profit they wanted each individual company to show, if any. Once they had made that decision, which obviously depended on how high-"

December 10, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member. We did specify that it had to be a very short question and that is becoming a very long comment. A very short comment from the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.


George Baker: I have a very short answer, Madam Speaker. I know exactly what the hon. member was building up to. I did not read it, but I know exactly what this gentleman was building up to. He is building up to explaining why it is that so many of these companies paid not one penny of tax in this country, not one cent. He can explain why Revenue Canada today can tell each member of Parliament that there are individuals who are involved in those companies and make over a quarter of a million dollars a year who do not pay one penny of income tax and why there are so many people in the six figure bracket in this country claiming the child tax credit and the GST rebate because of our system of taxation that favours the very wealthy in this country.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow in debate my colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. For those of us who are new members of this House of Commons in the most recent election, he is someone to watch, to emulate and to consider a mentor in his ability as a debater and in his representation of the people of Newfoundland and the people of Canada.
Bill C-91 in and of itself, the pernicious piece of legislation that it is, is really only a symptom. It is a symptom of a far-reaching disease that is afflicting this country. In the United States it was known as Reaganomics, in Great Britain it was known as Thatcherism. The only thing I think we can call it here is Mulrunacy.
It is not funny. It really is not funny. It is tragic. It is tragic that senior citizens in this country and the parents of young children in this country are going to be sacrificed on the altar of this government's desire to harmonize with the United States of America. All we have heard for the last eight years is harmonize, level playing field, all of these things, that somehow, somebody over there, all of them over there-we could read their lips I suppose-would tell us is a good thing for Canada.
It is interesting that in the United States a little over a month ago, the electorate there decided to change
direction. Would that the electorate in Canada had soon the opportunity to do that very thing.
Why is this bill pernicious? It is pernicious because of the amount of money it is going to cost ordinary Canadians.
We know from the experts in the field that the total savings to Canadians from generic pharmaceuticals in 1992 was about $420 million. Is this a figure to sneeze at? Madam Speaker, would you tell me why the government thinks that this is not something that is good for Canadians, particularly in a recessionary economy, particularly when it has failed so abysmally at all the other promises it attempted to make to the people of Canada about job creation and creating a better future; all the promises with regard to the free trade agreement; all the promises with regard to the economic plans that it had.
This country is littered with the broken promises of this government. This country is soon to be littered with the broken hearts and broken spirits of Canadians who cannot and will not survive because of the hard-heartedness of the government that sits on the other side of this Chamber.
It is not amusing, it is not funny and it is not something that we should heckle about. It is not even something that we should be debating here today. I impute no motives to the members on the other side. I believe and I have always believed that the vast majority of parliamentarians are here to do their best for their constituencies because they believe in public service and because they want to represent their people. However, for those of us on this side of the House there comes a point where you must say: "Stop". You must say: "Look at what it is you are trying to do". You must say to each and every one of them: "Go back into your ridings and talk to the senior citizens. Go back into your ridings and talk to the young parents. Go back into your ridings and talk to the ordinary Canadian on the street. Ask them whether they think this is a good bill". The answer, overwhelmingly, from coast to coast is: "No, no, no".
I do not know how much clearer it can be. The answer equally to this government is that the smoke and mirrors response offered by the minister, by the member for Winnipeg South, by other apologists for this piece of legislation that deserves to go in instantly to the circular file, is this smoke and mirrors response on research and development.
December 10, 1992

We would like to see some hard figures. We would like to see some response as to just how much money is going into research and development when the whole research and development area in this country is at an appalling low level. Again, why is it at an appalling low level? Because of the ghastly policies of this government. Slowly but surely Canadians' birthrights are being sold off. We are losing all of those things that made us uniquely Canadian and we are losing them because of government policy.
It is enough to make you scratch your head and say: "What is the motivation behind this government? What is the reason that it wants to do this? What motivates these people?"


Beryl Gaffney: They are masochists.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Well, their masochism, as my hon. colleague from Nepean has suggested, is soon going to come home to roost because the pain that they must so clearly desire will very soon be inflicted upon them.
Again, this is no cause for levity, no cause even for humour. Here we are, two weeks before Christmas, in what is going to be one of the hardest winters in this country since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In a country where people are going to go cold and hungry this winter because of other government policies, in a country where women cannot get justice from their own government in areas of pay equity and sexual harassment, in a country where the government appears to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the pleas of its own citizenry for justice, for equality and for a decent standard of living, here we sit in this House of Commons, two weeks before Christmas, in this the hard winter of the hard recession of the 1990s prepared once again to see a bill forced through the House of Commons that is an attack on the people of Canada, that is more particularly an attack on elderly people. Of course when we get to that, who form the majority of the elderly? Elderly women.
There was a joke that said something about women living longer than men. The joke was something about no, it just seems longer. Well, it is going to seem particularly long when elderly women, the poorest of the poor in this country, are hit yet again from another direction.
Government Orders
Some provinces have limited pharmacare for the elderly. That is very true. However, every single day more of those drugs that are covered by provincial programs are removed from the list. The sovereign province of Ontario with a great socialist government put a whole new list out just in the last couple of months.
This is not the kind of Canada that we want. I do not think it is the kind of Canada that the members over there really want. I guess the only thing I can do in all of this is to make a plea to the members over there as we sit here on this Thursday afternoon, on the second last day of what has been one of the most truncated sessions of Parliament in the history of our country, as we sit here following the example of my colleague the hon. member for Dartmouth, and try to stave off what is clearly the inevitable because of the mathematics of government, as we sit here to show to the people of Canada that we on this side of the House find this bill pernicious, that we on this side of the House stand up for the ordinary Canadian, that we on this side of the House have a care for something other than the bottom line of big business and the so-called harmony with the United States of America.
Yes, Madam Speaker, I am winding up. We are all winding up in this House and very soon the pitch is going to be thrown and I know across whose plate it is going to land.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I compliment the member for Halifax for the eloquence of her remarks. Indeed, I found nothing in them that I disagreed with.
Like many other members, I have had an outpouring of petitions from my constituents, in fact the biggest number of petitions from my riding since the free trade debate in the early life of this Parliament and very much a part of the same debate.
My constituency is one of those places where medicare in this country was founded. Some of the great battles of medicare were fought in the community of Prince Albert. People there know that what this represents is not only a chipping away of medicare but a very real cost to the individual consumers and a further selling out of our country's social programs.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
There are those who look at the polls and some looking at them think there is a chance that her party might form a government after the next election. Certainly that might be a premature assumption, but nevertheless since any party in this House could form a government, I would like to ask whether if in fact her party forms a government it is committed to getting rid of this legislation and replacing it with the pre-1987 legislation. Furthermore would it rid of the NAFTA which would entrench this legislation beyond the reach of this Parliament if it were to survive?


Philip Edmonston: Answer the question.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I ask the hon. member from wherever he is from in Quebec to let me answer my own questions.
First and foremost, it may come as a vast surprise to the hon. members of the New Democratic Party that the NAFTA has not passed yet. News flash, guys, it has not passed yet.
Second, with regard to restoring the pre-1987 levels, I can say with clarity and with conviction that we in the Liberal Party are committed to restoring the infrastructure, in the broadest sense of the word, of this country whether we are talking about our transportation sector, whether we are talking about pharmaceuticals or whether we are talking about social programs in general. There has been a perilous amount of damage done in this country since September 4, 1984, a day that will live in infamy. When the day comes that we return to government, we will have to work long and hard to correct the damage that has taken place over the last eight and a half years.
I look at the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, I look at the member for Northumberland, I look at the member for Nepean, and the members from Winnipeg and from Windsor, Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, and Ottawa. I say to every one here that all of us and our colleagues who were here today, the 40 new nominated Liberal candidates across this country, that when we form the government the people of Canada will know once again that they have friends in the House of Commons on the government benches.
They will know that they have friends in the cabinet. They will know that there is a humanitarian and compassionate government-


An hon. member:: -next summer.


Mary Catherine Clancy: -and one that does not interrupt.


An hon. member:: Answer the question.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I answered the question. NAFTA has not been passed, Bill. Check your newspaper.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax should know better than within a period of 30 seconds calling hon. members by their names and so on. I know there is a full moon. I know it is almost the Christmas holiday, but let us try to keep faithful to some of the rules.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I have not named anybody, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Let us be faithful to some of the rules. It would be appreciated.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, earlier today my hon. friend from Winnipeg South asked, what is $129 million?
I would like to remind my hon. friend that the last time a politician uttered such nonsense, that politician got toasted in the next election. By the way, Bill C-91 is not going to cost $129 million. It is going to cost in the billions.
I want to raise this question with my colleague from Halifax. A famous Conservative said back in 1984: "Conservatives must show the Canadian people what we have about us, a dimension of tenderness. Of all the challenges of government, none is more noble, no obligation more sacred."
Did the hon. parliamentary secretary say that? Uh, uh. Did the Minister for International Trade say that? No. Guess who said it? The Prime Minister of Canada said it.
I would like to ask my colleague from Halifax whether Bill C-91 is consistent with a dimension of tenderness. Is it consistent with a dimension of tenderness?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-St. James. I say that only is the bill not in keeping with the dimension of tenderness, it may be in keeping only with some form of dementia.
December 10, 1992

At the very best of times, when you look at what happens vis-a-vis Canada and the United States, we all remember-speaking of George Bush as the hon. member for Winnipeg South did a little earlier today-that Mr. Bush talked about a kinder, gentler America when he was first elected.
Those of us living here said that we already have it. It is called Canada. The great tragedy is that in this Mulrunacy coming from the same fountain as Thatcherism and Reaganomics, we are in great danger of losing this kinder, gentler country. However, there are those of us here who will see that it comes back.


