1992-12-09

Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the RCMP Public Complaints Commission for recognizing the grave injustice done to Kitty Nowd-luk-Reynolds by our very own justice system. The commission's report agrees with Kitty and with the views of many of us who followed the horrific details of Kitty's ordeal.
After suffering a violent sexual attack, Kitty was subjected to a further assault by an insensitive and callous justice system. The victim was again victimized. She was forced to serve the needs of a criminal justice system. The system did not provide for her needs.
1 want to commend Kitty for her courage and determination, for not allowing the justice system to go unchallenged and for exposing the flaws and deficiencies within the justice system to the scrutiny of all Canadians.
The justice system failed Kitty. I urge the government to act immediately to make the changes necessary to ensure victims of crimes are not victimized again by the very system which is supposed to help and serve them.
Happy birthday, Kitty. Thank you for what you have done on behalf of all victims of crime in this country.


ILLEGAL DRUGS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, drug smuggling is a serious problem in Canada as it is throughout the world.
A few weeks ago, we were successful in bringing down a joint Canadian-Columbian drug operation in Casey, Quebec. I applaud the work of the officials who seized $2.7 billion worth of cocaine and closed down a drug lab in Laval.
The government must get even tougher in its strategy to end drug smuggling and the entire illegal drug trade in Canada. We must ensure that local police forces which are burdened with costly drug-related investigations are compensated for their efforts.
I call upon the Solicitor General to introduce legislation that will allow municipalities to share in the proceeds from drug seizures.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have news for the House which might come as a shock to many members present but certainly came as no shock to me.
The two Ontario counties which constitute my riding have reported record increases in welfare applications. In fact, Hastings county reported the largest single increase in welfare case-load in the province of Ontario. Prince Edward county had the dubious honour of being in the top 20.
Despite the Minister of Finance's statements, I knew our area was being hit hard by a recession that will not quit. The sky-rocketing numbers of unemployed in the Quinte area are still reeling under its ravaging effects.

December 9, 1992
It seems that this government has not seen the devastation of its economic policies because it is concentrating so intensely on convincing itself that this recession is over.
It is time that members opposite wake up and shape up. They are wrong today. They were wrong last week and last year. They have been wrong for the last eight
years.
Either start putting Canadians back to work or give us the chance to do so.


QUEBEC 2002
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, today, speaking as the member for Quebec-Est, two-thirds of which consists of the city of Quebec, I would like to congratulate the promoters of Quebec 2002 on their success when the committee of the Canadian Olympic Association accepted their candidacy.
Throughout the process they were an example to us all by their determination and dedication, as well as by their outstanding presentation.
I am convinced that the same positive approach will help them take the remaining major stages in this process in their stride, and I want to say that I greatly appreciate their tremendous organizational talents.
This dynamic attitude will certainly reflect well on the Quebec City area, and its residents.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, employment in the Montreal area is now in a free fall. The situation is deteriorating rapidly, with a 6.6 per cent loss of jobs in one year. Today the Montreal area has more than 215,000 unemployed workers on the books. In downtown Montreal the unemployment rate was 18 per cent at the beginning of this year.
The situation is depressing in other urban centres in Quebec as well. During the past year, the unemployment rate has gone up in Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Sherbrooke. The average rate for
these four centres is 13.7 per cent, which is 2 per cent above the national average.
This is intolerable. The Tory government has ignored the plight of the people of Montreal and of all Canadians. The government's priority should be to bring pride and prosperity back to the Montreal area and to Canada as a whole, but to do that we will have to get rid of the Tories and elect a Liberal government.


AIR CADET LEAGUE OF CANADA
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement in support of the Air Cadet League of Canada and in particular, the glider pilot training program.
The goal of the program is to stimulate and encourage young Canadians in the field of aviation. Since 1966 the Air Cadet League has given a great number of our young people a constructive purpose in which they have the opportunity to acquire organizational ability and discipline as well as skills in aviation.
The glider training program began in my riding at Natook Aerodrome in Olds, Alberta.
Today I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by many devoted people. I encourage them to proceed with the long-term plans to provide accommodation and sports facilities for our cadets not only from Alberta, but also from B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northwestern Ontario.
Their dedication is much appreciated.


ROYAL ROADS MILITARY COLLEGE
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, rumours abound in my riding and in the greater Victoria area over the future status of the Royal Roads Military College.
Residents of southern Vancouver Island are hearing and reading reports that the federal government may decide to close this top-notch education facility which has served the best interests of our nation in an exemplary fashion.
December 9, 1992

This facility is the only one of its kind in western Canada. As such, there is a significant demand for such a post-secondary institute in greater Victoria.
Given the fact that Royal Roads Military College is a national resource and a much valued one in western Canada, and given the need for this facility adjacent to our defence establishments on the west coast, I strongly believe it would be a great error to proceed with any decision to close or erode the programs at Royal Roads.
I implore the Associate Minister of National Defence to put the concerns and anxieties of my constituents and other residents of the area to rest by stating that Royal Roads will have a safe and productive future in Victoria.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment report for the Vancouver airport took seven months. The environmental assessment at Pearson International Airport, by the time it is received by the Ministry of Transport, will have taken one year from the end of hearings to delivery of the report.
These time frames are ridiculous. If we are going to have environmental assessments, and I believe we must, then the Minister of the Environment should introduce legislation immediately to provide for the expeditious hearing of environmental concerns.
Otherwise, the whole concept of environmental hearings will soon become abhorrent to the public and the concept of environmental protection hearings will not be accepted because it prevents its development.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. Who speaks on behalf of language minorities in the federal cabinet? Who defends the interests of minority language groups in the country today?
We know the Secretary of State is ill, and we hope he will get well soon. But my question still is: Who defends the interests of language minorities in cabinet, at this time?
We know there will be a 10 per cent cutback in programs involved in language teaching and promotion across Canada. Again, the question is: Who will speak for and defend the interests of anglophone minority groups inside Quebec and francophones outside Quebec? The question is: Did the Prime Minister, who never met any of the groups since 1984, have the courage or the will to meet with these groups? I want to ask him here and now: Will you keep your word, Prime Minister? In April 1992, you promised you would meet these groups. Will you meet them soon to deal with a problem that has been waiting too long for a solution?


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement has resulted in a tremendous increase of trade between Canada and the United States to the point that we are becoming the net benefactor.
Now, before the North American free trade agreement is announced there is a company in Leamington, Ontario-I am glad you are sitting down, Mr. Speaker- that is selling cactus to Mexico. Imagine, selling cactus to Mexico. It employs hundreds of Canadians.
Who does not believe in the Canadian ability to manufacture and export all over the world? Only those opposite. They will now be pricked into realizing that the fact of the matter is that cactus to Mexico is only the beginning of the North American free trade agreement.


PROPERTY TAX REFORM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario NDP government is always professing to be the party of reform and the party of the people. However, Torontonians were given a rude awakening today when they learned that the NDP government at Queen's Park

Oral Questions
has decided to kill the Metro Council property tax reform package.
In my riding of York West the majority of working middle class households have been paying too much in property taxes for too long. The new tax reform would have given these families a legitimate and long overdue tax break. Just when it looked like Metro Council was going to throw out the old system the NDP provincial government has said: "No way".
Working middle class families are facing an already heavy federal and provincial tax burden and they deserve a break on their municipal bill.
Residents also deserve better from an NDP provincial government that says one thing but does another. I call on the premier to reverse his regressive, unfair and misguided decision and deliver on the promises of reform and honesty to working class families.


LINGUISTIC EQUALITY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has come to Parliament from New Brunswick affirming the equality of its English and French linguistic communities presents the reality of tolerance and mutual respect which has developed among the people of that province over many years.
These principles of linguistic equality were first established in legislation more than a decade ago by a unanimous vote of the legislature of New Brunswick, in which I had the honour at that time to participate. They are principles which have become a way of life in our province and have become increasingly well established through at least three provincial elections. I continue to support them fully.
I am deeply convinced that the equality of New Brunswick's linguistic communities will never be in danger because I have an abiding confidence in the commitment of our people to these principles.
However, the request from the province of New Brunswick to entrench these principles within the Canadian Constitution specifically for that province is both a timely and symbolic measure. It will not only reinforce official language commitments within New Brunswick, it will also strengthen the example of that province as a beneficial influence for all of Canada.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance tabled the government's economic statement in which he complained about how broke the government is. The minister needed every penny of revenue. He raided the UI fund, cut programs and operations and froze civil service salaries.
Yesterday, finance department officials admitted that for the past 20 years corporate investors have used offshore tax havens to shelter hundreds of millions of dollars in profits at the expense of the poor, the middle class and our social programs. Importing and exporting capital at taxpayers' expense and importing losses and dividends at taxpayers' expense is becoming standard business practice in Canada.
What escaped the treasury of Canada in 1990 and still escapes the treasury includes the $4.2 billion in tax-free dividends that the corporations have received from their non-arms' length "investments" offshore.
That, Mr. Speaker, ain't hay and it is only the tip of the iceberg.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
According to today's newspapers, it is clear that the situation in Montreal is absolutely untenable. The number of jobs has been dropping steadily for three years and Montreal now has 18 per cent unemployment. Quebec government officials say that, according to the OECD, the unemployment rate in several African cities is the same as in Montreal, 18 per cent. We all know that Montreal is a great city and must remain a great city.
Does the government have any special plans to restore prosperity soon to this city which is the engine of Quebec's economy?
December 9, 1992


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a major tool to strengthen Montreal's economy is Bill C-91, which is now before this House.
In 1987, the Liberal Party stubbornly fought Bill C-22. Since that bill passed in this House, thanks to our party, quality jobs have been created in Montreal. That is what we are trying to continue to do, but what we see now is the Liberal Party again opposing Bill C-91.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have seen a minister get up with a smile and boast about 18 per cent unemployment in a city like Montreal. Montrealers will remember in due course, when the government has the courage to call an election.

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance.
Today and every day over a period of time we have seen the bad news coming; 10,000 jobs lost at CN, 4,000 jobs lost in St. Catharines over the last six months, 3,000 jobs at Dofasco in Hamilton, 500 jobs cut at Pratt & Whitney in Montreal.
We realize that in the statement that the minister made last Wednesday there was no forecast for the level of unemployment for 1993 and 1994. Will the minister explain to us why he did not dare give us a level of unemployment for next year, or can we conclude from this lack of clarity of the minister that this government will be happy to have exactly the same 1.7 million unemployed in 1993 as there were in 1992?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we did indicate in the economic statement that we expected growth to be in the range of 2.5 per cent in 1993 and we also expected that there would be some 300,000 new jobs created.


Mr. Ferguson:: What is your forecast?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Call an election.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will remind the hon. member employment has grown in six of the last seven months. Almost 80,000 new jobs have been created, over 104,000 permanent jobs have been created since August. With the initiatives that have been taken with regard to the
Oral Questions
thrust of the economic plan which proposes to invest in growth, in people, in the small business sector, particularly from the standpoint of improving the incentives for re-equipping capital equipment and high technological equipment, plus the incentives for training and skills upgrading, plus the initiatives with respect to the infrastructure and a whole host of other positive things, we expect the 2.5 per cent growth to be achieved and perhaps exceeded.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am amused to see the Minister of Finance having the gall to get up and make predictions on economic growth. Six months ago he got up in this House and said that there would be so much revenue. He has been known since that day as the $8 billion man who made a mistake of $8 billion over a period of six months.
Is it for that reason, that he does not know where he is going, that he does not dare to give the people of Canada the forecast for unemployment for 1993?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 300,000 jobs is pretty specific. If the hon. members opposite would get on with the job of supporting this government on a number of initiatives such as Bill C-91, there would be a lot more jobs created.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of industry. We were concerned to learn today that when the retooling of the General Motors transmission plant in Windsor is completed some two to three years from now, 1,200 fewer people will have jobs there than is the case at present.
I ask the minister, what will the government do now to ensure these people have jobs rather than facing indefinite layoffs and no work? What answer does the government have today?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should put this in perspective. I think my hon. friend has got it backwards. There will be 400 fewer, not 1,200 fewer workers. These workers during the time they are subject to temporary lay-off will be receiving 95 per cent of their salaries under the