Brian White: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the third reading debate on Bill C-91 today.
It is an issue that is dear to my heart, being a 1972 graduate of pharmacy and still a licensed pharmacist in the province of Manitoba. In fact, I spent 12 years behind the counter of a retail pharmacy in Manitoba until I became a member of Parliament in 1984.
I will be right up front to start with. It is largely a question of philosophy. I will be up front about my own feelings. I support this legislation on face value because I believe in intellectual property rights, and I believe in property rights of all kinds.
I can understand the New Democrats being opposed to this bill on philosophical grounds because intellectual property rights and property rights of any kind contradict socialist theory. You cannot practice social engineering in a country when you embrace intellectual and other property rights.
With the Liberals it is a little harder to understand because I know its members believe in research and development, and I know they are not guided by the theories of Karl Marx. It is a little harder to understand other than base crass politics. Simply put, Bill C-91 means Canada can enhance its reputation as a modem, industrial country with a high-tech research capability.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested since the passage of Bill C-22 in 1987. These companies, the brand name companies, the multinationals, and I should clarify this point, may be multinational but they employ 17,000 Canadians in plants and offices across the country.
Government Orders
They are profitable. As I mentioned, they are multinational. I will tell the House this country is in a lot of trouble if we continue to treat profitable businesses with such disdain. That is because governments cannot finance the research and development that needs to be done if we want to be considered a first world modern country.
In fact, industries like the brand name pharmaceutical companies are doing more than half of the R and D in Canada now and governments cannot afford to do it all. If we do not pass this bill we are moving in the wrong direction.
As a matter of fact, Canada is the only industrial country in the world that uses the Patent Act to control drug prices. Other industrial countries all use some form of a prices control board. We have had the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in place since 1987 with the passage of Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 strengthens the powers of that board. It will have powers to roll back prices, to recapture over-priced products from companies. It will have powers to fine companies and individuals and even powers in extreme cases to imprison people.
In fact, we had the chairman of the board, Dr. Harry Eastman, appear before the committee. He told the committee on more than one occasion that the board has been quite effective in controlling the prices of patented medicines in Canada. It is odd that Dr. Eastman was capable enough to head a Liberal royal commission back in the 1980s but somehow when he becomes chairman of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the Liberals oppose a bill, suddenly he is not credible anymore. He told us quite clearly the board is working.
With the hysteria and the fear mongering that has been going on, please excuse me if I do not get overly agitated like some of the speakers in this debate. I was on the committee that dealt with Bill C-22 in 1987 and again with Bill C-91. I heard all the same arguments in 1987 so we have been through all this before. It was not true then and it is not true now.
I will give you three examples of what was said back in 1987 about Bill C-22. The first one was that drug prices would increase dramatically. There are two points I would like to make here.
In the committee the generic drug company representatives told us that Bill C-22 has had no effect on them yet. To claim that we have higher drug prices since 1987,

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
based on what they told us, cannot be justified. How can we prove that there have been price increases at all?
Based on the report from the Prices Review Board the prices of patented medicine which is the only category of drugs in Canada controlled and monitored by the PMPRB have increased 2.9 per cent per year since 1987, below the level of inflation. That is absolutely true.
We also heard from Green Shield, which is a source often quoted by opposition members. It told us that prices have increased by 11 per cent. That report and the report of the board are not contradictory because they use different criteria and they measure different things. They are not contradictory, something that was confirmed by Dr. Eastman, the chairman.
One of the other criticisms was that there would not be any creation of jobs and research and development would not happen. The companies are five years ahead of schedule. They promised in Bill C-22 to increase research and development to 10 per cent of sales by 1996. They are at 9.6 per cent in 1992. There have been 2,400 jobs created, more created than work in the entire generic industry. What reason do we have to doubt those brand name companies this time?
The third criticism was that the generic industry would somehow be destroyed by Bill C-22. I do not blame the generic drug company representatives and the owners for saying what they are saying because they are trying to protect some massive profits. We are speaking of profits that have gone up 180 per cent since 1987. Two of the top 10 drug companies in Canada are generic companies. There are only two or three other companies in Canada that have sales higher than the highest selling generic company. They are trying to protect their niche of the market and they are trying to protect their profit margin.
One final point on this is that there is a thriving generic industry in the United States and it has a much more restrictive patent policy than we do here in Canada.
We hear a lot from the other side about billions of dollars of costs to our health care system. These claims have been proven to be outrageous, and I will tell you why.
One of the sources being quoted by the opposition, one witness we heard at committee, was a Dr. Schondel-meyer from the United States, a pharmaceutical economist with impeccable credentials. I do not question the man's credentials, he is very knowledgeable. What I do question is his study.
When I looked at his study there were four areas where there were serious mistakes. He uses a list of 42 products. He has wrong patent expiry dates; he has wrong sales figures in at least one case; he has off-patent products on that list, unaffected by Bill C-91; and he assumes a 30 per cent growth rate in sales for these drug products to the year 2010. Anybody in the pharmaceutical industry knows that you cannot predict past five years, and even predicting five years from today is very risky.
We also hear a lot about the costs of pharmaceutical drugs to our health care system in Canada. We hear that it is going to cost our health care system billions of dollars. One thing we do not hear, and one thing that has to be said, is the amount of money saved to our health care system by some of these brand name products. These products, researched and developed by these brand name companies would not exist and there would be nothing to copy if these products were not developed.
The one that is mentioned most often and has been mentioned several times today is a product called Vasotec, made by Merck Frosst and distributed in Canada. It is, I believe, if not the highest selling drug in North America is right near the top. It is used in cardiovascular disease for high blood pressure. There are tens of thousands of people in Canada who die each year from cardiovascular disease, hundreds of thousands in the United States who die each year from CV disease. There has been an independent study done which states Vasotec saves the health care system in Canada $100 million per year because of 58,000 fewer hospitalizations.
There is a new drug on the market called Proscar, which has been on the market a matter of weeks. It is used for prostate enlargement, and 75 per cent of males in Canada will suffer from that illness. This drug will prevent surgery in many cases. We do not yet have the cost figures on this but the savings will be in the millions of dollars as well, because every day that you can prevent
December 10, 1992

someone from going into hospital you are saving a great deal of money.
One other recent case. There is a drug called Zofran which is used for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. It helps control the nausea and vomiting that go along with chemotherapy, unfortunately, in many cases. This drug is being used in hospitals across the country. There is one hospital in Ontario that is saving $12,000 a day by using this drug which allows patients to go home who otherwise would be in the hospital. It is saving $12,000 a day in one hospital in Canada.
The final classic example, going back several years, was the product Cimetidine used for ulcer therapy, made by Smith, Kline & French, which saved tens of millions of dollars to our health care system.
What I am trying to say, in conclusion, is that in Canada we either have to consider ourselves as a first world, high-tech, modern country or we do not. Of course it is going to cost consumers more money with a policy like this. This type of thing costs money. If every industrial country in the world had a system of compulsory licensing, we would not have the infrastructure in place, we would not have the incentive to develop these new products that give us all a better quality of life and save our health care system millions of dollars.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: There is a logical error in the comments made by the hon. member and I would like to ask him about it.
He makes the point that medicine, like any other patented product, deserves to be treated like any other patented product and that, therefore, compulsory licensing or that type of restriction on the rights of the inventors to realize profits on their gain, is unreasonable.
On the other hand, while he is saying that this is an invention like any other and should be treated like any other, he says that we have this board which is going to limit and control prices. Does the government also advocate a control system for the prices of books, or for the prices of zippers, or all the other products that are subject to patent?
It seems to me the very recognition and acceptance of a prices control board is an admission by the government that prescriptions are prescription drugs and patented
Government Orders
drugs are in a special category and should be treated differently from other inventions and that this government is prepared to treat them differently. Therefore, to make the argument that they are just in the same boat is disproved by the very way it treats them.
If it turns out that the prices control board is unconstitutional and is struck down as ultra vires of the federal government, will that member then allow for a system like compulsory licensing to make sure that the consumer does not get ripped off on patented products which are not like any other but which are essential for life and health?


Brian White: Madam Speaker, there is no error in logic at all. When I began my comments I talked about my personal philosophy and my belief in the protection of intellectual property rights. That belief exists by itself.
I am not the minister and it was not my legislation that was written in 1987, but the prices review board was part of the process and it has been working. Most industrial countries are using a prices review board to control drug prices. It was shown clearly in 1969 when compulsory licensing was put in place that the prices of pharmaceuticals were too high.
However, I think they can be dealt with separately. We can believe in the protection of intellectual property rights. We have the board in place. I support the board because most of the concerns that we hear on this legislation are for costs.
As long as we have the board in place and we can believe what it is saying, because opposition members in the committee did not believe what Dr. Eastman was saying and I cannot think of anyone more reputable or able to lead that board than Dr. Eastman. What he said was not believed. His opinion was that the only problem with constitutionality was controlling the price of drugs at the retail level because there was an overlap with provincial responsibility at that end.
I support the board. I think it is doing good work and I think it will stay in place as long as there are concerns about the prices of drugs.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the elimination of compulsory licensing will mean higher drug prices for Canadians. It will mean a direct attack on our Canadian health care system.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
I have to take issue with most of what the hon. member said because it is in a direction that this country is not going. If he talked to Canadians, he would find they are concerned that they are going to have to pay higher prices for drugs. They are afraid that as a result of that they are going to have to pay a lot more for their drug plans.
The member is from the province of Manitoba. This may not be related but I know the hon. member knows the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is also a mini-agriculture minister. The minister keeps talking about the fact that the reason we have to bring this in is because of the GATT.
Why is the minister prepared at this time to bring this bill in when he knows that at the GATT for supply management he could use something like this as a bargaining chip? He could use something like this to help the supply managed industries which are really important to Manitoba.
The minister knows we are the only country that is bringing in a bill like this. Why is it that when the minister-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will have to interrupt the hon. member to allow a few seconds for an answer. We are in questions and comments period.
This is not the time for debate. This is questions or comments and the floor belongs to the hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River.


Brian White: Madam Speaker, I will be brief in my response because I know we are almost out of time.
The first question asked was whether drug prices were going to be higher. Yes they are going to be higher. I have looked at the model that the ISTC has put together and it makes a lot of sense. There is a list of drugs affected by Bill C-91.1 have checked that list and it is all valid with the extended patent dates.
There are two assumptions made that I do not agree with. First of all, the department assumes that all products are going to be copied and that is not the case. It is about 1 in 20. The other assumption made is that generics will all enter the market immediately when they are able to. That does not happen either. Usually they wait until it is seen how profitable the product is going to be. Then the product comes on to the market once the licence is in place.
Those figures say $25 million a year for Canadians. That is $1 per year per Canadian. Two cups of coffee a year per Canadian. I think that is a fair price to pay to have the proper system in place to encourage this type of investment.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on this very important bill.
What we might ask first is why we would be interested in changing the patent legislation particularly as it relates to the drug manufacturing sector.
During the committee process we did hear from a number of witnesses. One that I thought made an excellent presentation was Professor Fernand Labrie from the Laval University Research Centre. I should remind hon. members that Professor Labrie is one of Canada's premier research scientists.
In his brief he gave us a number of comparisons about the economic activity of research and development as it existed in Canada prior to 1987, prior to the current drug patent legislation and also what was going on in other parts of the world and how this legislation would compare to others.
Certainly, there was no doubt about the content of Professor Labrie's argument. He was certainly very supportive of the change. He was supportive of the change because it would bring a much increased economic activity of research and development into the university process. It would create lots of improvements because of the change in patent legislation.
I would like to read one particular paragraph by Professor Labrie. There was a concern about how Canada's patent legislation would then stack up to others. I would just like to quote briefly from his comments on page 14.
It says: "Bill C-91 is the minimum required since the addition of three years of protection for patent products, namely from 7 to 10 years, after approval of the drug remains below the standards accepted by the other members of the group of seven nations. In fact it can be seen on figure 4 that a protection of 14 years is offered in the United States while 15 years are already accepted or planned for the countries of the European common market. So what we are doing is still not achieving the levels that other of our major competitors have, but certainly moving in the right direction".
December 10. 1992

Then you have to question whether that view is shared and will that economic activity in the form of research activity come to Canada.
The committee received from the Office of the Dean, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Alberta, a very strong endorsement of the whole idea of an influx of research dollars into that particular university. We received another one from the University of Alberta, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Again, it was a very strong endorsement of the program as proposed.
We also received endorsement from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association. Although its brief went into many areas that were really outside what was being reviewed by the committee, I would just like to read one sentence which relates to a comment raised by others about prices. It states: "The association is pleased that the government is proposing to expand the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board".
The prices review board, although part of the legislation, is something not referred to too often at least in the public press as to the ability of government to control the price of patent medicines so that the concern about the economic impact on the health care system is in fact minimized. It certainly supports that particular aspect of it.
McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences sent forward a number of reasons that it supports the particular legislation that was before us.
The idea that it is a very centralized support system is somewhat erroneous because we received recommendations of support from the Victoria General Hospital out of Halifax. We received support from the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade and the Board of Trade of Montreal.
We received numerous submissions, for example from Quadra Logic Technologies Inc., a group in British Columbia. It says: "My colleagues and I at Quadra Logic Technologies Inc. strongly believe the extra patent protection given pharmaceutical innovators and their inves-
Government Orders
tors would be an important encouragement to the creation of knowledge based jobs in Canada".
We had numerous representations to the committee. Even another group from Dalhousie University sent in submissions of support. Support within the industry that the government says will benefit is certainly there and it is there in spades. I am pleased to see that.
I have to look at this and ask how it affects my constituency. Well, the Liberal Party in my constituency is saying that this is going to be devastating on jobs in my riding. Of course, it is interesting that the Liberal Party representative in my riding, having lived there for I think two or three weeks, knows diddly nothing about the riding because what he is out talking about is the comment: "Your local MP wants to destroy the Canadian pharmaceutical industry and cost up to 100 people in this community their jobs". Obviously he has not done a lot of research.
If he were to do some research in my riding about the jobs that are being protected for the Canadian pharmaceutical industry, he would find a company by the name of Fisons Canada located in Pickering. Since the implementation of the drug patent legislation in 1987, it has invested some $8.5 million in research. It has built a new facility in the town of Pickering. It has increased its employees from 38 to 67 people in the Pickering office itself and has added 27 or 28 people in other parts of Canada. It is a large plant of 50,000 square feet.
So there it is. A Pickering based company has clearly increased its investment in my riding. Of course, he would challenge the people who work there as not being important to the constituency. What he ought to do is learn a little about the constituency.
However, recognizing that he is new and maybe he has not seen that plant, maybe he would like to drive by the Purdue Frederick plant which did not exist in 1987. It is
82,000	square feet, an investment of $14 million and employs 135 people. It has a commitment to increase its investment in research. In fact, its investment in research has grown from 2.5 per cent in 1988 to 6 per cent of its sales in 1991.
If that Liberal candidate in my riding had the slightest inclination of being concerned about what goes on in the riding, he might have discovered that.

December 10,1992
Government Orders
Or he might have gone over to Ajax where there is the large Leo Laboratories head office. That was not there in 1987. He would have discovered the opportunities that have been created. It has increased its number of employees in the last five years from 32 to 71. He is not concerned about all those people who work in that head office.
He is not concerned about the fact that that company has increased its investment in research from zero dollars in 1987 to over $1 million per year in 1992 and anticipate further increases. In fact, it is not only anticipating further increases, it is expecting its research expenditures to increase by at least 25 per cent a year over the next period of time.
Of course, if he is concerned about jobs, he would want to go to the Sandoz operations in Whitby. I am not sure he knows where Whitby is in my riding. If he would go over there and have a look at the Sandoz operations, he would see a large manufacturing plant which employs some 260 people that has more than doubled in size since 1987.
It has doubled in size for a number of reasons. One is patent protection. Two is the free trade agreement. Because of the free trade agreement, that manufacturing plant in my riding was able to take a contract from Sandoz U.S. to supply the U.S. market with one of its products. Because of that acquisition of increased economic activity in the Sandoz plant in Whitby, it was then able to go to the Sandoz operations world-wide. It now has a mandate to produce this drug in Whitby, Ontario for the world market.
If my Liberal opponent wants to get out and learn a little bit about the riding, I would be happy to take him when he has a lot of spare time some day after the next election and show him around so he fully understands just what is going on in my riding.
To make it a little more meaningful, we had a problem with the whole issue of pricing and the perception people have. I would like to finally wrap up and say I believe the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the powers it has been given will adequately protect the people of my constituency from the drug prices the opposition is espousing as terrible things. In fact, I think they are well protected.
I thank you for this opportunity. I only wish I had more time to give you more information.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, since the hon. member who just spoke could not remember the name of his opponent in the riding of Ontario but devoted 12 minutes of time to him, I will blurt out his name for him. It is Dan McTeague. Either way he is going to be the member.
The member is confused about prices. He has overlooked the fact prices are already very high so there is a return on investment over a projected period of time, which under Bill C-22 is indicated as seven years. This legislation will extend protection, or a monopoly on those prices for an ever greater period of time.
If the member is really sincere about protecting intellectual property rights he will be honest enough and remind himself and all the members of his caucus such protection already exists for a 20-year period. The portion of the 20-year period that goes beyond the exclusivity of the competition portion is already recompensed by anyone who copies the product to the tune of 4 per cent of sales to allow for competition. It does not deprive them of anything and most, if not all of the investment, is returned before that competition is allowed.
Such is the case in a report published in the Globe and Mail the other day. We learned one of these multinational corporations was receiving 100 per cent return on investment per annum over the course of the last five years for the parent company. They do not need greater incentive. Let us just be honest and say the intellectual property rights are already well protected and we are not talking here about encouraging further investment. The inducements of the marketplace are already there.
We are really looking to reach out further and extend a monopoly, not free marketplace trade, but an inhibition of trade for a longer period of time. Why?


René John Soetens: I did know the name of the Liberal candidate. The problem he is going to have is most Liberals in the riding do not know his name because they had to bring him in from Scarborough to fill the nomination.
There is a process in this legislation dealing with prices. When the Department of Industry, Science and Technology appeared before the committee to explain the rationale of how it arrived at its price structure and forecast of the costs in the $125 million to $130 million range, the Liberal Party and the NDP spent a whole day questioning the officials on their process and evaluation methods and could not find a loophole.
December 10, 1992

I should point out when the opposition witness appeared before the committee with Professor Schondel-meyer, the first question asked by the government members shot his forecasts full of holes. This continued through the second, third and fourth questions.
I believe the system is put in place so Canadian consumers will not be gouged by an unfair price structure. That has proven to be the case in the last five years and I believe with the increased strengths in this legislation for the review board that will not happen in the future either.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Refugees; the hon. member for Western Arctic-Fur Industry; the Hon. member for Moncton-External Affairs; the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Agriculture; the hon. member for Comox-Al-berni-Aboriginal Housing.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-91, a bill experts say will have us pay anywhere from $1 to $7 billion more for drugs.
This legislation will have disastrous consequences in Canada, in Quebec, especially as regards our health system. Basically, what we have here is legislation which will increase the price of patented drugs in exchange for promises-I want to lay emphasis on the word promises-of job creation in research and development.
I may well be the only member from Quebec to speak against this bill because I tend to agree with The Toronto Star when it says that this government cares more about intellectual property than about people.
I think it is outrageous to be willing to exchange a promise to create jobs, a few menial jobs perhaps, for billions and billions of dollars in giveaways because, from what the federal government has told us, it would seem that we did not get the jobs we had been promised with Bill C-22 when it was passed. We did not get the jobs.
Government Orders
When the government says that the price of patented drugs has not increased-and I want to be precise here-by more than the rate of inflation since Bill C-22 was adopted, that is not true. We have heard the testimonies before the committee on consumer and corporate affairs. We have heard government experts who have told us that they did not have all the answers to our questions, for instance, on the drug called Vasotec. I can tell you that Mr. Eastman, a government expert, said he did not know that drug. Therefore, he could not tell if the price increase was more or less equal to the rate of inflation.
We were left hanging to some extent. We had been asked to take part in this debate by a number of people who may not be important the way ministers or pharmaceutical company officials are, but important people nonetheless. They are constituents from my riding and from other ridings who have responded to our small household mailings and answered the question: Are you for or against this bill on pharmaceutical products?
In my riding of Chambly, I can tell you that the vast majority of those who responded were against. Most of them were middle-class and middle-aged people. These people have told us-I would not want to offend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but I will say it: anyway-that they do not trust at all what the government says about the price of drugs. The people in my riding of Chambly believe, and this is important, that it is dead wrong about the price paid by consumers for drugs when they go to the pharmacy.
To check on the claims made by my constituents, I decided, like a good lawyer, to go to the nearest drug store. There I met an honest pharmacist and I asked him what the price difference really was since the government had legislated on patented drugs. What was the difference? Had prices only increased between 2.7 per cent and 2.9 per cent a year, as the government claimed, since that legislation came in force? The pharmacist replied: "Not on your life, Phil". He then showed me some boxes of medication and said: "Look how much it used to cost and how much it is now". And I must say that I am much more inclined to believe the people in my

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
riding, the middle-class, the poor and the older people. I believe them because they have a lot-


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I just have a technical question for the hon. member. I am quite willing to let the member talk freely on this issue, but he just showed two boxes of medication here in the House, without identifying them and without mentioning their price either. It becomes very difficult for us to judge. Mr. Speaker, it is not customary here in the House to show-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As far as I am
concerned, he should not be displaying anything on his desk. If he does that again, I will just recognize the next speaker.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, this is my own personal medication. I wish to refer specifically to the medication and show you the difference between the generic and patented drug. I needed the box to remember the exact pharmacological name.
If I may refer to it, I will try to keep it out of the view of the camera. I think it is very important to refer to it. I am not trying to make any grandstand theatrical play with this government, but I do need to have that information, if I have your permission, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As I rise, you can look at your box and then find out what the name of the generic drug is. Then I will let you speak on it.