December 9, 1992
Oral Questions
supplementary unemployment benefit plans of the companies.
He should also be aware that Ford laid off some people in Windsor while they were retooling and then replaced it with a $1 billion investment which was announced earlier this year.
GM Sainte-Therese laid off some people in Sainte-Therese in July 1991 and in September 1992 a large portion of them were back on the job with a new facility that was more competitive, more productive, and in that way maintains and provides for a strong base on which to build in these other communities. I would suggest it would be the same way in Windsor.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister has no answer about what will happen to the hundreds of workers who will not be called back after the retooling is completed. I have a supplementary question for the minister.
He talks about unemployment insurance and supplementary benefits. Is he not aware that the SUB fund at General Motors does not have enough in it to provide 95 per cent of benefits? Does he not know that the unemployment insurance of the workers at the GM plant in Windsor will run out more than two years before the plant reopens?
I ask the minister, what are he and his government going to do to ensure that these workers have incomes to support themselves and their families before they can go back to work? In particular, will he speak to the General Motors management to ask them to continue making the three speed transmission in that plant as originally planned rather than having it moved to the United States? Will he make that request or is he going to sit back and rub his hands over misery rather than progress?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that last shot I do not think impresses anybody, whether in this House or people watching it on television. No one is rubbing his or her hands in glee on this side of the House when we see this sort of restructuring going on.
We on this side of the House are realistic. We understand the nature of the restructuring that is going on in the world today. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, in his budget this past spring as well as in the
economic statement last week introduced a number of elements in the tax system and other parts of our policies which encourage the restructuring that is going on in a way that will keep that business here in Canada.
If my hon. friend would reflect again in a realistic way as to what is happening with General Motors across North America and look at what is happening within Canada, I think he would see that policies that have been followed within Canada are attracting business to Canada in a very positive way.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Last night I was in Montreal to talk about the economy. The government knows the situation in Montreal is catastrophic. The Government of Quebec spends $3 billion annually on welfare payments in the province, and one-third of the people on unemployment insurance in this country live in Quebec. Last week in the Minister of Finance's statement nothing was announced for Montreal.
Will the government finally take steps to deal with this emergency?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are no miracles in economics. However, there are certain tangible things we can do to promote economic recovery in Montreal.
One is Bill C-91 now before the House, which would result is the creation of hundreds of new jobs in Montreal in the R and D sector, a vital component of economic and industrial expansion in Montreal.
The New Democrats, however, are against the bill. I suggest that instead of going to Montreal, the hon. member for Yukon should stay in Ottawa and help get this bill through the House. She could then go to Montreal and get all the kudos. The people of Montreal would tell her: Well done, you finally did something to promote economic development in Montreal.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is saying to us in this House that his government is prepared to push through a piece of legislation, Bill C-91, which will serve to help destroy medicare in this country and increase health costs in
December 9, 1992

every province, including Quebec, and in every territory. That is a crime and we do not support Bill C-91.
Across this country we see the devastation that this government's policies have brought. In Windsor today 1,600 GM workers will be laid off; a GATT panel has ruled that the United States broke international trade law when it harassed the softwood lumber industry; and in fact, yesterday in Quebec City we heard from a coalition of Mexican labour, peasants and human rights organizations that the trade deal, NAFTA, will be bad for Mexican workers.
I appeal to the Prime Minister to do something for Canadian jobs. Will he agree not to proceed with the NAFTA deal? Trade policy in this country has been an abject failure.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the
NAFTA deal is now bad for Mexican workers, maybe it is good for Canadian workers. My hon. friend will have to make up her mind.
My hon. friend is wondering what she can do to be helpful in terms of job creation. Her members could pass Bill C-91, but the leader of the NDP says that they will not pass Bill C-91 because it is bad for the economy. The member from Windsor says it is bad for the country. The day before yesterday Eli Lilly Canada announced a $170 million investment in Scarborough as a direct result of the federal government's new drug patent law.
I draw to the attention of the leader of the NDP-and I think this is significant-what the premier of Ontario said. The premier of Ontario said-


An hon. member:: Ah.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Pay attention. With regard to the $170 million investment he said: "It is great to be here on a good day with a good announcement. We in the Government of Ontario don't want to be so opposed to Bill C-91 that we turn away investment. Not at all". That is what he said.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The premier of Ontario, for the record, is clearly opposed to Bill C-91.
I would like to remind the Prime Minister since he wants to transfer statistics that the B.C. minister of health gave evidence to the committee on Bill C-91,
Oral Questions
saying that it would cost that province $145 million more in health care costs just for two drugs, because of Bill C-91.
I want to say to the Prime Minister it is clear that trade policy in this country has been a failure. Tax policy in this country has been a failure. Would the Prime Minister direct the Minister of Finance to bring in an economic statement that would create jobs in this country, not cost jobs in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, jobs are created in Canada by the creation of a climate within which the private sector can invest and create jobs.
My hon. friend asks for an indication of how this can be done. I just indicated yesterday that if she passed Bill C-91 there would be $70 million of new investment in Scarborough, Ontario, with hundreds of direct research and development jobs. If she will not accept my word for it, I urge her to take the word of the premier of Ontario who says: "We don't want to be so opposed to Bill C-91 that we turn away investment".
Premier Rae is quite right. That is a very thoughtful statement, and I commend it to the leader of the NDP. After she consults with the premier, if she changes her mind on Bill C-91 that will be a very important policy initiative for the NDP.


CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Parents are not working and children are not eating. Brother Richard from the Good Shepherd Centre in Hamilton has advised us this morning that the centre alone is going to be feeding 3,750 children before Christmas.
The Sunday before Christmas that same centre will be offering a Christmas meal, a one-sitting Christmas meal to 1,200 people who do not have enough to eat. There are 342 food banks across this country and the number is growing daily.
If the plan of the Minister of Finance is working, why are the children of Canada going hungry just before Christmas?

December 9, 1992
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course all of us are saddened by the tragedy that is occurring.
It has to be recognized that we have taken a number of very serious steps arising out of the economic plan I outlined last week to generate growth, to invest in people and to invest in business, particularly the small business sector; things such as the freeze on UI premiums for the employer, the 10 per cent investment tax credit, improved access to capital, improved treatment with respect to capital cost allowance on high-tech equipment, improved funding for IRAP, the extension of the home buyers' plan, assistance for the oil and gas sector, and assistance for the mining sector.
All these things are designed to generate growth through investment, to generate renewed economic activity, to bolster confidence and economic growth and to create jobs.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister about children.
In Saskatoon 2,500 food baskets are going to provide sustenance for kids and their families in the next two weeks. A Christmas dinner will feed 2,200 people in Saskatoon alone.

In Quebec City, 4,000 families will depend on Christmas baskets for food during the Christmas season. In Montreal, 18,000 children will receive Christmas baskets from Sun Youth.
I would therefore put the following question to the Minister of Finance: Why did he forget the children in his so-called mini-budget? Why did he not directly address the problem of one million children in Canada living below the poverty line?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have not forgotten about children. As a matter of fact the child benefit package which will take effect on January 1 will unleash another $2 billion over the next five years to children, particularly working families that are in the poor and middle income categories. What could be more responsive than that?
In addition, the reduction in personal income tax that took effect on July 1, 1992 and an additional 1 per cent that will take effect on January 1, 1993 will unleash another $2 billion worth of disposable income into the economy.
Clearly the best social safety net is a job. What we announced last week were steps to encourage growth, to encourage economic activity and to create jobs.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's photo-op of a year ago when he signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child cost Canadian taxpayers over $50,000. Canada committed itself then to reducing child poverty, yet every report indicates that this year more children are living in poverty than there were last December.
Even though the children are not here today for another photo-op, their problems continue to haunt the government. Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge to the House that Canadian children have taken a giant step backward in the last year?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to children the Minister of Finance outlined quite clearly the child benefit package that will come into effect on January 1, which puts another $2.1 billion into the hands of lower income people.
Another matter I would like to mention has to do with Brighter Futures that the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced some months ago in which we are assisting those people who really need the help with another $500 million over five years.
We do acknowledge there are problems. I want the member to know that we have looked at the needs of children very specifically, not necessarily in the economic statement but we took action long before that.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister, in listening closely to the parliamentary secretary's response, will note that she does not deny the fact that children are worse off this December than they were last December. It does not matter where
December 9, 1992

they are in western Canada, whether they are in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver, the depression-like lines lengthen as the economy shrinks.
In last week's mini-budget there was no offer of any additional support for Canadian children. When will the government face the reality that under this barbaric economic strategy hundreds of thousands of children can no longer be fed or housed by their impoverished parents?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, some $15 billion is spent by the Government of Canada to alleviate this serious problem. My hon. friend will no doubt want to put on the record that the total incidence of low income Canadians has fallen from 18.1 per cent in 1984 to 14.6 per cent at the end of 1990. Moreover, inasmuch as he mentioned-


An hon. member:: That is pretty selective quoting.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think it is important for the House to understand-


Mr. Avworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: One in four children in Winnipeg is living in poverty.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Inasmuch as he mentions Winnipeg, there is a report which refers to the fact that a family of four living in Winnipeg would have fallen below the low income line if its income was less than $29,661. That is a tight budget by any standard but most Canadians would not consider it poverty.


An hon. member:: For what year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is for this year, almost $30,000 according to Campaign 2000. In this particular case in Winnipeg the poverty line was drawn there; the low income line was set extremely high by the standards of any industrialized country. I point out to my friend that obviously if we put the limbo pole that high it makes it extremely difficult.
However there has been progress made in this important area. Canada is alleviating child distress and child poverty. I would hope my hon. friend would recognize the very significant steps forward that have been made by the government and the Parliament of Canada.
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Windsor is Canada's fifth largest industrial centre. Right now, because of the policies of this government, it has an unemployment rate of 14 per cent and for youth it is around 27 per cent. Because of retooling, 1,200 permanent jobs are going to be lost at General Motors.
What is the government going to do? Will the minister consider a special training adjustment program for Windsor? Would he consider the possibility of putting some jobs in Windsor, perhaps an immigration centre in this border town rather than Vegreville? What action is this government going to take?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is the same member who a while ago was attacking the cutbacks by the province of Ontario.
The solution for the working people affected by this massive restructuring has to be found by all the stakeholders working together trying to alleviate the impact of this and to find solutions.
That is why in Windsor, as in other communities across Canada, when a massive lay-off or a restructuring takes place affecting workers we have with the provincial ministry of labour in the province of Ontario and the programming under the industrial adjustment services agreement we signed with the union and owners of plants measures to help those people.
I know that party believes in the magic of the easy statement to solve problems, but it just does not work that way in the real world. We would rather work with those people on the ground in order to find solutions.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, we checked with the minister's officials in Windsor today. No initiatives have yet been taken by the ministry there. It suggests in fact that nothing is likely to be possible on the training front because very few jobs are available at this stage.

December 9, 1992
Oral Questions
Last week it was St. Catharines. This week it is Windsor getting kicked in the teeth.
Is the minister prepared to show some real leadership on this issue? Will he set up a program of community development help and early retirement support? Will he get out and negotiate directly with General Motors to try to see to it that the number of lay-offs is reduced during this significant period of retooling?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members in the House should know this. My understanding is that the 1,600 laid-off workers at the Windsor plant will receive a combination of unemployment insurance benefits and supplementary company payments equal to 95 per cent of the base salary after taxes until they are recalled in August 1994.
The industrial adjustment service program will be offered to the company and the union for 400 employees who will not be recalled in August 1994 at the GM Windsor plant location.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
The post office in Saint-Clement de Rimouski has been occupied for nearly a week and we just learned that people in Scotstown in the eastern townships have been occupying their post office since one p.m. and that a demonstration is being prepared in La Riviere, Manitoba.
Is the minister prepared, finally, to understand common sense and abandon his policy of closing rural post offices?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that these are not my policies nor are they the policies of anybody else. The House agreed unanimously in 1991, in creating Canada Post as a crown corporation, that it should be free to operate at arm's length, free of political interference.
That was a good decision on the part of Parliament. Were I to ignore that decision and to interfere politically, I am sure the hon. member would be among the first to be up on his feet calling it contempt of Parliament.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is utter nonsense. The minister knows that he and his government approved the corporate plan of Canada Post calling for the shutdown of 5,221 rural post offices.