Philip Edmonston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your help in this matter.
I was speaking about the visit I made to the local pharmacy. The pharmacist told me he agreed with many of the people who wrote to me in Chambly that this was a particularly nasty bill.


An hon. member:: What about the name?


Philip Edmonston: I will get to the name in a minute. Please hold your horses.
He said he felt if this bill were to go through it would mean a great deal more money spent by Canadians, particularly in my riding, because of the government's gift of millions and according to some experts, billions of dollars to the drug industry.
Vasotec is an example of a drug that is going to be increased in price to the extent it will be very difficult for average Canadians to pay for it. It is used quite extensively. I believe it is either the number one or number three best seller in Canada. It has not been proven by Mr. Eastman to be one of the drugs that did not go higher than the rate of inflation.
Mr. Eastman told us he did not have the information on Vasotec although we had gone to a pharmacy. I think as the minister pores over his notes he will remember that if he was there that day. I believe my colleague from Surrey North actually gave the material to the minister's people as well as to Mr. Eastman and discovered they did not have the information.
My colleague from Surrey North alleged the price of this one pharmaceutical patent drug had increased far in excess of 2 per cent. I would be glad to have a response from the minister. I believe it had gone closer to 6 or 7 per cent.
I continue on to the question of the difference between the government's figures and the figures presented by independent agencies like Green Shield. Green Shield is an independent agency that deals with drug pricing. It has been doing so for many years on behalf of unions and other people who need to know about that when they are dealing with collective agreements.
It is interesting to note that whenever the government hears that Green Shield is disputing the government figure of 2.9 per cent the federal government automatically says Green Shield is talking about much more than just these patent drugs, that it is talking about all drugs.
Green Shield has said that the increase is close to 6 or 7 per cent if we take out the other drugs. That is incredible. That is not 2 per cent. It is 6 or 7 per cent.

We all tend to have an axe to grind in this House. It is understandable and normal in the context of parliamentary debate to stand up for one's constituency. However, I wonder what constituency this government opposite is representing. Does it represent the seniors? Certainly not because seniors are angry; they are really annoyed about this bill. I cannot understand how members
December 10, 1992

opposite who represent older people can say that people are not angry. That is incredible.
People are angry, and not just older people, but also middle-class people who cannot afford to pay more for Vasotec or other drugs. They are convinced-and there is evidence to back this up-that the price of drugs, of patented drugs, has really been horribly inflated over the past few years.
We are asking this government: Why the rush? Why is it so urgent that we pass this legislation today? What is the hurry? To please GATT of course. But people have asked: Why this urge to please GATT just now? This thing has worked well for us in Canada. It has even helped keep our health system healthy. However, if this bill were to be passed today, I really think that would strike quite a blow to our health system.
I am probably the only member from Quebec to speak and vote against this bill. I know that many Conservative members from Quebec and Bloc Quebecois members will call me an enemy of Quebec. I hate this sort of criticism because it is divisive. People are being labelled as either friends or enemies of Quebec. Let me tell you that I am as much a Quebecer as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and that I am no enemy of Quebec. But I am definitely an enemy of exploitation, and I suggest that this bill does exploit the most vulnerable people in our society.
I know there are plenty of statistics supporting both sides. The government has quoted figures indicating that all kinds of jobs will be created. I suggest we will get next to nothing, essentially jobs with low pay, jobs in marketing, and jobs in testing pharmaceutical products developed elsewhere, in other countries. Born in the U.S., I chose to become a Quebecer and a Canadian. Quebec and Canada are really very different from the United States. I am therefore a little sad and sorry to see that we are in the process of becoming exactly what the Americans no longer want to be. In other words, they no longer want to be exploited by one of the biggest lobbies in the world, the drug industry lobby.
I know the government was approached by a lobby firm which happens to be one of the biggest in the world. It probably has one of the worst reputations as well. As far as the truth is concerned, talk about a bad reputation-


An hon. member:: Time.
Government Orders


Philip Edmonston: I am sorry, but I believe I have 20 minutes and those 20 minutes are not up yet, Mr. Speaker. I will continue. Patience, my friends across the way, even if it hurts. I will not take long.
Let me tell you about your friends called-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has another four minutes.


Philip Edmonston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was aware of that. But it does not hurt to tell my colleagues.
Do you know the people behind the lobby firm called Hill and Knowlton, the one that works for the big patented drug companies? Hill and Knowlton is the same lobby firm that made such a fuss, when we had that problem between Iraq and Kuwait, over this young lady who said she had seen poor little babies thrown out of their incubators and killed by the Iraqis. In fact, she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and she did not see a thing, no massacre of infants, nothing.


Pierre Blais: What does that have to do with it?


Philip Edmonston: I mention this because what we have here is a problem with the truth. We have a problem with the figures quoted and especially the ones government members quoted today, because the lobbyists are doing most of the work. In my opinion, when you have lobbyists working with you to get this bill through the House in record time, people who have worked for Jean-Claude Duvalier, the Moonies and Reverend Moon, and the Church of Scientology, well, I am sorry, but I have a problem with the truth of what is being said.
I intend to finish the way I began. My goodness, I never saw the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs show such a lively interest in the proceedings. It is fantastic.
As long as you support the absolute right to intellectual property, I say you are really out to lunch, because people have no absolute right to intellectual property. Especially not where drugs are concerned. The present system works very well, without any problems. And we do not have to give away billions of dollars to the drug companies.

December 10, 1992
Government Orders
In concluding, I would like to make one more comment. As a writer who has written 64 books, I ought to know the importance of intellectual property. Now you may not know this, but when you write books, you do not have the absolute right to intellectual property over those books. There is a Canadian program and a Quebec program that allow people to copy your books, and you are paid royalties for those copies. My point is that we can have a mixed system under which we can protect people like writers as well as people who are sick. And that is why I am against Bill C-91.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments to which I would like to respond, especially when I listen to the hon. member saying that the system is working veiy well. I cannot reconcile that with what they say has been an explosion of prices. It works well or it is not working. They cannot have it both ways. They should make up their minds.

I would like to come back to some points, Mr. Speaker. They talk about promised investment. Rumour or gossip has it that the hon. member wants to be mayor of Montreal-


An hon. member:: Good luck.


Pierre Blais: They say that he wants to run for mayor of Montreal. One billion in investment, which he can see from his own car as he returns to his Montreal area riding. He can see it with his own eyes. The 2,400 jobs created in Montreal and Toronto, the $85 million spent in university research centres in Alberta, British Columbia, soon in Nova Scotia and in other parts of the country are very concrete. Half the jobs he is talking about, the jobs created, are in high technology. He should be able to realize those things.
He mentioned something in particular that I would like to come back to. Can he admit that the price of
drugs for which we are responsible, because he often tends to confuse federal and provincial responsibility, the price of patented medicine, that we are responsible for it at the manufacturer's level but the provinces are responsible at the retail level? Perhaps he could talk to his colleague, Premier Bob Rae of Ontario, and the two other provincial premiers, one of whom is in British Columbia, and ask them to act so as to prevent the retail price of a drug like Vasotec from going up 13 per cent, not the manufacturer's price but the retail price. The retail price depends on the provinces. Perhaps he could discuss it with Mr. Rae and tell him to intervene. The federal government cannot act on the retail price. That is one thing.
Also, I would like the hon. member to give me an answer. Is he aware that the price of patented medicine accounts for only 3 per cent? We are only talking about 3 out of 100. Patented medicine makes up 3 per cent of the total. I have a young daughter who is this tall. When I tell her this is 100 and that is 3, she understands what I mean. I hope that my colleague will understand that it cannot lead to an excessive increase in drug prices, because it affects only 3 per cent. I would like him to give me an answer on these points and maybe also tell us the name of those famous drugs he has on hand, because I suppose he must have had time to take a look at them so that we can check the things he said at the beginning of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Maybe I could get the other questioners to ask questions and then I will cut them all off at once.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the interchange. As this debate draws to a close I am struck by the fact the statements by the government become more outrageous while we need to have a great deal of calmness.
I have been concerned with this piece of legislation. Both as social policy chair and as chair of western caucus I noticed the way in which regional development has been used as a stick. The fear of unemployment is used against fellow Canadians, the promise of jobs that will never appear.
December 10, 1992

In all my years as an academic I remember watching this take place in terms of urban development and other sectors of the economy where people promise you jobs in order to keep you quiet.
I was wondering if the hon. member would talk a little bit about this job strategy as a phoney way to approach health policy.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member opposite will make a final comment. However, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank all the hon. members in this House for their wholehearted and spirited debate, not just in the House but in the committee process. It was in the best parliamentary tradition. I appreciate the interest that they have all shown in the bill.