I will put my supplementary question for the Prime Minister, then, since his minister refuses to understand common sense. Is the Prime Minister prepared to announce today that the government is giving up the policy of closing rural post offices in Canada? Is he ready and does he have the courage to make that announcement?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really does not have to shout rudely to be heard.
Let me also say to the hon. member that the corporate plan respecting the opening up of new retail outlets in the stores where people normally go to do their other purchasing has been in place for several years. About
3.000	of these outlets have been opened up and another
3.000	are due to open.
There have been significant changes in the historic way in which the post office has been operating. When the post office has gone to those communities where those changes have been made, the approval rating is 90 per cent. To suggest that a policy which has the approval of its customers to the tune of 90 per cent is in my opinion a wrong-headed attitude on the part of the hon. member.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it concerns the announced redevelopment of Pearson airport in Toronto.
December 9, 1992

Oral Questions
If Air Canada is not going to pay more as a result of the redevelopment of Pearson and if the developer is going to make money as a result of this project, can the minister tell Canadians how much the taxpayer is going to forgo in lost revenues and how much the travelling public is going to pay in increased fares, fees and taxes?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, when we put out the RFP in March, it contained the following provisions.
The developer will be required to take on the ongoing operations of terminals 1 and 2 and associated facilities in a manner which provides fair and equitable access by users to the national air transportation system and proposes a terminal development program which appropriately considers both the timing of demand for additional terminal capacity and the economies of the air transportation industry.
We are developing a plan which will not call for additional input by air carriers.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister will forgive me if I have trouble understanding how he proposes to pull off this feat of financial wizardry. The government is taking us into a major plan of airport expansion at Pearson at a time when many of the people who work there are wondering how long they are going to be able to retain their jobs.
The question is very simple. Who is actually taking the risk for this multimillion dollar project that he has announced at Pearson airport. Who is going to pay?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not be surprised that I do not understand what he is saying.
The hon. member said at the time that we issued the proposal that no sensible corporation would be prepared to go along with a proposal of this nature. He has been proven wrong. Two very reputable firms have tendered to the Government of Canada two very good proposals. We have examined them and Paxport's proposal has been selected as the better. It will be providing the money.


TAXATION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question. As of January 1, 1993, the minister is planning to prevent companies from deducting from federal income tax the provincial payroll and capital taxes that they pay. The disastrous effects of this measure have already convinced the minister to delay or postpone its implementation. Could the minister not announce now that he is giving up this idea once and for all, since it would cost Quebec employers $300 million more over three years?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member that there will be a meeting of finance ministers next week and this issue will be discussed.
I am sure that my hon. friend understands that it is important to preserve the federal tax base. That kind of payroll tax deduction serves to erode the federal tax base and we have to keep that in check.
We will attempt to find ways and means to deal with that, but I can assure my hon. friend that we will deal with it in a co-operative fashion with the provinces.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hope from the minister's answer that he will consider very carefully that this is not the time, with very high unemployment in Canada and in Quebec, to impose a burden that directly penalizes those who hire the most personnel. I really think that the government will want to avoid being in the strange situation of doing double damage, first hitting the unemployed and then those who create jobs. I ask the minister if he can give a message of hope at this time to all those in Quebec who are waiting to be told that this burden will not be imposed on them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that is being discussed.

December 9, 1992
Oral Questions
I am sure my hon. friend understands that it is important to prevent the constant erosion of the federal tax base. We are trying to put in place the appropriate kind of a structure, the appropriate kind of a formula that will preserve the tax base while at the same time not provide an undue burden on the provinces that use this kind of taxation.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
The announcement in St. Catharines of the closure of the foundry and the intended closure of the axle plant are causing bitter feelings in my community. It has been acknowledged that these operations are profitable, modern and efficient and that the workforce enjoys an advantage of approximately $9 per hour over their American counterparts. The reason given was the lack of ability to expand these operations to take in other parts of the GM operation.
Is the department able to do anything to help maintain the viability of these operations or alternatively, can it help in looking for a purchaser, especially for the axle plant which General Motors has indicated will be for
sale?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has pointed to an area where we can help. We will work with General Motors in trying to find possible purchasers of the axle plant. We will be sitting down with the company to get the various elements of information to assist in this.
To the extent that we are able to be of assistance, we certainly will be very happy to do so.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
News reports today say that GATT has ruled against Canada and found that the U.S. commerce department
had the right to initiate special countervail action against Canadian softwood exports rather than following their own procedures for such a process.
Can the minister confirm whether, in fact, GATT has issued such a report and whether GATT has made any decision on the question of the U.S. demand for our raw logs, the real issue behind this whole softwood dispute?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has only got it half right. I can confirm there has been a report. There is a decision on the part of the GATT panel that we have just recently discussed with the provinces and with the industry, and I am pleased to share it with my colleague today.
As to the question of the bonding that the Government of the United States levied at the time of its announcement, the GATT panel found the United States in error. The result will be that some $15 million worth of bonds will have to be returned to Canadian exporters.
On the other question, my hon. friend is correct.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: On the question of the bonding, my question to the minister is this. What specific steps is he taking to make sure that the Americans give us our money back?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that the Americans would honour the GATT panel ruling.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This is something we will be taking to them. If they do not we will press the matter as aggressively as we possibly can. It is very dear in the GATT panel ruling that the position we took when we put the matter before the GATT panel is correct.
I might also say to my friend that we still have, subject to chapter 19 dispute settlement panels, the question of the final injury and subsidy rulings.


JUSTICE
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
December 9, 1992

In February of this year William Henry Williams was sentenced to six years in prison for incest. Last month his sentence was reduced to four years. Now, after only nine months in prison, he is eligible for parole and his daughter Sandra is afraid.
For 13 years this man molested his daughter, sometimes raping her twice a day. A few years in jail is far too lenient for a man who inflicted such a lifetime of suffering on an innocent daughter.
What measures will the minister take to ensure that people convicted of committing these horrifying crimes remain in jail for at least as long as the abuse took place, and that they serve their entire sentences?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that Bill C-36, which was proclaimed as of November 1, tightens up the measures for sexual offenders considerably. As well, and I appreciate that this is a new area of the law, we have made allowance in the law for victim impact statements to be given to the parole boards and also any victim will be given all of the details of the parole.
This has been in effect for a month now and we are monitoring the parole board hearings where victims have been in attendance. As far as we can determine, it is working well and we will continue to monitor the system.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Does the Solicitor General know that the band leadership of Kanesatake is very concerned about the security of its community and it asks the federal government for help with respect to policing.
In fact, the Mohawk have asked the government for assistance in training the community watch force. They want a liaison arrangement with the RCMP so that this force can be trained properly and they will have a competent force composed of both native and non-native people.
When is the Solicitor General going to meet with Grand Chief Peltier to enter into a plan to implement this request?
Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are making some progress at Kahnawake in meeting with the native people there and dealing with the peacekeeper situation.
I will be quite frank with my hon. friend; I know of no current request from Grand Chief Peltier for assistance at Kanesatake. I shall contact my officials immediately after Question Period and get back to my hon. friend, perhaps during the vote.
The Solicitor General's department has responsibility for the new native policing policy now. We have negotiated several treaties across Canada and some are very close to completion in the province of Quebec. As for specific details on this particular situation, I will get back to my hon. friend.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We are approaching the third anniversary of the incarceration of David Spencer and Christine Lamont. Canadians across the country and right here on Parliament Hill are maintaining a vigil on their behalf.
We have learned of Christine's illness. Hopefully it is a minor illness, but it could be life threatening. The prison conditions are dangerous and unacceptable.
On humanitarian grounds alone, will the Prime Minister honour his commitment to Premier McKenna and ask for their expulsion?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I made no such commitment to Premier McKenna at all.
In point of fact, the concept of expulsion which I raised with the President of Brazil and have subsequently written about to the new President of Brazil has been bandied about in a manner that is quite unfair to the families involved.
There seems to be the view that all one has to do is go and ask for the expulsion of a criminal, or an accused person or a convicted person in that country and the President will oblige.

Routine Proceedings
It is important that members of the House understand this is not the case. Both the President and the Minister of Justice have advised that this is not the case. It is a most exceptional procedure and one that is used with the greatest of reluctance.
Also, my hon. friend refers to Christine's illness. The illness reported was swollen ankles. The doctor from the Consulate General in Sao Paulo attended upon her in the prison and is apparently assured that everything is okay.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been employing every effort and I have been in personal touch with the new President of Brazil on the question of the appeal.
We have been informed that the attorneys for the parties apparently neglected to include a document which brought about a revision in the procedure itself irrespective of the appropriate efforts of the attorneys for the Government of Canada.
We would like to see the treaty concluded between Brazil and Canada as quickly as possible so that the two Canadians can then come to Canada, pursuant to the provisions of this treaty, and be dealt with in Canada under Canadian law. This would be, in our judgment anyway, much more humane and much more reasonable. We could deal with it much more expeditiously.
I will take just a second of the House's time to explain to my hon. friend that we are in close and ongoing contact with both families. We are deeply concerned about this matter. We are employing every effort on behalf of both individuals.
There are some 550 Canadians held in prisons around the world for various offences, in much the same way as Canadian penitentiaries house nationals from other countries today.
We are trying to operate within the law and to cause that law to be expedited in the interests of these two Canadians.
I want to give my friend and the House the assurance that we are employing every effort on behalf of Christine Lamont and David Spencer because we believe they are worthy of our attention and concern. We are giving this matter every effort that we possibly can.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think all Canadians appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is undertaking to communicate with the new President of Brazil.
With respect to the issue of expulsion, the chief legal adviser to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said to the justice committee: "The Brazilian Minister of Justice also said to us that he would be prepared to facilitate an expulsion if that were to come forward at the state-to-state level".
In view of the Prime Minister's undertaking and his personal interest in this case, will the Prime Minister now make the request at the state-to-state level for expulsion which, according to the legal adviser to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would be responded to positively?
Will the Prime Minister take that very important step on behalf of Christine Lamont and David Spencer?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend to the hon. member a letter sent to the chairman of the justice committee of this House which goes into some considerable detail on this legal procedure.
The Prime Minister has given an excellent answer to the question.
With regard to the expulsion procedure, it has not been said by our legal counsel that a state-to-state request will result in expulsion.
There is a great deal of detail in the letter. I would be happy to share it with the hon. member. It was a letter to the committee which I think now is public.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Access to Information Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Federal Court Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of

December 9, 1992

Canada Act, the Ttx Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and a related act, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of this motion.	Routine Proceedings [Translation] PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF OFFICIAL VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND
[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN	Mr. Charles DeBlois (Beauport-Montmorency- Orleans): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of a parliamentary delegation's
ANNUAL REPORT	official visit to New Zealand. At the invitation of the
Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the official annual report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.	Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives, a Canadian delegation visited New Zealand from November 8 to 14, 1992, and I have the honour to present this report. At this occasion, we had productive discussions with New Zealand parliamentarians on a number of issues of mutual interest, in particular international trade and Canada-New Zealand relations in general.
We had the privilege of having meetings with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who
[Translation]	extended their warmest thanks to Canada for helping New Zealand get a seat on the United Nations Security
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA	Council.
TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT	Finally, meetings were organized with some business people who have operations in Canada. This was certainly a successful visit and a most rewarding experience for


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), on behalf of the Prime Minister, I have the honour to lay upon the table copies, in both official languages, of the annual report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada.	participants from both countries. I wish to thank our New Zealand hosts for their hospitality, their kindness and the excellent agenda prepared on our behalf. I also wish to thank and commend the members of the Canadian delegation for their contribution and for having so ably represented this House.
* * *

PUBLIC SERVICE 2000	CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
PROGRESS REPORT	EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Also in the name of the Prime Minister I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), to lay on the table copies in both official languages of the Public Service 2000 report on progress.	Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.

December 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
The report concerns the committee's inability to have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs come before it despite numerous invitations extended by the committee. It calls for the support of this House in getting the minister to appear.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound - Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment.
The report is entitled From Words to Action. It pertains to acid rain control initiatives and was prepared by the sub-committee on acid rain and adopted by the standing committee.
The report contains 11 recommendations. Principal among them is a request that following research into the effects of acid pollutants on human health, the federal government through the minister of health and welfare present to Parliament an interim report of its findings before the end of 1993 and a final report before the end of 1995.
A lot has been written about acid rain. Much has been accomplished, but more needs to be done.
It is with pleasure that I chaired the sub-committee on acid rain. I wish to acknowledge the excellent co-operation and work of the members of the subcommittee. We found our work to be rewarding. A government response is requested, pursuant to Standing Order 109.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 58th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed to be adopted once it is laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


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


Marcel Danis: 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.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-102, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and a related Act.


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 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.


BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-383, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.


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


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to recognize the situation of consumers who have made down payments on goods and then while they are waiting for the goods the retailer goes bankrupt. They ought to be able to get their down payment back. Therefore, this
December 9, 1992

bill would give them a super priority, which banks already have, in order to get their down payment back.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Rodriguez 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.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke - Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-384, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (remission orders).


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


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's bill that proceeds on the principle that Parliament ought to review public expenditure. It would require that any remission orders prepared by the government be presented to Parliament together with a justification report that would indicate that there is a net benefit to the country. This applies to remission orders in excess of $1 million, and would provide a 60-day period during which Parliament could consider the remission order before it would otherwise automatically take effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Boyer 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.


CRIMINAL CODE
Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-385, an act to amend the Criminal Code (aiding suicide).