Mr. Jan Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I do not want this mush. I want to ask the member why he thinks the government is putting this legislation through when it means that my constituents will have to pay more for their drugs when they cannot afford it.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the member who just spoke. I do want to stick to the facts, which I do not believe he has done. I want to remind him that patented drug prices have risen only 2.9 per cent on average.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, December 9, 1992, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the green bus got in an accident, had a flat tire, ran out of gas, I ran and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.
++NAYS
Members
Allmand
Angus
Assad
Belair
Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Brant)
Breaugh
Caccia
Chretien
Crawford
Dionne
Edmonston
Finestone
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdcbo
Kaplan
Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)
Kristiansen
Laporte
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan
Manley
Marleau
McGuire
Milliken
Murphy
Nowlan
Nystrom
Parent
Pickard
Rideout
Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island -Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Tobin
Waddell
Wappel
Wood
Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-91
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Black
Boudria
Brewin
Catterall
Clancy
Dingwall
Duhamel
Ferguson
Fontana
Fulton
Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harvard
Heap
Jordan
Keyes
Kindy
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Marchi
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Mills
Nault
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Peterson
Proud
Riis
Simmons
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stewart
Taylor
Volpe
Walker
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
de Cotret	Phinney
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I seek consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order and the usual practices of the House, Bill S-16, an act to restructure the United Grain Growers, Limited, be now called for second reading and that the House proceed to dispose of the said bill at all stages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Geoff Wilson: that Bill S-16, an act to restructure United Grain Growers, Limited, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-16, an act to restructure United Grain Growers, Limited.
Clauses 2 to 14 agreed to.
On Clause 15 -Board of Directors


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly to this bill, S-16, and in doing so thank especially the member for Lambton-Middlesex for their co-operation as well as the critics from the other parties.
The United Grain Growers had its origin in the Grain Growers Grain Company which was formed by farmers in the Sintaluta district of Saskatchewan in the early 1900s. The United Grain Growers, Limited was an amalgamation of the Grain Growers Grain Company along with some other farmer organized co-ops. It was incorporated under a special act of Parliament in 1911. Today it is a co-operative with some 86,000 members and $400 million in assets. It operates 266 elevators across
Bill read the third time and passed.
December 10, 1992

the four western provinces as well as two terminals at Thunder Bay and one in Vancouver.
In addition to the handling of grain, UGG sells fertilizer, seed and other farm supplies and publishes farm papers like Grain News and The Country Guide.
As hon. members know, the world marketplace for grain is not easy. In the face of subsidized competition, any and all deficiencies in the handling and transportation of grain to tide water must be examined. Like the other handlers, United Grain Growers faces major capital expenditures to modernize its grain handling facilities. Significant investments will be required in order to build new elevators and upgrade many of the older facilities so they can be made to work effectively in linking producers to their offshore customers.
To this end, over 95 per cent of the shareholder delegates at the United Grain Growers 86th annual meeting last month approved a capital reorganization and restructuring plan. Since that date, November 4, 1992, the company has moved swiftly to meet the requirements of Parliament to allow this petition to be considered. The problems are UGG is not now legally empowered to enter into underwriting agreements with the investment banking community nor can the company issue shares to take advantage of the investment interest that has already been expressed.
Further, the capital construction plans of the company contemplate attracting equity capital for investment. If UGG were not able to enter into an underwriting arrangement, this would cause delays that would impact on the company's cash position and ultimately the investment program in grain handling infrastructure.
It is for this reason that timely consideration of the bill has been requested. UGG was incorporated by an act of Parliament. The general laws of Canada do not allow the company to reorganize itself. The changes must be approved by Parliament.
The changes are these. They are embodied in Bill S-16. The legislation will cause UGG's capital structure to change in the following ways. First, it will allow for new capital investment needed. Second, it will allow for the allocation of the existing equity and patronage
Private Members' Business
dividend credits on a fair and equitable basis. Third, it will allow for the preservation of the existing representative membership structure. Fourth, it will preserve farmer control, as 12 of the 15 members of the board of directors will be farmers.
Once this reorganization is complete, United Grain Growers intends to make an initial public offering of its common shares in order to raise the capital necessary for expansion and modernization of its infrastructure.
Finally, this legislation will enable United Grain to better serve its customers throughout western Canada. In the larger picture it will help Canada's competitive position in world agricultural markets.
I therefore thank all members present for supporting this motion in regard to Bill S-16 which will enable the restructuring of United Grain.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Chairman, we would like to lend our support to the hon. member's statement this afternoon on Bill S-16, the United Grain Growers restructuring bill. It is a private member's bill from the Senate.
It will allow this company to restructure its financial arrangements so that it can raise funds in the financial markets of the country. It will maintain the control of the grain producers who now are involved in this organization. It will allow them to go ahead with capital construction in the summer of 1993.
The United Grain Growers have had some 25 information meetings throughout the west. I understand there is broad support from their 86,000 members across the three prairie provinces to see this capital reorganization of the company go ahead. Then it can raise funds in the capital markets of the country and go ahead with its capital construction projects in the summer of 1993. We support the speedy passage of this bill.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my party and myself I would also like to indicate that we intend to support this legislation. It is obviously something the farmers that have been involved in the United Grain Growers have thought through veiy carefully. They have discussed this in many meetings and have finally made a decision on it. It is only appropriate that we not stand in their way of this reorganization.

December 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
However, as my party's critic for co-operative and community development, I do have to say that in some ways this is a sad note in the history of Canadian agriculture. The United Grain Growers really pioneered the whole concept of the organization of co-operatives on the prairies that very firmly entrenched farmer control of grain handling over a number of generations now.
This present structure envisions that farmers will continue to maintain control of that structure but that might well prove difficult to do once the present course of action has been embarked on.
In closing, I would just like to congratulate all the directors of the United Grain Growers over the years both at the local and at the national level and recognize the contribution that they have made to Canadian agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ferguson that Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-226 this afternoon, an act to reduce automotive pollution.
The Department of Transport administers emission regulations for motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act but it does not regulate fuels. The Minister of the Environment has authority to regulate certain aspects of fuel quality under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I would like to say a few words about motor vehicle pollution and the relationship between vehicles, fuel and emission controls.
The North American automobile industry is gearing up to manufacture vehicles meeting new stringent United States emission standards beginning in 1994. These low emission vehicles are designed around fuel available in the United States.
Considerable work is being done by vehicle manufacturers on more advanced emission controls planned on the U.S. Clean Air Act. Some of these involve reformulated gasolines and other alternative fuels.
Motor vehicle emissions depend on the fuel that is used and how the vehicle and its emission controls process that fuel. To achieve much lower vehicle emissions than we have today, we need better fuels as well as better vehicle emission controls. In some cases, the fuel constituent itself is harmful, as was the case with lead. In addition, certain fuels and fuel additives can damage emission control devices.
One of the reasons against the use of lead in gasoline is that it in a sense poisoned the exhaust catalyst so that they are no longer effective in controlling emissions. Canadians are very conscious of the need to protect the environment, and the government takes very seriously its responsibility to regulate emissions from the ever-growing fleet of motor vehicles.
Under the impetus of government emissions regulations, the auto industry has made impressive improvements in the unit emissions from passenger cars. Today emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon have been reduced by over 95 per cent from the uncontrolled vehicles of the 1970s while emissions of oxides of nitrogen have been cut back by 70 per cent and further reductions will occur in the mid-1990s.
Canadian regulations are planned to have the same stringent vehicle emission controls as those in the United States. One step toward bringing new emission regulations on stream is to make detailed amendments
December 10, 1992

to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This step is currently in progress through Bill S-8, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Meanwhile, there is a memorandum of understanding with vehicle manufacturers that cars sold in Canada between 1994 and 1996 will meet the new standards. These further reduce emissions of hydrocarbons by 29 per cent and of oxides of nitrogen by 60 per cent from the already low values.
Since Canada represents 8 per cent of a largely integrated U.S.-Canadian market supplied by an international industry, manufacturers have little difficulty providing Canada with the same emission controls as used in the United States even if they are stringent controls.
As I said, an important part of vehicle emission control is the fuel. Canadian gasoline is not always the same as that available in the United States. We have our own feedstock and refineries, and marketing of the final product is relatively local rather than being international or even national.
As the U.S. tightens its regulations on automotive gasoline and as the vehicle manufacturers develop emission controls based on fuels of a certain standard, the availability of compatible fuels in Canada becomes a very important issue.
In addition to any direct emission effect of a fuel it is an issue for manufacturers that their vehicles give a satisfactory lifetime performance in Canada.
It is important, therefore, for the successful outcome of the emission control negotiations and regulations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act that compatible fuels are available and continue to be available in Canada.
The two items addressed by Bill C-226 are oxygen content and another very difficult phrase known as MMT or methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl. The oxygen content of gasoline is important for low emissions of carbon monoxide and can be raised by gasoline additives, one being ethanol about 10 per cent by volume, to achieve the suggested oxygen level. However, there are important questions in developing an oxygen level less than the number in Bill C-226.
Private Members' Business
MMT is not allowed by regulation under the United States Clean Air Act. It is widely used in Canada and is a potential issue for vehicle manufacturers. They are faced with a different gasoline than used for 92 per cent of the vehicles in the Canada-U.S. fleet. It is a very significant thing that the gasoline we use in Canada with MMT is not allowable for 92 per cent of the fleet produced in an integrated fashion by Canada and the United States. Ninety-two per cent of that is represented by the U.S. market.
Evidence of direct harmful effects, or of significant effects to vehicle emission control systems is not yet clear. The Ethyl Corporation, maker of the MMT additive, continues research and representations in Washington with a view to having MMT allowed in the U.S.
Environment Canada with its responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Energy, Mines and Resources Canada are both well aware of these issues. These departments along with Transport Canada are in close contact.
Fuel standards are extremely technical in nature and it is vitally important to the environment that gasoline should be compatible with vehicle emission controls. Comprehensive fuel regulations need to be developed and kept up to date with rapidly changing technology.
Whereas the intent of Bill C-226 to foster cleaner gasolines has merit, the mandates it contains to bring about changes in fuel quality are not appropriate primarily of course for the marketing reality that I mentioned earlier of 92 per cent of the integrated market being in the United States where MMT is not allowable.
There is, however, an established process for considering new fuel specifications and this should be followed in the quest for cleaner fuels. Federal departments, the Canadian General Standards Board, provincial governments, and the oil refining and vehicle industries are all following this subject very closely. A workshop was convened in October by government departments and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute to discuss the opportunities and the costs associated with gasoline reformulation. This workshop involved the numerous parties which would be affected by the fuel changes, including the motor vehicle industry and environmental organizations.