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Routine Proceedings


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to allow for physician-assisted suicide upon the request of a terminally ill person, as recently recommended by the B.C. Royal Commission on Health Care.
In introducing the bill, I want to pay tribute to a very courageous women, Sue Rodriguez, and to John Hoffess and the Right to Die Society who have eloquently and tirelessly pursued the rights of all Canadians to die with dignity at a time of their choosing.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robinson 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 PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL
Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-386, an act respecting Canadian professional football.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first, if I might, I would like to make a slight correction. The seconder of the bill is the distinguished House leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Kamloops. I would ask for that to be amended.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. I am sorry I was unaware of that and I apologize to the hon. member and to the hon. member for Kamloops. Thank you for the correction.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to set out some rules that would be designed to protect the independence and integrity of the Canadian Football League. We all know that this is an important institution and part of the culture of this country. It is one of the remaining institutions that brings Canadians together on an annual basis to share in something they find both enjoyable and entertaining.

December 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that members of Parliament have an opportunity to debate this important issue. This is one that is of great concern to many Canadians. By presenting this bill, we hope to give all members of Parliament an opportunity to clearly represent the views of their constituents and make sure that we have an honest and fair evaluation of how we can maintain and protect the Canadian Football League for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South 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.


INCOME TAX ACT
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-387, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (auto mechanics).


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


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to allow automobile mechanics to deduct the cost of tools they must provide on the job from their personal income tax.
The Canadian Automotive Repair and Service Council, the Canadian Automotive Repair and Service Institute and automobile technicians from across the country have been requesting the government to make this change for some time.
I think that it is important to note that working men and women in this country are unable to get income tax justice at the same time as two-martini lunches are still deductible. I would surely hope that this House would support this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Ms. Langan 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.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-388, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts in consequence thereof (pornography).


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


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to strengthen and clarify the current law against obscenity. The bill for the first time would clearly define what is meant by adult material to be kept from those under 18 and pornography. The bill defines pornography in five categories; from violence causing or appearing to inflict direct bodily harm in a sexual context, to degrading sexual acts, to other specific sexual acts.
The bill proposes for the first time in the Criminal Code to protect children and women from exploitation, abuse and violence in pornography. Pornography not only degrades and dehumanizes women, but it leads to acts of aggression and violence against women and children. It is time for all Canadians to attack the personal and social evils of pornography with tough criminal sanctions up to five times more than current sentences, as this bill proposes.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Reimer 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. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-389, an act to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy).


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
December 9, 1992


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill which proposes an amendment to the invasion of privacy sections of the Criminal Code.
Recent lower court decisions have called into question the effectiveness of the existing Criminal Code provisions on eavesdropping and wiretapping. In particular, these decisions have stated that the privacy protection provisions of the code do not apply to private conversations conducted over cellular telephones.
This bill makes it very clear that every telephone conversation between two or more individuals will be safeguarded from intruders, and that includes cellular telephone conversations.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Lee 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
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I move:
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 United Nations from December 14 to December 16, 1992.
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 substitution shall be effective for the entire period of travel and should be effective immediately when received by the clerk of the committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?
Routine Proceedings FINANCE


AUTHORIZATION FOR STANDING COMMITTEE TO TRAVEL
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to move:
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 International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
for four days in January or February, 1993.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


An hon. member:: No.


PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition in relation to Bill C-91 from a group of petitioners from the west coast of Canada. They ask Parliament to repeal Bill C-22 and not proceed with Bill C-91 so that Canadians will have the full benefit from lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less coverage.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
The first is from a number of my constituents in Coquitlam who ask the government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and repeal Bill C-22 passed in 1987 so that Canadians will have the full benefit from lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and provide less coverage.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is a huge petition with lots of signatures from all over British Columbia from the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of British Columbia called COSCO and the Canada-wide peaceful grassroots people who support the universality of medicare.


An hon. member:: No.

December 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners pray that Parliament and the government restore the original terms and conditions of the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Jim KarpofT (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which points out that whereas family class and assisted relative immigrants have historically been an important part of Canadian immigration and whereas family class and assisted relative persons have relatives in Canada to assist them in finding employment, housing and learning the Canadian language and customs they call upon this government to reverse its policy and again establish family class and assisted relatives as the number one priority for immigration.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition certified correct by the clerk where the petitioners remind the Elouse that it expressed concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and would seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from La Motte and Amos, in Abitibi. The petitioners state that films of violence shown on television are dangerous and unacceptable because they promote more violence.
Consequently, the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to legislate on the above-mentioned problems, to put an end to violence in our society and to better protect our children and ensure a better quality of life for all our fellow citizens.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by 1,900 people who
support the environmental cause promoted by the students' association of the Sorel-Tracy CEGEP. This group, headed by Eric Plouffe, has gathered signatures from all regions of Quebec. The total of 1,900 signatures demonstrates how seriously the government should take ozone depletion.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise today pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by numerous Canadians calling on the government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal the 1987 Bill C-22 for the purpose of protecting our medicare plans, our provincial pharma-care plans and our senior citizens from the ruinous cost of the high prices that would be induced by this legislation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by residents of Busby, Alberta, Vancouver and Burnaby, British Columbia and other towns and cities in Alberta and British Columbia noting that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination in sentencing and parole.
The petitioners note that the cumulative effect of these irregularities provides ample ground for the Government of Canada to seek a remedy on their behalf and that the only remedy is expulsion. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from one of my constituents, Mr. Robert Varty. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that a free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the U.S.A. would be economically detrimental at this time. The petitioners also believe that an agreement to this effect would not be honoured, as has been proven by the trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.A. Therefore, the petitioners request
December 9, 1992

that Parliament refrain from signing said free trade agreement.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one has 48 signatures from the lower mainland. It is in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis and supports the strengthening of the Young Offenders Act to protect Canadian society.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: This second petition has 346 signatures, also from around the lower mainland. It calls for the speedy return of Christine Lamont and David Spencer to Canada.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: I have three petitions to present to the House. The first petition requests that the income tax system be made much simpler. The petitioners feel it is much too complex at this particular point in time. They point out certain incongruities and injustices in the system. For example, people can get a deduction for receipted child care, while those who choose to stay at home cannot. They would like that cleared up.


BROADCASTING
Ron J. Duhamel: Another petition points out that Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the CRTC carefully regulate the use of foul language in radio and television programming. The petitioners believe that very often this language is a form of abuse that counteracts the efforts of the family with their children. As well, they point out that it is not necessary to use this type of language in order to inform or entertain.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ron J. Duhamel: In the final petition that I have to present today the petitioners ask that the Government of Canada remove the GST from books and other reading materials. They point out that there has never been such a tax. They feel that reading is the cornerstone of democracy, as well as a key to building a healthy economy.
Routine Proceedings FISHERIES


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Ramea have sent me a petition, and 1,100 of them have signed it. It is clear and to the point so I will make a brief reference to it.
They feel that they have been discriminated against by the fisheries minister in his refusal to grant the fish plant employees of this community benefits under the Northern Cod Adjustment Program.
Second, it says that there is no doubt that they, the people of Ramea and the plant workers, qualify under the program because of their historic attachment to the northern cod fishery.
Therefore, they call upon the House to take appropriate action and overturn the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and give the residents of Ramea the benefits they justly deserve. I support wholeheartedly the prayer of the petitioners.


BILL C-327
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition signed, coincidentally, by 36 professors from the University of Saskatchewan. They support Bill C-327, the employee share purchase plan. It is endorsed by the departments and a majority of professors in accounting, finance, industrial relations, and management and marketing departments.
The bill is presently in committee and I would encourage all members of the House to support the bill.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour again today to present petitions in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis. Rosalynn was a young girl who was brutally murdered and a young offender is now on trial for her murder.
It is truly unfortunate it takes a tragedy such as this one to make us realize that a change in attitude and law is necessary. A large number of people have been signing these petitions and they ask that we consider making some drastic changes to the Young Offenders Act. Protection for the average Canadian has to be made a greater priority.


BILL C-268
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Oxford House, Grassy Narrows, Bear Island,

December 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Crocus Bay, Oil Springs and Nelson House. They indicate that Canadians wish to designate a day of recognition of Canada's original inhabitants to honour native cultures, and that June 21 is the most appropriate day. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268, an act respecting a National Solidarity Day for the First Nations of Canada.


WATER EXPORTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: The second petition I have to present is on a different topic. The petitioners, all from Clearwater, British Columbia, are simply pointing out their concern about potential water diversion programs. They ask that the Canadian government pass legislation declaring that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadian senior citizens.
They wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line, and that it is desirable for all Canadians to provide the necessary support to enable them to live their lives as independently as possible.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure that Canadian old age security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present a petition to the House from constituents of mine in Victoria.
The petition asks the House to consider removing the goods and services tax from women's sanitary products. It is signed by at least 100 people, mostly from Victoria, and I commend it to the House.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 366 will be answered today.


Mr. Belsher: What is the total sum of federal funds, in dollars, credits, services, loans, and grants, received annually since 1988 by (a) The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (b) the Legal Education Action Fund (LEAF) and (c) REAL Women?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Secretary of State as follows:
Justice Canada Secretary of State of Canada
a) The National Action Committee on the Status of Women
	$	$
1991-92	5,657.83	300,000.1990-91	-	396,000.1989-90	-	506,000.1988-89	-	621,897.1987-88	-	630,678.b) Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)	1991-92	18,112.62	232,248.1990-91	-	257,198.1989-90	26,859.00	257,498.1988-89	19,250.00	273,233.1987-88	-	276,770.c) REAL Women of Canada	1991-92	2,241.28	6,916.141990-91	-	-1989-90	-	2,095.001988-89	-	21,212.001987-88	_	_


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
December 9, 1992


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 352 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 352 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Vanclief: Since November 21, 1988, with respect to government loans to businesses, (a) how many businesses have received (i) loans (ii) loan guarantees (b) what are the names (c) what is the total dollar value of the loans or guarantees?
Return tabled.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was on December 12, 1991 that I put the following question on the Order Paper. It is very brief. I would like to read it into the record because I have still not received a response:
1.	What is the total amount of revenue collected by the government from the goods and services tax since January 1, 1991 and what has been ihe total amount spent on (a) advertising (b) tax credits (c) GST rebates (d) set-up costs (e) other expenses associated with the implementation of this tax?
2.	What is the total of GST revenue placed in the Debt Service Reduction Account and what is the current balance of the account?
I recognize that my hon. colleague has been attempting to get a response. I am also very anxious. We are nearing the end of the session and I still do not have answers to those questions that my constituents are raising. I am wondering if we might get it later on today or tomorrow.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the patience and I recognize the impatience of my hon. friend. I have given him assurances and those assurances stand.
Government Orders
We have a couple of more days in which to get some results for him. I will make sure we make every effort to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House the Senate has passed Bill S-16, an act to restructure United Grain Growers Limited, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 135(2), the bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: I move, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That, in relation to Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of report stage and one sitting day to the consideration of third reading stage of the bill; and

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask you to refuse to accept this motion of time allocation on debate on Bill C-91 at report and third reading to a further two sitting days. In some ways this is a rather unusual point of order.
I am not so much asking you to interpret whether the Standing Orders of the House are being properly applied so much as whether the Standing Orders applied in this instance are consistent with the over-all responsibility of the House to make decisions in a parliamentary democratic fashion.
I am seeking to make only one point; that the motion to curtail debate on Bill C-91 at this time and in this way goes against what you once called "fair play and common sense" and that it is offensive to "the sense of what is appropriate under certain circumstances and which is acceptable to reasonable people".
Those were your words, by the way, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to begin this short point of order by submitting that as Speaker you have a special responsibility to address this issue. Mr. Speaker, you have both the authority and the responsibility to prohibit a motion of time allocation if, in your judgment, it is being used abusively.
There have been several occasions in parliamentary history when a Speaker has been called upon to intervene in this way. I would like to refer to two cases. One is the intervention of closure by Speaker Brand in the 1880s and the other your ruling, Mr. Speaker, of April 14, 1987.
I know I do a disservice to the history of Parliament by trying to distil Speaker Brand's famous closure ruling into a few sentences, but the history is clear. Parnell in the parliamentary Irish caucus abused the rules and obstructed the will of the majority. The democratic nature of the House was threatened by that abuse. The public wanted this abuse to end, and the Speaker intervened. He was acting in the interests of both the institution and the democracy that it served.
Over a century later, the Speaker of this House was asked to intervene to prevent what was perceived as an abuse of the rules when this caucus used dilatory tactics to prevent a time allocation motion from being moved to end debate on Bill C-22, a drug patent act.
I was House leader of the New Democratic Party caucus, the current government House leader was the then minister responsible for Bill C-22, the chair is still occupied by the same Speaker, and the bill before the House at that time and today are very similar. These parallels lend a parenthetic irony but nothing more to this point of order.
With the players all here in the House, it is not necessary to relate the history of your April 14, 1987 ruling. I would like to cite parts of it as I find, Mr. Speaker, you make my argument most compelling. You said:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.
Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or another, the total stagnation of debate or the total paralysis of the system.
When negotiations fail there comes a time when the Chair is obliged to consider what are its own responsibilities. One of the functions of the Speaker is to ensure that the House is able to transact its business. This does not mean that the Chair plays any part in assisting the government in the management of its business agenda.
There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the rules of procedure provide no solution the Chair must fall back on its discretion in the interests of the House and all its members. This may require the Chair to modify or vary an earlier decision.
Notice of time allocation motions after only a few hours of debate at any stage of a bill can be an abuse.
December 9, 1992

Both time allocation motions and dilatory motions are open to abuse. When such tactics are entered upon by either government or opposition the delicate balance of democratic parliamentary government can be easily upset. The maintenance of that balance is a fundamental responsibility of the Speaker.
The question is: What is time allocation and closure and what are the checks on its abuse? In your consideration, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reflect upon the nature of our time allocation and closure motions and the manner in which the Standing Orders governing them were adopted.
Closure and time allocation are two separate concepts. While both restrain debate, the first is a motion to curtail it, and the second is a motion to structure it. In current Canadian practice that distinction is somewhat blurred, but in Britain the distinction continued and there are safeguards against abuse in both circumstances.
In the use of closure, a minimum number of members must support the closure motion. The Speaker has a power, which is often exercised, to refuse to accept a motion of closure if in his or her view it is premature. In the use of time allocation, of guillotine motions, there are different safeguards in Britain.
As was formerly the case here, a debate is required before a time allocation motion is adopted. One safeguard against abuse then is public debate. This serves not only to permit an explanation of the need to use the measure, but is an added incentive for negotiation to be used instead of unilateral government action.
Another safeguard is the practice of allocating a minimum amount of time to be given to consideration of each section of a bill. That way it does not occur in Britain, as it could today on Bill C-91, that a bill is passed without certain clauses or amendments being explained or rebutted at all. Under our rules we have no such safeguards. The motion for time allocation is not debatable and it not amendable.
Mr. Speaker, you once told us that division bells are no substitute for debate. By accepting a time allocation motion which cannot possibly provide for debate on all components of a bill, no matter what the collective efforts on both sides of the House are, we will arrive at a situation in which votes have become a substitute for debate.
Government Orders
I would argue that if division bells are no substitute for debate then it is also true that divisions are no substitute for debate. You may hear it argued that since the House adopted the time allocation mechanism, this mechanism has the support of the House. Since the House passed the motion, the House supports it. I ask the Chair to consider the questionable nature of this argument in the context of Parliament's best traditions of implementing change as consensually as possible.
The changes the House adopted to its Standing Orders in 1991 were not consensual. They were supported not by the House but by one side of the House only.
Is time allocation warranted at this point? The evidence is to the contrary. Considerable time was spent in committee discussing the timetabling of the bill but if this was intended as filibuster, it did not work. The opposition parties not only agreed to but volunteered a proposal which ended the roadblock in committee and ensured that witnesses were heard on this important bill.
I believe the record shows that there have been no dilatory tactics to prevent consideration of Bill C-91.
I do not want to misrepresent the case. If we could have successfully defeated this bill through a sustained filibuster or dilatory tactics we would have. That is what we attempted to do back in 1987.
Perhaps the discovery and availability of new dilatory tools were positive incentives for us in opposition to use instead of a debate to communicate our concerns about the legislative proposal. However, in 1987 you intervened, Mr. Speaker, to remove that temptation from us.
Consider, though, that the unilateral changes to the Standing Orders and easy use of closure are now positive incentives to governments to use those tactics instead of negotiation and consensus building. It is not appropriate that the Chair similarly intervenes now and removes that temptation as it did earlier. Just as it saved us from ourselves, so to speak, in 1987 is it not time now to save the government from itself and save the institute from the abuse of rules by either side?
In conclusion, I simply want to say that I am asking the Chair to refuse to accept the time allocation motion until there has been more debate on the bill or until the motion is amended to provide further debate. I ask that the Chair ensure that the debate on Bill C-91 provides an examination of each of the key elements of the bill. In short, I ask the Chair to take whatever measures it

Government Orders
deems necessary to restore fair play and common sense to these proceedings.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party who has made a veiy solid and worthwhile suggestion to the Chair that this particular time allocation not be allowed.
My colleague made reference to the Chair's decision of 1987. At that time I was the critic for the Official Opposition regarding Bill C-22 and the government House leader was the minister responsible. However, it should be noted in the record that at report stage there are 73 amendments before us and we are now on amendment No. 1. It is very difficult in view of the interest that has been expressed, not only by members of the opposition but by members of the government, that we have a thorough airing of all those amendments to give each and every one an opportunity to express ourselves with regard to this particular provision.
In conclusion, at the committee stage there were a few witnesses but there could have been more witnesses in terms of number, and discussion could have been more extensive if the government had seen its way to elaborate further at committee stage.
I hope the Chair will give serious consideration to the point of order which has been raised, not allow this time allocation, and fall back on the principle which the Chair has used and demonstrated repeatedly in this House; namely, a measure of fairness for all members of Parliament regardless of their political persuasion to have an opportunity to put their views on the record on a subject matter which is important, not only in terms of the aspects of intellectual property, but also as it affects our health care and as it affects consumers in this country.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will give due consideration to this worthy point of order.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Kamloops for reading those notes which were eloquent but irrelevant and not entirely factual.
All of the procedures in respect to Bill C-91 that were followed by the government were in total keeping with the Standing Orders of the House and are therefore in order.
Certainly, as the hon. members opposite have said, it is important for the Chair to be fair. It is also important for the Chair, as the Chair always does, to recognize that the rules of the House as set down by the House are necessary for us to proceed in orderly fashion.
I want to correct a couple of items. The hon. member for Kamloops talked about insufficient time. Second reading on this bill was started in June.


Mr. Nowlan:: Summer recess.


Harvie Andre: In the argument given by the hon. member, time must be required for the public to have an opportunity to consider it and for public reaction to set in. I think five months is a pretty good period of time.
The hon. member over there shouting from his seat says it was summer. Do people put their brains in neutral during summer, are they incapable of considering it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Patrick does not work all summer.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, no.


Harvie Andre: I wonder if the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants would allow me to conclude my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. government House leader is replying. The House has listened carefully to the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, and I am sure the House would want to listen to the rest of the words of the hon. government House leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the total time given at second reading was five hours and 15 minutes.


An hon. member:: It is not enough.


Harvie Andre: It is not enough? There was some reference in the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops as to the practice at Westminster, the mother of Parliaments. It was able to have a second reading debate on the Maastricht treaty which I think people would recognize as pretty profound in terms of the future of Britain and Europe and so on. It was able to conclude that in six hours and have a vote. For some apparent reason, on an important bill, but hardly of the same calibre as the
December 9, 1992

Maastricht treaty, five hours and 15 minutes is considered insufficient.


An hon. member:: Nine days lost.


Harvie Andre: At committee there was 11 hours and 45 minutes of discussion and nine days offered by the government which were turned down by the opposition-nine extra days of committee meetings. There was ample opportunity offered for detailed study.
The hon. member also mentioned that the Standing Orders of 1991 were not agreed to by the opposition. Standing Order 78(3) in play today goes back to 1969 which, if I am not mistaken, precedes everybody who is currently in the House.
I am sorry, there is one member who was here in 1969.


An hon. member:: The loud guy in the back row.


Harvie Andre: Sorry, there are two members.
To suggest that Standing Order 78(3) is somehow an invention of this government is to misrepresent the situation.
Finally, the hon. House leader of the Liberal Party raises a point that I think we do need to consider. That is the 73 report stage amendments.
We have to consider it in this context. The intent of the rule changes that were brought in was that legislation would be given second reading in the House, it would go to committee for detailed study, come back for report stage and third reading. The intent was that amendments to bills should be discussed in committee. There they could be looked at in detail, they could be discussed, debated, voted on and dealt with.
The practice which is observed here is that the opposition members on the committee simply refuse to allow the putting of any amendments, wanting to bring them into the House, thereby negating the value of the committee study as it is currently structured.
We might want to look at some changes to our Standing Orders to make committee study much more useful of members' time than it is currently turning out to be because of the practices that are being used.
Government Orders
In conclusion, I repeat that any reasonable person will find that proper procedures have been followed. This motion is totally in order and we ought to proceed with holding the vote so the important debating points that hon. members opposite want to make during report stage and third reading can be made.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A very short point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was a member here when certain rule changes were brought in. At that time Parliament did live and there was honest debate on controversial subjects. Mr. Speaker, as you undoubtedly know, and certainly the Table will know, the government House leader is right on the last part of what he said.
Now that I am on the opposition side, I wonder about moving amendments in committee because then you cannot move them in the House where you get the attention.
I never agreed more with the hon. member for Kamloops than on this issue. This bill was introduced on June 23, the day the House of Commons adjourned for the summer recess, and notwithstanding what was said by my hon. friend and former brotherly-like comrade, the member for Etobicoke, who talked about the summer, we all know that this past summer was involved in constitutional discussion.
Parliament came back on September 17 and that is when debate first started on second reading for one hour and 50 minutes.
We then adjourned because of the referendum, which was a unique period in Canadian history when the focus was on the Constitution and what was happening to Canada. There was no attention at all to the drug patent bill.
We had the referendum. We all know the results of October 26. This Parliament came back on November 16 and the bill was discussed for two days. Closure was put on the first day of debate, November 16, after two hours and 25 minutes of debate. The second day, November 17, debate was for three or four hours, for a total-and the government House leader has it wrong, to be fair-of eight hours and 40 minutes of debate at second reading of Bill C-91.
Mr. Speaker, in the sense of Parliament that used to be, if there ever was a bill that needed more focus from Canadians without the distractions, important as the Constitution was, that is Bill C-91. If the government is

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
so convinced of its case, why is it so scared to have parliamentary debate in this open forum?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader said-and I know there are some games played here-that with 73 amendments, how in all sense of parliamentary tradition can they be discussed fully. We are not England where we know the longest debate was for two days on the European Common Market. In this country we are spread out and we need time to debate in this forum, if it means anything, to find out if people from coast to coast still believe in any of the issues we debate.
Debate cannot be choked off after three days between a September day when we were involved in the Constitution and then coming back here in the post-constitution hangover that the member for High River still has. There were two days of debate on November 16 and 17. Does the House think this is long enough for an honest debate on something that affects Canadians from coast to coast? Every Canadian takes drugs and patent medicine and pharmaceutical drugs and it is fundamentally important we examine this thoroughly. If there were ever a reason to support the unusual and unique motion of the member for Kamloops, if this Parliament is to mean anything, then this is the time for you, Mr. Speaker, a person equal among all of us, to exercise your discretion in favour of Canadians, not just in the technical interpretation of rules.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, although, in principle, it goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois is against limiting debate. However, we are somewhat surprised to hear the NDP complain indignantly about time allocation today, after having connived with the Liberal Party during the referendum debate to limit debate in order to prevent us from speaking out. When fighting for principles, you cannot act the martyr when, just a few months earlier, the very same principles were applied in reverse to limit debate.
In that sense, we can understand that the government would want to limit debate on this bill so vital to the Montreal area, as the NDP, by its attitude both in
committee and in this House, does not seem to want the debate to progress toward a conclusion and a vote. Without agreeing with the principle of time allocation, again we are surprised, considering the Liberals and the NDP had supported these very principles to limit us at the time of the referendum.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I know that the House would want me to respond to the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants who have raised an issue here which is, to put it simply, that it is inappropriate for the government to move now for time allocation. Some comments that I have made in the past have been quoted and I have listened very carefully to what I once said.
The difficulty it seems to me that those proponents of the motion are in is that, as the hon. House leader points out, there have been changes in the rules and the government has followed exactly the course it must follow under the present rules which govern us.
There has been some suggestion that when the present rules were past it was without the full consent of all the members in the House and that may well have been the case. The Speaker's area of manoeuvre in acting on discretion is always somewhat circumscribed and in this case it clearly is very much constrained.
I have to advise the House that in my view the government has followed exactly what the rules of the House are. As a consequence, while I have listened with great interest and some sympathy to the points made by members of the opposition, nonetheless I must rule that the matter can go forward.
The House has 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.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
December 9, 1992