December 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
To ensure proper consideration, therefore, of the complex technical and environmental health and economic issues involved in this whole question of fuels and contaminants, the established process is the one that we on this side feel should be encouraged.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member for Fredericton-York- Sunbury gets his information from, but it seems to me he is sadly unaware of the fact that MMT, which he discussed in his intervention, has been banned in the United States since 1978. Therefore, it is very unlikely it will ever be allowed again as he implied in his speech.
We have before us for discussion today a very reasonable and interesting proposal, namely a bill that would reduce automotive pollution. It is proposed by the member for Lambton-Middlesex. It is a bill that commands attention and respect. It will have three results if implemented. It would ban a substance that is detrimental to health, namely MMT, which is an additive to gasoline. It would reduce certain emissions that cause various forms of air pollution. Also, it would promote the use of a renewable source of energy called ethanol which is produced from com and would add considerably to the agricultural economy.
The title of the proposal alone, namely an act to reduce automotive pollution, should be enough to generate positive supportive interventions on the part of backbenchers of all parties. Only a Conservative government would argue against it. This is what we have seen throughout the debate on this measure.
The last time we debated this bill on November 23, the government trotted its big artillery into the Chamber which revealed in the course of the discussion the weakness of the arguments.
Let me quote, for instance, the parliamentary secretary for national health and welfare, as reported at page 13764 of Hansard. She said:
The elderly may be susceptible to brain damage from manganese
but we lack the knowledge about both susceptibility and differences
in metabolism in this particular group.
Manganese is what we are talking about when we mention MMT. The parliamentary secretary for national health and welfare seemed blissfully unaware of an
Environmental Protection Agency decision which made a specific reference to manganese containing the substance MMT as follows:
During EPA's consideration of the 1990 ethyl submission, EPA's office of research and development conducted a manganese inhalation risk assessment based on the available data which found that:
- because of the considerable uncertainties and data gaps in the available information it is not possible to conclude definitely that the increased use of MMT as a fuel additive will (or will not) increase public health risk.
Obviously the Environmental Protection Agency did not rule out MMT as a risk to public health. This is a point which seems to have escaped the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well as the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
Then on November 23 we had an intervention by an esteemed colleague whom I admire and respect, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He said in his intervention that ethanol increases nitrous oxides. That is true, but ethanol blends reduce carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions while an increase in nitrous oxides takes place. The over-all effect is a net reduction of ozone-forming acids. That is a point that has escaped the spokespeople on the government side.
The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka went on to quote the Ethyl Corporation. It is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop to start quoting the Ethyl Corporation on matters related to pollution.
There was an interesting quotation in the speech by the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka when he said:
Our interventions to regulate fuel quality should only be where no other mechanism will achieve the desired result.
He invoked the idea that voluntary co-operative efforts of the fuel suppliers and motor vehicle manufacturers should take place. He remarked:
Market based approach has proven effective and therefore the government will continue to support and facilitate these efforts.
When it came to acid rain the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was a very active participant and promoter of government intervention. One wonders why the same approach should not apply when it comes to gasoline additives and automotive pollution.
December 10, 1992

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka went on to
say:
The benefits of removing MMT should be addressed and development of a comprehensive strategy on fuel quality should take place.
After eight years in power it is outstanding that such a declaration should be made, having had five subsequent environment ministers and having had to invoke the necessity of a comprehensive strategy. Where is this strategy, one wonders?
Then we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister asking on November 23:
Is it reasonable to pre-empt a comprehensive review of gasoline specifications and environmental impacts under way in Canada?
Which review is that? By whom? With whom? When? Where are the public consultations?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister went on to say:
If MMT were not allowed, gasoline costs would increase likely leading to higher gas costs to consumers.
What about the lower gasoline cost in the United States where MMT is not used because it is banned? How do the Americans achieve that miracle of selling unleaded gasoline at lower cost than in Canada and not using MMT?
In essence, to sum up, government members in desperation are using studies by industry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare admits that the elderly may be susceptible to brain damage. The same parliamentary secretary admits that we have knowledge on manganese and health, but she prefers to shift the onus of proof that manganese is not dangerous to the health community rather than ask industry to prove that MMT is not dangerous. This is a rather absurd position for a parliamentary secretary for health and welfare to take. Instead he should insist that the onus of proof ought to be on industry, that industry should prove that manganese is not harmful to human health.
The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka admits that existing data on MMT are inconclusive. Unfortunately he embraces a double standard, as I mentioned earlier, government intervention on acid rain but not on MMT.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister reveals the existence of a comprehensive review of gas specifications taking place but without public consultations.
A very distressing picture is emerging in the debate on this very fine bill of the member for Lambton-Middle-
Private Members' Business
sex. We can congratulate him for having taken this initiative. It is good for the farmers. It is good for urban dwellers. It is good for the improvement of air quality and ought to be enthusiastically supported on all sides of the House.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill today. I will cut my remarks short in order to allow other hon. members who want to speak on the bill the opportunity to speak.
I want to congratulate the member for Lambton- Middlesex on all his hard work and diligence in bringing this matter before the House.
The environment, renewable resources and a viable agricultural community are all extremely important concerns this House has looked at for some time. Ethanol, an environmentally sound product which we have in abundance, really relates to all three of those concerns. Ethanol is good for the environment. It is a renewable resource. It creates an additional market for Canadian agricultural products.
Throughout this debate we have heard government members telling the House that MMT is a safe, environmentally friendly product. They say that many health risks associated with MMT have been greatly exaggerated. For this reason they say they cannot support this bill because it would necessarily ban MMT as a fuel additive in gasoline.
The fact is that the government's position is so entrenched that it does not even test for emission standards. When it tests emission standards the gasoline that it tests does not even have MMT in it. A letter to the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex from the Minister of the Environment dated December 10, 1992 stated:
Thank you for your letter-Hansport Canada's emission testing procedures-The methods it uses in confirmatory emission testing are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency certification testing procedures, which are accepted industry-wide, and require that a standardized test fuel be used. That fuel does not contain MMT.
The Minister of the Environment is telling Canadians that we do tests in this country on fuel that does not contain MMT, but everyone driving down the street has MMT in their fuel. This is scandalous. I would gladly put this letter into the record because I think the government has to address the issue seriously. It is a scandalous issue. In addition as spokespersons for the MMT industry, namely Ethyl Corporation, they cannot in good

December 10, 1992
Private Members' Business
conscience support this bill. Make no mistake. The government has made its position very clear.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Calgary Southwest has said-and I have indicated to her that I would be speaking on her comments tonight; I realize she is not in the House-there are many health risks and effects at this particular point in time associated with MMT.
Certainly we are all aware of the neurological effects of the key ingredient manganese. Manganese poisoning can lead to learning disabilities and neurological damage. Ms. Ellen Silbergeld, Environmental Defence Fund, who has a Ph.D. from John Hopkins University, made a written submission to the EPA on July 20,1990, two years ago.
She said:
We know that manganese at high dose is a demonstrated human neurotoxin with persistent and irreversible pathological effects on brain structure and resulting severe impairments in movement and mental state. We do not know what the long-term chronic, low dose consequences of human exposure to manganese are. We do not know a "safe" level of manganese exposure, particularly for those subgroups that may be at increased risk for neurotoxicity (the young and the aged).
The Liberal Party and people on this side of the House have constantly supported the need for Canada to develop alternative fuels. It is good for rural Canada. I think it is good for all. Canadians.
On many occasions we have called on the government to introduce legislation that would seriously support the use of ethanol and ban MMT. We have consistently called on the government to put a program in place for the development of ethanol blended fuels in Canada. All we have seen is government inaction which prompted my hon. colleague from Lambton-Middlesex to bring forward this bill.
Excise tax relief alone is not enough. The $12 million announced last month to encourage production and use of ethanol in Canada is really just a drop in the bucket. It means nothing. It will not help the corn producers in my
area and will not help the com producers in southwestern Ontario.
The ethanol industry does not need more research and development. It needs a serious commitment from this government on ethanol. It needs industry supply for this product and consumer demand for it, which could immediately be realized by banning MMT.
The government needs to take the initiative and then the ethanol plants will be built. That will help Canadian farmers, rural Canada, all Canadians and the Canadian environment.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves what will be the impact of Bill C-226 on the fuel-producing industry.
Right now in Canada ethanol blended fuel production is around 18 million litres a year and comes mainly from two plants. The first one is owned by Mohawk Oil in Minnedosa, Manitoba and produces 10 million litres a year. The other located in Lanigan, Saskatchewan also produces 10 million litres a year. It is owned by Pound-maker Ethanol Limited. The Lanigan plant, which started production in July 1991, is the first ethanol plant linked to a cattle feedlot in order to take full advantage of co-products. If, by law, gasoline sold in Canada had to have a 3.2 per cent content of oxygen-containing compounds, we would have to produce 10 million litres of ethanol a day, that is close to 200 times our present capacity. In the short term, we probably would have to increase our ethanol blended fuel imports to fill the gap in production.
However, the possible shortage and the initial dependence on imports would be offset by an increase in ethanol production which would greatly help the farm industry. Many interest groups and segments of our society would benefit from ethanol production and its use as a transportation fuel. Suffice to mention the environmental sector, the agriculture and forest industries, as well as the various opportunities to diversify the economy and employment. That is why in early 1991 the federal government created the Interdepartmental
December 10, 1992