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, December 8, consideration of Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, as reported with an
[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1992
Government Orders
amendment by a legislative committee, and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak against this bill.
I think it is important to reiterate what this bill is all about. It is not about extending patent protection for pharmaceutical drugs. It is about completely eliminating, for the entire 20-year patent period, the right of any generic manufacturer to produce a drug that is under patent and to compete with that drug on the open marketplace.
Not only are we completely eliminating a process of licensing generic drugs in the patent period and providing cheaper drugs for Canadians, but we are making it retroactive. This means that somebody, who a year ago had the right to produce a drug, will be told that that right was cancelled a year ago once this bill passes.
What is the impact going to be? The impact for Canadians is going to be higher drug costs. Right now, generic drugs being produced while the original is still under patent cost 53 per cent of the cost of the patent drug. That is a saving of 47 per cent for Canadian consumers.
Who benefits from this? The patent drug companies benefit from this. I will give just one example. The changes brought on with this legislation to one drug company will mean $1.3 billion. That is just from making this provision retroactive and preventing competition with one of their drugs in the marketplace.
One would think from what we have been hearing from the representatives of the drug manufacturers that generics were undermining the market and threatening to destroy the whole industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generic drugs account for only 8 per cent of the market leaving fully 92 per cent of the market to the patent drug manufacturers who claim they need the protection and the extended rights that this legislation provides. Not only that, but this patent drug industry is the most profitable industry in the Canadian economy and in the American economy.
I think we have to ask who pays for these great gains. As I said, there are billions of dollars of revenue to be gained by the drug companies. Seniors will pay. Taxpayers will pay through medicare. Anybody who is too poor to have a drug plan or works for a company that does not have drug plan will pay. That usually means lower-paid
workers in our society. Every single taxpayer across this country will pay for the extra revenue and the extra profits to be generated for the drug companies that already represent the most profitable business in North America.
Insurance plans will pay. Many of us have plans that cover the cost of our drugs but those do not come without a cost either. Ultimately it is the medicare system that will pay.
We have growing concerns about the cost of our medicare system and anything that adds to that burden undermines continuing a universal accessible health care system for Canadians.
Four hundred million dollars a year is being saved by seniors, the poor, insurance companies, taxpayers and middle class taxpayers because we have generic drugs in this country.
We have heard fear-mongering that new drugs to serve the health needs of Canadians to cut our health care costs will not be produced if we do not pass this bill. What utter nonsense. Canada accounts for 2 per cent of the global patented drug market. Do not tell me that companies are not going to continue to produce drugs for the 98 per cent of the market.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Marlene Catterall: Although we consume and account for only 2 per cent of revenues, only 1 per cent of the research money is being spent in Canada. This is from the industry that five years ago said: "Give us extended patent protection and we will spend more money on research in Canada".
Only 1 per cent of the new drugs developed are developed in Canada although we are 2 per cent of the market. Far fewer drug company profits go into research in Canada than in the United States and other countries around the world. We are getting half of our share of research. This is from an industry that five years ago said: "Give us more of a free rein in the marketplace, remove our competition and we will do more in the way of research."
What we have in Canada is branch plant drug companies. We do not have basic research. We do not have the kind of foundation that this country wants to see in this industry that is the most profitable in our economy and it does not deserve the kind of protection that this Conservative government is now proposing to offer.
December 9, 1992

It is really astonishing to see this bill coming forward from a Conservative government. What is it talking about? This is the government that talks about free market. This is a bill that limits competition. It says that for 20 years one does not have to compete against anybody else.
It is offering the patent drug companies a protected market for 20 years. This is the government that talks about competitiveness. How can competitiveness flourish, however, when rules change in the middle of a game? A company that a year ago was able to produce a drug is told now that despite the money invested in getting that drug ready to come on the market, it is not going to be able to do that because the rules have changed and they have changed retroactively.
We talk about fairness. The generic companies now have permission to produce 22 patent drugs that will not come on the market and will not compete with patented drugs because this government is saying that the rules of the game are changing. The change goes back to last year. We are removing the permission to provide 22 different drugs at a lower cost to Canadians.
We talked about honesty. There is no honesty in the debate on this bill. It is not extending patent protection, it is entirely removing the right of any company to produce generic drugs as long as the patent lasts.
It is not true that GATT requires us to do this. The proposed changes to GATT have not even been approved. Even if approved they would allow one year for a country to act and even after that year there is no certainty that Canada would have to take this kind of action.
It is not true that NAFTA requires us to do this. How could NAFTA require us to do this when NAFTA has not even been introduced in this Chamber? It has not yet been debated and has not been approved.
Government Orders
If NAFTA tells us what we can and cannot do to provide health care for Canadian citizens then we do not need NAFTA. That is just one more reason to vote against it.
I want to say a few final words about the corruption I have seen in people's integrity around this issue. This government attempted to suppress a report from its own officials that showed what this bill would do to drug prices in Canada, a report that said that patent protection was not producing research now and would not in the future. The report by our government officials would have led us to the conclusion that we should be cancelling the 1987 Bill C-22 that extended patent protection rather than making it absolute as this bill proposes to do.
I and every member of this House resent it when officials are told not to tell the truth, when they are brought before a committee of Parliament and gagged, when they are prevented from telling the truth about the scientific and analytical work they have done.
With all the money that is being spent on lobbying for this bill, we must ask who gains and who loses. Those who gain are the most profitable industries in this country. Those who lose are seniors, the poor, and the taxpayers, those least able to afford to pay to increase those profits.
To conclude, I do not think that we are here as government and as Parliament, to benefit the most profitable segment of our economy at the expense of those least able to pay.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-91 which I view as a particularly significant piece of legislation for the drug industry in the province of Quebec. It is well known that this bill has generated considerable controversy and goes back to Bill C-22. You will recall the uproar, both in the House and in the Senate, surrounding the passage of Bill C-22 which paved the way for the present situation allowing us now to strengthen the protection granted to companies involved in research.
The government is aiming at striking a balance between economic growth and consumer protection. Bill C-91 builds on the 1987 amendments to the Patent Act called, as I already mentioned, Bill C-22.

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
In 1987 the government took the first steps to stem the exodus of researchers and manufacturers who were deserting the Canadian drug industry in droves for a more welcoming climate. The 1987 amendments to the Patent Act were aimed at developing a policy favourable to research and innovation while protecting consumer interests.
As you know, Madam Speaker, it is essential to reward research if we want to promote a strong economy at a time where technological expertise and international competition are forever growing.
In other words, we want to keep drug developers in Canada in order to increase our research and technology capacity here and not elsewhere. We want companies to stay in Canada so that they employ our science graduates, invest in plant and equipment on Canadian territory, invest in research in universities, hospitals and other research centres, and export from Canada instead of importing from abroad. These are the objectives we want to achieve, together with a solid mechanism to control the price of patented medicine.
We never wanted to stimulate unbridled growth of the drug industry at consumers' expense. The spirit of our policy in 1987, as today, was to guarantee tight control of patented medicine prices so that the prices paid by Canadian consumers remain reasonable. We obtained this guarantee with the 1987 amendments, thanks to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. This board has done its duty and with the present bill, it will have more power.
Bill C-91 will authorize the board to reduce prices that are considered too high and to impose fines and prison terms on those who refuse to comply with its directives.
Detailed calculations allow us to predict that thanks to this new legislation, the amount spent by pharmacies and hospitals to buy all prescription and controlled drugs should not increase by more than 2 per cent a year from now until the year 2000.
Furthermore, between 1992 and 1996, thanks to Bill C-91, the total increase in the cost of patented medicine is estimated at $129 million, or approximately $25 million per year, which comes to $1 a year for every Canadian. I do not think that is too much to pay for a policy that stimulates research and development.
Thanks to this bill, Canada will reap the benefits of almost half a billion dollars more in investment by the innovative drug industry in the foreseeable future. That is a real balance between promoting economic growth and protecting consumers. Our achievements since 1987 attest to that.
Since 1987, the amendments to the Patent Act, better known as C-22, have borne fruit and their success continues to this day. Remember the criticism that the opposition Liberal Party and New Democratic Party made then. First, they maintained that the innovative drug industry would not keep the promises of investment that it had made to the government. Second, they said that the government would not be able to keep the price of patented medicine down; and third, that it would mean the end of generic drugs.
I would like to report on each of these issues. Concerning the first one, investment in research, the innovative drug industry has reached the promised objectives by doubling investment in research as a percentage of sales and it did this five years ahead of schedule.
This same industry has invested over a billion dollars in research and development in Canada over the last five years; $340 million went to universities, hospitals and other medical research establishments.
As for the second controversial issue, drug prices, the average annual increase in the price of existing patented medicine was about 2.9 per cent from 1987 to 1991. In the same period, the consumer price index rose 4.4 per cent a year. The increase was thus less than inflation between 1987 and 1991. This is an example of effective control of drug prices that completely refutes the objections raised in 1987 and should also make our opponents today think.
Other countries find that our drug price control system works. A study by the United States General Accounting Office on the price of 200 best-selling prescription drugs published in October showed that prices were about 32 per cent higher in the United States than in Canada. Half of the 200 drugs in the study cost wholesalers at least 50 per cent more in the United States; 27 per cent of these best-selling drugs cost wholesalers at least 100 per cent more in the U.S.; four of the ten most popular prescription drugs in the United States cost between 59 per cent and 278 per cent more in that country.
December 9, 1992

The American study concluded that one of the main causes of the price difference between the two countries was that the Canadian government had taken action, as the report says: "In setting their prices, Canadian manufacturers of patented drugs must comply with Canadian federal regulations controlling the price of new medication and increases in the price of existing drugs."
Obviously the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has done a good job and our policy works. As for the third issue, the alleged disappearance of the generic drug industry in Canada, that has not happened. That industry has grown twice as fast as the pharmaceutical industry as a whole since 1987. Here again, the critics were wrong, and if they continue to use the same arguments today to oppose Bill C-91 they will be wrong again.
This legislation enables us to strike the balance that we sought between two important factor: on one hand, consumer protection is maintained through strict price regulation; and on the other, we have a healthy, vigorous, competitive drug industry, which is precisely the type of knowledge-based industry that Canada needs for its future.
We have succeeded in every respect with price control and a policy that welcomes investment. Today we ask the Liberal opposition and the New Democratic Party to co-operate, because our business people, our young university graduates and our young scientists need a law to protect their inventions. This is why we ask all members to pass this bill as quickly as possible, particularly to help the economic situation in Montreal and in Quebec.


Lloyd Axworthy: One
of the basic articles of faith of any parliamentary system is that the government tries to tell the truth and to give to its citizens a fair and accurate appraisal of important matters in front of it so that the people will at least have the right to make a choice as to the legitimacy of legislation, good or bad, based upon legitimate facts.
We have been told that the reason for Bill C-91 is that it must be in full accordance with international treaties being initiated by this government, particularly the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs and the North American free trade agreement.
Government Orders
In particular, it has tried to justify the retroactivity clause by saying that we had to go back and meet the new GATT laws.
What it did not say is that there is not yet a new GATT law. There is a set of proposals being discussed but it has not been agreed to, and if the French farmers have anything to do with it, it will probably never be agreed to. That is in the realm of speculation.
What is more dangerous and I think more erosive of the principles of this House is that even in that proposed GATT agreement there is no requirement, no hard and fast rule, that a country abandon its compulsory licensing provisions.
For the Minister for International Trade to go on to the lecterns of this country, trying to sell this legislation on the basis that somebody made him do it over in Geneva is pure, unadulterated hogwash.
Article 30 of the proposed GATT agreement, page 70 reads: "Parties may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the patent owner taking account the legitimate interests of third parties".
In other words, according to article 3 three of the GATT proposal that is now being said as being the compelling reason why we must do Bill C-91, the Canadian government could properly argue that any drug monopoly will have a severe impact on the Canadian health care system, third parties such as seniors or sick people, and therefore have a legitimate reason for applying for an exemption under the GATT. Anybody who says differently is not telling the truth, is misleading Canadians and is attempting to bias the debate in this country to serve a particular purpose.
That is not even enough. Let us go to article 31(b) of the proposed GATT agreement and see how ironclad an obligation this is. I have the agreement here if anybody wants to read it. It is only about 400 pages long. I am going to read the quote directly:
"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