Committee on Ethanol with the mandate to develop an action plan aimed at promoting ethanol production and use in Canada.
What would be the impact of this bill on the refining industry? Right now Canadian refineries use an additive called MMT which increases by a point the octane rating of the gasoline they produce. Canada is one of the few countries in the world which prohibits the addition of lead in gasoline in order to meet fuel specifications. Allowing refineries to add MMT to their blends gives them a certain flexibility in their production. On the other hand, American refineries do not use MMT in their unleaded gasoline but mix it with their lead blends, which gives them great flexibility to raise their octane rating.
What would refineries do if all of a sudden, the use of MMT was banned?
In the short term, increasing the severity factor in the refining process would probably be the least costly solution for most refiners. Nevertheless, the additional costs have been estimated at $75 million a year, or about 0.2 cents per litre of gasoline. If the severity index were increased in the refining process, refineries would consume more fuel and produce more carbon dioxide, thus going against our efforts to solve the problem of global warming.
This decision would also slightly increase the amount of benzene and other aromatic compounds in gasoline, which in the long run might not help encourage the use of less polluting fuels. To offset the losses in processing and to meet their fuel requirements, the refineries would need 278,000 cubic metres more crude oil, which would force us to import more oil in years to come.
Nevertheless, this bill does not just seek to eliminate MMT. It would also impose the use of an oxygenated fuel as a component of gasoline. In the United States, the most widely used oxygenated fuels are ethanol and MTBE, an ether produced from methanol and butane. In most cases, MTBE is the cheaper of the two and American refiners use it even without a tax break.
To meet the oxygen content requirements of this bill, we would have to use more MTBE than present gasoline standards allow. If these standards were more flexible, refiners could use MTBE and remove MMT from
Private Members' Business
gasoline without increasing the severity factor in oil refining, as I already explained. Nevertheless, as a result, gasoline production costs would rise by about $300 million a year, or 0.8 cents per litre.
If refiners used ethanol to comply with the oxygen content standards and could meet the demand, they could replace MMT without increasing the severity factor in the refining process. However, this solution would be even costlier than using MTBE, and even taking account of the decision made in the budget to abolish the excise tax on the alcohol portion of mured fuels, the refineries' annual operating costs would increase by $600 million, or about 1.6 cents per litre of gasoline.
Who would pay these costs? The refineries. But given the difficult economic situation of that industry, I expect they will be under strong pressure to pass the bill on to gasoline buyers. Thus Canadian consumers would pay much of the extra cost.
Should consumers be glad to pay the cost of a product that will improve environmental quality? That depends on the balance between product cost and environmental benefits that the consumer can observe around them.
As people have said, we do not know very well how good it will be for the environment to remove MMT from gasoline and impose a very high oxygen content. In some cases, it might improve air quality locally, but in others, air quality might be worse. In fact, it all depends on what environmental problem is being dealt with.
That is one more reason to set gasoline specifications after a thorough technical examination. We must ensure that the proposed changes to the specifications will improve air quality in cities and not worsen it, and that this improvement will benefit consumers in return for the extra costs they will have to pay.
In short, by supporting Bill C-226 moved by my colleague on the other side, we must not encourage the setting of arbitrary specifications that would serve no other purpose than to impose the marketing of ethanol. Instead, we must continue to examine possible changes to various gas blends, as CGSB does, and carry on consultations with the provinces and the automobile and petroleum industries. Finally, we must also maintain the

December 10, 1992
Adjournment Debate
government's ongoing initiatives to stimulate production and use of ethanol.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
According to Standing Order 93, the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in late May of this year Vigil, a Toronto-based refugee support group, announced that it would no longer make requests to the minister of immigration to admit refugees on humanitarian and compassionate grounds because, it said, the minister was systematically turning down every such request. This position announced by Vigil was supported by many other refugee support groups working in Canada.
The figures justify what Vigil had said. For example, in the period January 1, 1991 to April 22, 1992 only 23 of 3,485 cases were admitted on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. For the entire year of 1991, in Quebec only four out of 884 cases were admitted, and in Ontario only 16 out of 2,288 cases were admitted.
What I am talking about is a discretionary power given to the minister in the Immigration Act to admit refugees and other immigrants, especially refugees, who have gone through the process but for one reason or another, despite the merit of their case, it is turned down, either due to mistake, forgotten evidence, the fact that new evidence has come on after the case was heard, error, or whatever.
The power given to the minister to admit cases on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was the last resort given to refugees-I am talking about meritorious refugees, not phoney ones-to have their cases heard and to be granted admission to this country.
I am not talking about the humanitarian and compassionate review which is done at local levels throughout Canada after a refugee's case is turned down by the Immigration and Refugee Board. There is an automatic review at the local level of all cases turned down locally by the Immigration and Refugee Board. I am not talking about that.
In answer to my question on June 2, the minister said that 8,000 had been admitted in 1991. He is talking principally of those cases which are reviewed at the local level. I am talking about the direct appeals to the minister.
On June 2 I asked the minister why he was systematically turning down all these cases, why he was changing the policy under the former minister. That discretionary power had been used with good judgment. He gave me no answer.
During the debate on Bill C-86, the minister announced that he appointed Gordon Fairweather to recommend criteria for the use of that power. I welcomed that announcement, but I want to know today when Mr. Fairweather will report. When will we have these criteria in place and will the minister not use this power in the interim period and those cases that are flagrantly admissible? There are some cases where it is obvious the individual is a refugee but there has been an error. Would the government please at least-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I have quite a long answer here but I will try to get part of it in on the record.
I would first like to place the question in context of noting that persons who have been refused have already been through a pre-inquiry on humanitarian and compassionate review, the most generous refugee determination process in the world with regard to acceptance rate.
We are interested in offering protection in Canada to those persons who are individually in need of protection. The primary criteria of this post-review was to take place after second level of CRDB refusal. It is to ensure that we do not remove persons who would become a "person of circumstance case" with respect to refugee review climates.
December 10, 1992

As surely good people, we must also consider that over one million people each year inquire about immigration into Canada through a normal process. These decisions are made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration all aspects of the case.
In addition, the government has undertaken as part of Bill C-86 to seek regulatory powers which will allow the creation of special programs on public policy on humanitarian consideration.


FUR INDUSTRY
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to once again address the issue of the fur industry and the sealing industry.
As you have probably noted in my request to appear again, I am not satisfied with the answers that I received during Question Period and I have asked for an adjournment debate.
I want to deal with the obstacles this industry is currently facing. The economic livelihood, of course, of the Inuit peoples and the people of Newfoundland is being seriously jeopardized by these rather callous and insensitive, mostly foreign financed animal rights campaigns which have unfairly targeted what is left of the sealing and fur industry in this country, an industry which is also sustainable and environmentally friendly and a cultural way of life.
I have asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make a commitment for the protection of the livelihood of these peoples by launching a counter ad campaign. I feel that would be very effective and would at least send a message out that the fur industry is not up for the abuse of foreign financed organizations which do not really care about the livelihoods of the people of Canada, the original peoples of Canada. 1 urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make that commitment.
In light of the finance minister's recent economic statement in which we can expect 10 per cent cuts in funding to a number of vital aboriginal programs, I want to stress the importance of this government continuing its commitment to organizations such as Indigenous Survival International and the Fur Industry Defence Program. These organizations provide a voice for the fur industry in this country and also struggle to provide that
Adjournment Debate
Canadian sealers and trappers have the tools they need to struggle for their economic survival.
Last Wednesday the Minister of Finance announced that this government's priority was to build confidence, enhance growth, create jobs and help Canadians take advantage of new opportunities. He also stated that: "Trade is Canada's life-blood".
After almost 400 years, Europe still takes 75 per cent of our wild fur production. The incomes of 100,000 Canadians depend upon access to that market. In 1995 the European Community law will try to end this remarkable trading record by placing severe restrictions on most wild fur exports. If this government is really committed to keeping the Canadian fur trade competitive, the Minister of the Environment together with the Minister for International Trade and Industry, Science and Technology must reaffirm that their departments each will provide the adequate funding needed to complete the trap standards and research work required to satisfy and meet 1995 European Community humane trap requirements.
In addition to this, the Minister of Finance, who says he is committed to helping Canadians take advantage of market opportunities, needs to assure the trappers and sealers in this country that the proper educational and new trap technology training programs and information must be made available. This government must not let three-quarters of our market slip away, never to be regained again.
It is time for this government to take action and make a firm commitment on this national and fast becoming international issue. Mr. Speaker, you and I are both advocates of the fur industry, as I know only too well. We both wear fur publicly and I encourage our leaders and our elected officials to do likewise.
I would also like to say I want to wish all those hard-toiling individuals out on the trapline a very merry Christmas.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to my friend from Western Arctic, particularly in the presence of my friend from Timiskaming who has taken such a lead role in his work with the fur industry over a long period of time. The fur industry is, in fact, Canada's oldest industry. There has been a wild fur industry in this country for over 400 years. The reality is 95 per cent of the Canadian market is in Europe. If we want to continue to trade with Europe we must protect the interests of the constituents of my colleague opposite and from other parts of the

December 10, 1992
Adjournment Debate
Arctic. We must protect the trappers in northern Ontario and other parts of this country, as well as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who depend so heavily on the seal industry.
We must recognize we have to have a realistic approach in response to the European legislation. Its demands have made it very difficult for our trappers. However the response of government, the fur industry and those who depend so heavily on it has been to sit down and work together. We must ensure we have the proper trapping methods available to all so we comply with European law, but we must also have the skills and tools my hon. colleague talked about available to us.
There has been an extensive amount of training provided to aboriginal peoples and there is a special emphasis on replacing any outmoded equipment. The co-ordination over the last five years has been provided by Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There is a renewed commitment by this government to ensure that program is in place for the next five years to protect those markets and ensure the people of this country who have depended so long and so heavily on the fur industry can do so in the future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I recently asked a question of the minister of external affairs dealing with David Spencer and Christine Lamont who are in prison in Brazil. The answers I received from both the minister and the Prime Minister have me concerned. They are indicating the request for expulsion would not be automatically granted. I agree with that, but they go further and say it has not been granted in modern times and is not the type of thing that could be utilized. Yet the evidence I have which the justice committee received indicates quite clearly the expulsion order would be expedited quickly and has been granted in the past. In fact, a Chilean was expelled from Brazil just within the year.
There are precedents for this particular remedy under Brazilian law. The Prime Minister, in an excellent response to my question went into great detail. But one thing he said which has me concerned is that Christine Lamont's illness was just a minor thing, a swelling in the legs. From the information we are given, that may well be the case, but in all likelihood something more serious is causing that particular problem. It ranges anywhere from tuberculosis to AIDS. Those are serious matters and I do not think the Prime Minister should simply just cast that away and say: "Well, it is not that serious. It is just a minor thing".
The third thing that really has me concerned is I spoke with the premier of the province of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna who said he had a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister assured him he had already requested expulsion and was committed to that. However, when the Prime Minister responded to my question he said that no, that was not the case, that he never made the commitment to the premier. I do not want to get into a fight between the Prime Minister and the premier of New Brunswick, but there is a veiy wide difference between what the Prime Minister is saying and what the premier is saying. I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to clarify his position and clarify just exactly what is going on with respect to the commitment he made to the premier of New Brunswick.
All in all when you translate it, according to the minister's own officials this matter can be dealt with veiy quickly on a state to state level. If a request came from Canada to Brazil, the minister of justice in Brazil promised to expedite the matter just as quickly as it could possibly be done. Many people in Canada and I feel this is an excellent opportunity to get two Canadians back to Canada. No matter whether they are guilty or innocent they have served three years in a Brazilian jail. If they were here in Canada they would probably be eligible for parole. If they were Brazilians they would be eligible for parole. Now we have an opportunity for Canada to intercede on their behalf and bring them back to Canada.
This is the step that we would like to see. For that reason the response of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quite frankly unacceptable to the families and to a number of Canadians.
December 10, 1992