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use".
What is the public health care system of Canada if not a public non-commercial use? Do we not have a public health care system province by province? Is it not designed to ensure that all Canadians receive fair and equal medical treatment at the lowest cost possible? Does that not become fair, honest, serious grounds for exemption under the proposed GATT proposal? Of course it does.
We continue to have the voices of deception in this country led by this government trying to sell it as if somehow we must yield to some kind of holy obligation. If you go back to article 8 of the GATT agreement, in terms of setting out general principles: "Parties may, in formulating or amending their national laws or regulations in relation to patent law, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development".
That is the basic principle of the GATT agreement, that we have a right to defend our public health and our socio-economic system.
I charge this government, with no uncertainty, of misleading Canadians by saying that we need Bill C-91 and that we need the retroactive clause to meet the GATT agreement. It is simply not the truth. It is about time the Minister for International Trade owned up to fact he can no longer tell the truth because he no longer understands what it is.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that is according to the text.
Therefore, any validity or credibility this government had that is prepared to defend the public interest of Canada gets flushed down the tube by the very words of what it says it has to obey. It is heresy. The Conservatives are misinterpreting their responsibilities under the GATT rule.
The NAFTA agreement is the government's own concoction. The countries of the world did not come up with NAFTA. It is what the government is writing into it.
However, it was so stupid and so idiotic that it was prepared to sign an agreement that would allow the Mexicans to have an eight-year transition period for their own public drug companies but we could not bargain the same thing for ours.
It is incredible and it is unbelievable. Yet the Prime Minister and the minister of trade stomp across Canada saying: "NAFTA is good for you". Sure it is good for you. It is good for a $2 billion swallow of increased cost for you. It is good for their friends, it is good for their corporate buddies, and it is good for their allies. It may be good for getting them jobs after they get defeated but it sure is not good for the Canadian people.
That is the real reason. The real reason is not in the trade agreements. I will concede that when drafting NAFTA, in copying the GATT they tended to forget. They included the first part of the proposal, which requires the phasing out of compulsory licensing, but they did not live up to the honour and the word of the GATT proposal, which provided clear exemptions for compulsory licensing.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Tories like Judy Erola.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Conservatives raising the name of one of my former associates, as if somehow the Liberal Party and the present caucus must be held responsible for the vagaries of one of its members.
If they answered for the vagaries of all their former associates they would be attending parole board hearings every single day of the year.
Let us not use that as an excuse. Let us get down to the merits of the case. There is nothing under GATT that would require Canada to implement Bill C-91. If there was any court of justice that required some sense of veracity and verity from a minister, the Minister for International Trade would be given the longest sentence possible.
He would be incarcerated for the rest of his life, because he has told the biggest whopper which has cost Canadians more money than any criminal we could possibly imagine. It is a bigger heist than the Brinks robbery, to use that argument.

The whole reality of what we are debating disappears. It vanishes. It is not there. It is ephemeral. It is made up. It is a fantasy. That is why we are simply saying that they cannot with any honesty justify this proposal with those arguments.
We must restore a sense of trust in Canadians so they can feel that their members of government and Parliament are at least prepared to deal with the truth. I would say there is only one way to restore credibility, and that is to withdraw Bill C-91 and make a serious examination of how Canada can live up to its proper international obligations and at the same time use the law as it has been proposed to ensure that we protect the public health and the public interest of the Canadian people.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, throughout all the debates on this bill we must not overlook or minimize the fact that one of the fundamental objectives of this legislation concerns questions of protection and of rewarding people's investments in discovery.
In essence, that is what the patent protection bill is all about. Bill C-91 will help us open doors to world markets, contributing to the stimulation of this country's economy. As Professor Labrie of Laval University said so effectively in his presentation before the legislative committee last week: "We will have to adapt as quickly as possible to the rules of world-wide markets before all the seats are taken by others who have reacted more quickly and more vigorously than us".
He went on to say that: "While Canada's medical sector is recognized internationally for its excellence, opportunities will be largely lost if its work cannot be translated into economic spin-offs for exports and into the new drugs needed by Canadians for better health care".
Bill C-91 is very much a question of encouraging and recognizing discovery. It is also very much a question of fairness. We have spoken at length about protecting the consumer through strong patented drug price controls and of encouraging investments in a high technology industry with the resulting benefits of job creation and export development potential.
Government Orders
However, the whole question of fairness and recognition for innovation is also very important to the government, and it should be just as important to the people of this country.
It is the government's belief that innovation deserves to be recognized. If there is no protection or reward for such effort, that effort will eventually stagnate or move to where it is recognized. We well know that Canada lags behind all of its major international competitors in the patent protection it accords to pharmaceutical products.
Even though the full patent term award is 20 years, we must not lose sight of the fact that the period of actual product development testing, et cetera for new medicine comprises roughly 10 of those 20 years. Although that leaves 10 years for the marketing of that product under patent protection, present legislation permits others to copy the medicine after it has been on the market for only about seven of those ten years.
Consequently, while a company has a patent on a product for the last three years of that patent period somebody else can copy it and market it under a compulsory licence.
This seven-year period of market exclusivity in Canada lags behind that of the United States, where it is 14 years. It lags behind those of countries in Europe, where market exclusivity of pharmaceutical products is 15 years. Our regime of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, featuring compulsory licensing with a period of market exclusivity of only about seven years compared to these much longer periods elsewhere, simply does not measure up. Canada is losing out because of it.
Bill C-91 will go a long way toward changing that situation. This legislation will add on average about three years to the period of market exclusivity in Canada. It does not add 20 years to the period of market exclusivity-or 10 years or whatever other number of years critics across the way are saying it adds-it simply adds about three years of market exclusivity to the patented pharmaceutical product.
By doing that the legislation brings the Canadian drug patent regime closer to those of our international competitors so that Canada can once again compete for research and development projects, and particularly for investment dollars.

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
Although the practice of protection of intellectual property may seem to be a complicated affair the reasons behind it are really very simple when we strip away the legalese and the jargon. It is a straightforward affair. It stimulates invention and new technology. It recognizes people for developing a better mousetrap, except in this case we are not talking about mouse traps but about new medicines and new cures for treatments of ailments and diseases that afflict Canadians and people throughout the world.
Without patents on those inventions there really would be little motivation for people to develop those inventions. Why should someone invest years of effort and large sums of money when others can copy the work of the inventor with no obligation? In this situation, people will stop inventing and people will stop investing.
By adopting this legislation, we will be providing the pharmaceutical sector in Canada with the same conditions of patent protection as are available to all other sectors of our Canadian economy. As it is now, pharmaceutical inventions are not treated the way that inventions in other sectors of the economy are treated. For example, the patent for a new plastic compound receives full market exclusivity for the patent holder for 20 years.
Why not the same for the developer or the creator of a new medicine? We should all agree that it is only fair that all sectors of the economy should be treated the same way when it comes to recognition for a discovery.
That is the major reason we are going forward with Bill C-91. I urge this House to adopt the bill. It is good for Canada, it is good for Canadians.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, one could accuse the government of being high on drugs but that would not be parliamentary. I suspect that it is high on the drug companies.
Just who are these people? A veritable who's who, no doubt: Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, and Procter & Gamble. There is absolutely no doubt they are the poor people on the block. There is an old saying: "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down". Well, this is a poison pill for Canadians across this country. A report in the 1960s said that drug prices in Canada were among the highest
in the world. They corrected the problem. Now we are in a situation where the drug companies have reduced the price of drugs by 20 per cent and sometimes 30 per cent. They are saying: "That is not good. We have to jack those prices up and make them more expensive".
The member from Winnipeg talked about GATT. That is important. That is the legal slant on this particular bill and what the government has put forward as its argument. It has been proven to be fallacious. The average Canadian no doubt has a difficult time understanding what GATT is and some of us in these seats have difficulty understanding it also. However, what they do understand is that the price of drugs will continue to spiral as a result of C-91.


An hon. member:: They are going straight up. They are not even spiralling.


Steve Butland: They are not spiralling, they are going straight up. Constituents by the dozens in my riding were calling me just about a year ago, asking me: "What happened to this particular drug? The Ontario government says it is not going to pay for it anymore under OHIP". Upon further research it was indicated that the drug companies had increased the price twelvefold. After investigating, we asked: "What is the difference". The toothless Prices Review Board said: "Well, they are under investigation right now". The details of that investigation given to me revealed that they had repackaged the drug. "It is a new improved drug with better results, therefore, we have to increase the price of the drug 12 times."
I cite from some of the actual statutes of the Prices Review Board. The first consists of new strengths of an existing dosage form or comparable dosage form of an existing drug product, a line extension. The second includes drug products that constitute a substantial improvement over other drugs because of significant improvements in the therapeutic effects or important savings to the Canadian health care system. It is impossible to document, therefore, the Prices Review Board says: "There is not really anything we can do. We will have to allow the prices to increase tenfold, twelvefold and there is not a darned thing we can do about it".
December 9, 1992

Who is to prove how much more substantial a new product or an old product under a new disguise or a new camouflage is going to be for people. The Ontario government says: "We cannot afford these prices under the OHIP program". Therefore they take it off the list. The constituent says: "I cannot afford the $100 a month to pay for the drug bill". Who is at fault? I suspect the people at the top are at fault, but the person at the bottom of the heap always pays the price.
These are drugs that are absolutely essential to these people; life-threatening without them and they cannot afford to pay $100 a month. We can talk about GATT, NAFTA, free trade, patents and compulsory licences, but the bottom line is that average Canadians will pay considerably more. Really, once the bill is passed we will never know because there will be no effective police individual to look after the interests of Canadians.
I want to say when Bill C-22 was passed, the president of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada said: "This means the beginning of a new era in Canadian biomedical research".


An hon. member:: They meant bigger profits.


Steve Butland: A new era. Four years later the era is over and we are embarking upon a new era I suppose. It is the shortest era in history.


An hon. member:: Hot era.


Steve Butland: Hot era, that's a good line.
She was telling Canadians that their drug laws were not up to international snuff, but then Judy Erola was insisting Canada is the odd man out.
We certainly do not want to be the odd person out in the international world because our prices are a little bit too low. We would not want that to happen. That just would not be appropriate.
This is the second time in the four years that I have been here that the word retroactivity has been mentioned in legislation. The last time it was not all that noxious or consequential, but this time there is no doubt about it.
Today I received a fax-I did not know those Glaxos or Eli companies existed out there-saying "Dear Mr. Butland, we are delighted to tell you that we are going to
Government Orders
invest $170 million". Isn't that wonderful? Today I got the fax.
It was purely fortuitous, purely coincidental that it would happen today when we are debating Bill C-91. We are hearing from all of these people. I understand they are jamming the faxes. They are all going to invest, invest, invest. It is no dam wonder. I would invest too if I were making the profits they are making.
The Americans have been unabashed in telling us in books, in reports and discussion papers about trade deals. This is what it is all about. I remember the Shamrock summit. It was indicated that President Reagan and the Prime Minister were discussing this and Mr. Reagan was particularly upset with the Prime Minister, saying that we have to move forward, we have to get Canada in line and he was very disappointed with us.
The Prime Minister, not wanting to disappoint the President, has brought this forward at the behest of his good friends in the pharmaceutical companies of this country and of course they are, as someone has pointed out, only branch plants of the multinationals.
This is a reprehensible bill and it is a bitter pill for Canadians to swallow at this particular time. Once again this bill is going to be shoved through Parliament. The last bill shoved through at Christmas was a claw-back bill. When everybody is into their world of good spirits of the Christmas season is when this government acts. That is when it acts quickly. That is when it must be watched even more closely, with more scrutiny.
Here we are at Christmas time and the very last bill we are going to pass in this Parliament is going to hurt Canadians. It is going to cost Canadians. The Grinch stole this Christmas and last Christmas, but I expect this will be the last Christmas it will have an opportunity because on this side of the House the New Democratic Party will vociferously oppose this bill. We only wish we had more time to oppose it.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to comment on a couple of points made by the previous speaker because I think there may be some misunderstanding as to why Canada no longer wants to be, in his words, the odd man out in terms of international law and international agreements, why countries around the