It is time that we looked out for these Canadians, as well as other Canadians who are in other jails and who are experiencing similar problems. We have a chance and an opportunity to act on their behalf and we ought to do so.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my hon. friend from Moncton. As he correctly said the Prime Minister did give a very complete answer to this question yesterday. I do not think the Prime Minister would have committed himself to do something that he knew he could not do.
It cannot be assumed that if Canada were to ask for the expulsion of Christine Lamont and David Spencer it would be granted automatically. While the Brazilian president has the discretionary authority to grant expulsion, it has been emphasized to us that there is a clear distinction between the authority, as set out in the Brazilian constitution, and the practice by which that authority is exercised.
We have been told that in practice expulsion would not be granted while appeals are under way or before the convicted prisoner has served his or her sentence. We have also been told that the Brazilian government would not agree to expulsion in these circumstances because it would amount to unwarranted interference by the executive branch of government in the affairs of the judiciary and would discriminate against the other defendants who would not be released or expelled.
The case of the Chilean who was recently expelled from Brazil bears no resemblance to this case. There was no court procedure under way in Brazil in his case, nor was he even in custody. The Chilean authorities wanted him in order to provide information on individuals for whose disappearance during the Pinochet regime he is alleged to have been responsible. This is essentially an extradition case and was handled by expulsion because it is a more rapid procedure.
On many occasions the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed concern over the severity of the sentences received by Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer. These sentences and the convictions themselves are being appealed in the Brazilian courts. The Canadian embassy in Brasilia has been working actively to ensure that both the appeal of the convictions and the appeal of the sentences move forward as quickly as possible.
Adjournment Debate
Unfortunately, the appeal of the sentences received a set-back on November 30 when the judge ruled that an essential document was missing from the appeal documents, but this ruling was immediately appealed by the lawyers representing Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer. The embassy will continue to do everything possible to ensure that the appeal process keeps moving expeditiously.
The embassy's efforts to hasten the ratification of the Transfer of Offenders Treaty between Canada and Brazil, which was signed last July 15, have also been achieving some success. The treaty was approved by the foreign relations committee of the Chamber of Deputies yesterday and we are told that it will be forwarded to the justice committee today.
Finally, I would like to reaffirm that the consulate general in Sao Paulo is doing everything possible to ensure the safety and welfare of Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer. Last week when the consulate general learned that Ms. Lamont was suffering from swelling of the ankles it immediately dispatched a Canadian doctor to examine her. After consultations with the prison doctor who had examined her previously and with Ms. Lamont's lawyers arrangements for blood tests at a private facility were made. The consulate general provided sterile syringes for the blood test. It will continue to monitor the situation closely and provide all possible assistance.


AGRICULTURE
Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture a question with respect to the Crow benefit.
Western Canadian farmers are at a disadvantage in western Canada because they are hundreds of miles from port. In fact, in some cases they are over 1,000 miles from port and have to ship their grain long distances to those ports. The Crow benefit, and before it the Crow rate, has been instrumental in the grain transportation system as we know it in Canada.

December 10,1992
Adjournment Debate
Today, the grain transportation system accounts for tens of thousands of jobs and creates hundreds of millions of dollars for our Canadian economy. When the minister cut the Crow benefit it took $73 million directly out of the pockets of western Canadian producers and put in jeopardy the future of the whole Canadian grain transportation system. In fact, the loss of the Crow benefit will destroy this system unless alternatives are put in place.
The history of agriculture that this government has certainly does not show confidence in this government by the western Canadian producers because it has spent billions of dollars on agriculture in this country but the money has not been spent with any real objective in mind. We still have farmers losing their land, we still have problems in agriculture, we still have rural communities disappearing.
Taxpayers should be upset, farmers should be upset, rural communities should be upset at the waste of money that this government has spent on agriculture. What is even more disparaging is the fact that this money could have been spent much more wisely and with a much greater benefit.
The fact that this government is removing the Crow benefit causes me a lot of concern and causes farmers right across this country a lot of concern. Unless there is something to put in place of the Crow benefit there are going to be grain shipments south. They are going to be going through different ports and our transportation system as we know it is going to disappear.
Right now the St. Lawrence Seaway is in severe difficulty because it is not receiving the grain shipments that it feels it should and it is having financial difficulties. There have already been shipments of grain that have gone through the state of Washington as an experiment. Some of the grain companies are already talking in terms of moving grain south.
It is going to wreak havoc on the economy of western Canada if those procedures continue, if the Crow benefit continues to be reduced and if the Crow benefit disappears. The only reason grain is not moving south right now is the Crow benefit which provides a financial advantage for the farmers to move their grain on the Canadian lines. If the Crow benefit is gone, if the Crow
benefit disappears, what we are then going to see progressively is more and more grain moving south.
Look at the subsidized Mississippi River route that the Americans employ. If somewhere down the road they change their attitude toward subsidies and if the cost goes up we may find ourselves in Canada unable to ship grain via the Canadian route simply because we have not taken into account these alternatives.
I would like to ask the government, at a time when it is reducing the Crow benefit, at a time when it is taking money out of the farmers' pockets, what alternative programs does it have in place? What is its plan? When it reduces the Crow benefit, when it loses the Crow benefit, what is it going to put in place to ensure that we have not only farm families in viable rural communities but a viable and healthy Canadian grain transportation system?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, in considering the impact on agriculture of the economic statement by the Minister of Finance, it is important to examine the whole package of measures.
In seeking the control of the over-all budget, the government is asking many groups to make sacrifices and adjustments. The government has exempted some groups and most important it has exempted the major safety net programs for farmers.
The safety net programs are the core measures through which governments and farmers together have organized to protect farmers against unfavourable markets or production uncertainties. The government recognizes that prices to farmers are among the lowest in history, but that is precisely why we have in place the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, the Net Income Stabilization Accounts, Crop Insurance and the National Tripartite Stabilization Programs. These programs are completely exempt from what the government is asking in other areas.
The over-all impact of reducing the WGTA subsidy by 10 per cent on the well-being of prairie grain producers will be small. At most, it would reduce operating margins by two per cent. What will be much more important will be world market developments and growing conditions in 1993. At the same time, it is estimated that net operating margins of beef and hog producers will increase by about one per cent.
December 10, 1992

The 10 per cent reduction in grants and contributions, including the reduction in the dairy program subsidy, while significant and meaningful, will not put individuals or subsectors at risk. The supply management system provides protection to the dairy sector that is more important and more valuable than a small reduction in the dairy subsidy.
The reintroduction of the 10 per cent investment tax credit for the balance of this year and for all of 1993 will provide significant benefits to farmers on the purchase of new machinery and equipment.
I would like to table the balance of this so that the hon. member can see that we are certainly working with the agricultural community.


ABORIGINAL HOUSING
Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I asked a question of the minister of aboriginal affairs concerning aboriginal housing.
I note the parliamentary secretary in the House is a faithful attender in the aboriginal affairs committee so he will be aware of the extent of the problem relating to aboriginal housing which the committee has been studying over the last several months.
What prompted my question was that a few days ago the associate deputy minister made a statement in the public accounts committee that of the 70,000 units of aboriginal housing stock in the nation, 35,000 of those units were unliveable. I would like to quote the associate deputy: "Thirty-five thousand units at this stage of the game would be what I call adequate and suitable, liveable in other words".
That statement was so shocking that I decided to bring the issue to the attention of the House during Question Period. When you consider that 35,000 units or half of the existing aboriginal housing stock is unliveable, that there is a backlog of housing units according to the Auditor General of 10,000 to 11,000 units that need to be built and that, when you add in the Bill C-31 requirements for people newly reinstated as aboriginal people under that bill, they require an additional 13,000 units.
The requirement for aboriginal housing stock is 59,000 units. The government is doing virtually nothing to deal with this backlog. The Auditor General's cost estimates, if they are extrapolated to the whole problem, would indicate that the total cost of eliminating the backlog of
Adjournment Debate
aboriginal housing would be $2.1 billion, or half the cost of the government's attack helicopter program. I want to emphasize that that cost is just to deal with the backlog.
My reason for asking the question was to point out that in the financial statement of the Minister of Finance, he did not include aboriginal housing as one of the job creation programs. Rather he included transportation infrastructure and transportation megaprojects.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that if aboriginal housing could be included under the minister's financial statement, it would have created jobs in aboriginal communities where those jobs are desperately needed. It would have created new housing which would have reduced the problems related to overcrowding such as drug abuse, sex abuse, family violence and all of those things that were pointed out by witnesses in our committee were problems with aboriginal housing.
It would have created needed employment in those aboriginal communities because building housing is the most job intensive way of investing capital that a government can do. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will have a positive response as compared to the one given to me by the member for Lincoln when she misled the House by her answer last Friday. I am looking forward to that answer.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to respond on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
My colleague from Comox-Alberni makes reference to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and the work it is doing on a study of aboriginal housing.
A number of the concerns that we are all aware of and some of the ones that he has alluded to are addressed in that report, not the least of which is that there is not enough money. That is clear. Not enough money is something that unfortunately faces all governments in this country, and it comes down to the ability of the government and therefore the society to respond to the need.
Clearly, as the report will point out, there are a number of needs other than just money, not the least of which is the way we deliver the programming and the best way that aboriginal people and aboriginal communities can take advantage of the housing.

December 10, 1992
One of the problems at this point is that to spend money in housing does not in fact provide the local benefit that we would like to see and we think possible. However, I think it is important to recognize that DIAND's responsibility for housing on reserve has led to a commitment that has increased by 34 per cent in the last five years, from $102.7 million to $137.8 million. This fiscal year alone, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has budgeted $300 million in direct contributions to First Nations governments. He will also provide about $127 million in guarantees for on reserve housing and CMHC will invest $100 million this year in on reserve housing as well.
Ninety-one per cent of the housing on reserve has brought adequate water service. Seventy per cent of the
Adjournment Debate
current housing stock on reserve has been constructed or renovated in the last 10 years.
As we have discussed and we agree, there was much to be done. One of the things that the department has undertaken is a major study of the housing need itself. There has been a broad consultation with First Nations. The government has spent about $2.5 million on that consultation and held over 250 meetings with a variety of First Nations and their representatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 11,1992