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
world respect each other's patent legislation the same as they respect each other's copyright legislation.
If it is too difficult for the member to follow in terms of patents maybe we could talk about something as easy as copyright. An Anne Murray produces a record in Canada and would like to get royalties when her records and CDs are played in the United States. We recognize other countries' patent legislation and copyright legislation, and they respect ours.
If Canada is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have 20-year patent legislation, then why would other countries want to respect our patents?
The world has become a global community and if we do not respect the patent legislation of other countries, they certainly will not respect ours. If we are going to short-cut the system, if we are going to peel off a couple of extra years, kind of cheat the international system, abrogate GATT and other international agreements, then pretty soon other nations are going to start looking at Canada as they look at some banana republic that does not respect patent legislation anywhere in the world, that does not respect copyright legislation. That is only one point I wanted to mention.
He also talked about this era of investment that began in 1987. I would like to take a look at that era of investment and how it has not started today with the announcement of a $170 million research and development program in his area, but how it has been happening all across this country for the past four years, and how it will continue.
In 1987 Parliament passed Bill C-22, an act to strengthen the pharmaceutical patent legislation. At that time there was a furore over its implementation and the perceived effect it would have on Canadian research and development, drug prices and the generic drug manufacturers, the same kind of hullabaloo that we are hearing from the opposition today.
I would like to go over with members what type of research and development has occurred in Canada since 1987 and what the industry plans to achieve over the next three to four years.
In 1987, as part of the implementation of Bill C-22, the innovative drug companies promised to double the research and development to sales ratio to 10 per cent by 1996 if the country improved patent protection.
Mr. Speaker, Canada did. We passed Bill C-22 and the companies more than delivered on their promises. They essentially met their commitment by 1991, five years ahead of schedule, doubling their research and development expenditures in Canada.
The question that many Canadians may ask, however, is how much of this investment went to the regions of Canada? Was it all in central Canada, or were there jobs in research and development for the regions? Also, are there likely to be benefits for the regions in the future as part of the new legislation being debated?
As I mentioned earlier, it is apparent that the patent pharmaceutical manufacturers have more than delivered on their 1987 promise. The innovative industry has spent close to $1.1 billion on research and development in Canada since the Patent Act amendments of 1987. In 1991 alone, a year of recession in this country, research spending by innovative pharmaceutical companies totalled $376 million, a 23 per cent increase over 1990.
How many other industries in Canada saw such a growth in capital investment in that same period? It is readily apparent that the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is a Canadian success story that government should applaud and assist. In doing so, the industry will be encouraged to spread its success to all regions of Canada in an environment of co-operation and achievement.
These achievements have already begun to pay dividends in the regions of Canada that in the past were not traditional centres for investment in research and development.
Since 1987 and the revisions to the Patent Act, the innovative companies have created 2,400 jobs in Canada. These jobs are quality, long-term jobs that the regions of this country need to diversify and strengthen their resource-based economies. These jobs also attract the best students and professors for the universities that want to expand their horizons into the high-tech world of pharmaceutical development.
Perhaps the best way to understand what the effect of Bill C-22 has had on areas outside of central Canada is to examine the amount of investment into research and development that has occurred in these areas since its implementation. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has reported that in the period 1988-91 industry investment in research and development in Manitoba



December 9, 1992

showed a 119 per cent increase. That is why the hon. member for Winnipeg South supports the bill.


Mrs. Dobbie:: Absolutely.


Lee Richardson: In the same period, industry investment in research and development in Saskatchewan increased by 170 per cent. In B.C. the increase in investment was 72 per cent. In my own province of Alberta, a leader in pharmaceutical research, current investment is at record levels, a point which I will dwell on a little further in a moment.
These numbers dramatically demonstrate that the innovative pharmaceutical manufacturers have spread their research and development spending across the country in a fashion unlike any other sector. The research community in the regions of Canada recognize the importance of this new legislation in order to foster an investment climate that will promote research and development, and the people across Canada recognize the importance of this legislation. I am sure that each of them hopes that new investment will find its way to laboratories and research facilities in their part of the country.
An important question for the people outside of central Canada concerns the ramifications for then-economies if this legislation is not passed in the coming weeks.
The passing of this legislation is directly linked to job creation over the coming years in regions across the country.
On June 14, 1992 Bristol-Myers, Squibb announced that it would be spending $250,000 on a research and development project at the University of Alberta, and on October 6, Glaxo announced it would spend $15 million at the University of Alberta. The people of Alberta understand; they know this development research money is going to our universities creating jobs in Alberta.
On July 15, Bristol-Myers, Squibb announced it would spend $500,000 on research and development at the University of British Columbia.
Government Orders
On September 1, 1992 Merck Frosst Canada Inc. announced it would spend $15 million on research at the University of British Columbia.
On October 5,1992 Ayerst announced it would build a new $60 million plant in Brandon, Manitoba. These are the types of announcements that the people in the regions of this country want to hear and they know the long-term benefits for both jobs and the health of their communities.
The Canadian Genetic Diseases Network is one of 15 research networks sponsored by the Government of Canada's $240 million Network of Centres of Excellence program. It has already announced remarkable breakthroughs in isolating the genetic defects responsible for cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and myotonic dystrophy.
I do not think there is a person in this room who does not think that this important work needs to be done on an urgent basis to save the lives of people with these crippling diseases.
This work is also likely to create 10 new faculty positions at UBC, representing a tremendous opportunity for researchers in Canada. They will become involved in leading edge research and development in one of the most exciting areas of science and technology.
I have spent a lot of time discussing what effect this legislation will have on western Canada but I can assure the House that the same sort of optimism exists in the east in Atlantic Canada.
As recently as December 2, 1992 Marion Merrell Dow (Canada) Inc. announced it was going to establish a cardiac prevention research centre at Dalhousie University. This centre is funded in its entirety by Marion Merrell Dow, one of Canada's largest innovative pharmaceutical companies.
It is hoped that the work conducted at the cardiac prevention research centre will lead to effective prevention programs in the fight against coronary heart disease.

Government Orders
The provincial minister of health in Nova Scotia, the Hon. George Moody, has stated of the centre:
Marion Merrell Dow is one of the first pharmaceutical companies
to recognize the leadership role of Dalhousie in health research. The
initiative is a direct investment in the future health of our province.
All regions of this country support the type of research and investment, ongoing commitment which can better the health of all Canadians.
In conclusions, the reasons why I support Bill C-91 are clear. It is good for Canada, good for the Canadian health research and development and good for the regions of this country.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House many times and complimented the government on its tactical skills and I have mentioned many times how it seems to have a superior ability when it comes to communications.
On this bill the government is going to discover within a very few months that the tactic it has used to push this piece of legislation through the House of Commons and this bill are going remove this government from office.
Earlier today we heard the chairman of the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member because he has spoken on this grouping. There have been a lot of speakers and I had to check it out first before I recognized the hon. member. This is the same grouping and he cannot speak on it.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-91 builds upon the success of the Patent Act amendments of 1967, then known as Bill C-22.
The members of this House will remember very well the hue and cry of the opposition back then that the sky would fall on consumers and on the generic drug sector if Bill C-22 were passed.
It was also predicted back then that the promises of investment if we reinstated the patent protection for pharmaceuticals on the part of the innovative companies would not be kept.
Critics claim loudly and vigorously by that the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board would never be sufficient to control patent drug prices. Strangely enough, most of the same claims can be heard today from the opposition concerning Bill C-91. Bill C-22 has been a great success story. There is no reason for Bill C-91 to be any different.
The innovated companies have met the commitments the government asked of them in 1987. In some areas they have done better than they committed to do. There is no reason to doubt that they will carry through on their new investment promises related to the announcement of the government's new policy, with such planned investments totalling over $500 million to date and still counting.
In 1987, the innovative drug companies promised to double their research and development spending in a ratio-


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings, but if you check your rule book, you will see that members when they speak in the House are not allowed to read a speech. They can only refer very briefly from time to time to notes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe that the hon. member is reading the speech. I think he has some notes that he is referring to. The hon. member has the floor.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that time is added to my speech. In due respect, I very seldom stick to the script as I will tonight. The reason I am doing that is there has been so much distortion of that bill on the other side of the House, it is time that some of us put clearly on the record what this bill does and what it will do for the Canadian economy.
It is very unfair for the member to stand up and do what he has just done. He has been around here a lot longer than I have and I think in fairness he realizes that very seldom in debate do I have to step through the facts and figures as clearly as I have to tonight. It is very important that the facts and only the facts be laid on the line tonight. That is what I will attempt to do.
In 1987 the innovative drug companies promised to double their research and development spending in a ratio of sales of 10 per cent by 1996 if the government improved patent protection. Canada did and the companies more than delivered on their promises. They essentially met their commitment by 1991, five years ahead of schedule.
The innovative industry has spent close to $1.1 billion on research and development in Canada since the Patent Act amendments of 1987. In 1991 alone, a year of recession, in this country and others as well research spending by innovative pharmaceutical companies totalled $376 billion, a 23 per cent increase over 1990. How many other industries in Canada saw such growth in
December 9, 1992

their capital expenditures? I do not think too many of them did.
The pharmaceutical industry in Canada is a success story of which we should very proud. The highest increase in house R and D expenditures of all industries in Canada over the period of 1988 to 1992 was achieved by the pharmaceutical industry; a 113 per cent growth, according to Statistics Canada in a report published in 1992. Spending on R and D by the pharmaceutical companies or the industry as a per cent of sales is five times greater than Canada's manufacturing industry.
Since the 1987 revisions of the Patent Act, the innovative companies have created 2,400 jobs in Canada. The system that has been in place since 1987 has worked very well on the economic development score.
Another concern of the opposition in 1987 were drug prices and the controls upon those prices. Bluntly put, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board was set up in Bill C-22. It was not supposed to work according to the critics, but it has. There is no reason to believe that the board with its expanded powers under Bill C-91 will not continue to effectively control the prices of patented medicines in the future.
Let me put the board's role in perspective. The board is responsible only for patent drug price changes. Where the board does have jurisdiction it has been extremely effective. Since its creation in 1987, price increases for existing patent drugs have risen by an average of only 2.9 per cent a year while the consumer price index has risen by an average of 4.4 per cent. Therefore, we have kept patent drug price increases well below the rate of inflation and we will continue to do so. This is a very strong record of effectively controlling patent drug prices and it completely discredits the criticisms of 1987 as well as those today regarding Bill C-91.
Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly evident to others in the world that our system of drug price control works. A recent study by the General Accounting Office of the United States government, looking at the pricing of the 200 biggest selling medicines in the U.S., established that the wholesale drug prices in Canada were 32 per cent lower on average than those in the United
Government Orders
States. Interestingly enough, the opposition never mentions that.
One-half of the drugs studied cost wholesalers at least 50 per cent more in the United States. Of the 200 top selling drugs, 27 of them cost wholesalers at least 100 per cent more in the United States. Three drugs cost at least 500 per cent more in the United States. Furthermore, 4 of the 10 top selling drugs in the United States cost between 59 per cent and 278 per cent more in the United States than in Canada.
Since there are no differences in manufacturers' costs in the two countries, the study concluded that the major source of the difference in drug prices between the United States and Canada is to be found in the actions of the Canadian government through the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. This is a board that we set up. It relies on provincial formularies with their concentrated purchasing power to refuse to list overpriced medicines.
Clearly the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is doing its job. To make sure it continues to do its job, Bill C-91 will strengthen and expand its powers.
Another element of the doomsday scenario of the critics of this bill and our patent drug bill in 1987 had to do with the supposed disappearance of the generic pharmaceutical manufacturing sector in Canada. The generic sector grew rapidly in the years preceding 1987. It followed the policy which the previous government instituted in 1969 to allow any company to license a patent product from a brand name company in exchange for a 4 per cent royalty fee.
This policy, although it led to the creation of a growing sector of companies that copied products developed by others, caused the international innovative sector in Canada to look for more welcome homes elsewhere. They looked in other countries in search of protection for their inventions and research efforts.
Bill C-22 was meant to reverse the outflow of economic activity away from Canada in an industry with a strong scientific and manufacturing heritage in this country. The intent of Bill C-22 was to reinstate a policy of recognizing discovery and rewarding innovation while balancing that with the protection of the interests of consumers.

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You are finished. The hon. member's time has expired and that includes the intervention. The new speaker is the hon. member for York Centre.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are here speaking on a closure motion. I would like to begin by saying that if there ever was a demonstration of the smash and grab tactic used by this government, then this is it. There has never been a bill of such major importance to so many millions of Canadians, especially the elderly and those in ill health, that has been pushed through so quickly. As so many speakers have noted, it has been pushed through quickly for no valid reason other than to make sure that as few waves as possible are made and that the Canadian people do not find out what this government is smashing and who is grabbing with this particular piece of legislation.
However, it is as my colleague, the member for Broadview-Greenwood who just spoke briefly, said. This is a time bomb because the effect of this bill will come through to the Canadian people and it will not be very many months before they realize how misleading the government has been in the statements that it has made about this bill.
One of the theme songs of this government and one of the lovely melodies that it has played time and time again as it has inflicted its philosophy on the Canadian people over the last eight years is harmonization. What a wonderful word.
What does the government mean by harmonization? It means that the United States of America is the big time. It is the one that knows how to do everything right. It is the one that knows how to run an economy. It is the one that knows how to run a society. We are a backwater where we do not know how to do anything right. The quicker the government can bring us into harmony with every practice and every melody of the United States, the happier it will be.
When it took over in 1984 it found Canada to be a sheltered workshop. This was a place where we took care
of each other. This was a place where we were prepared to interfere in the way the market operated. This was a place where one did not have to show one's credit card to get admitted into a hospital and did not have to pay for drugs if one was covered by some public programs as well as by the many private programs that existed.
The government's philosophy has been-in every area and as fast as it could-to bring us into line with the way they do it in the wonderful country to the south. That includes health care.
I heard a number of speakers in tonight's debate say: "We are the odd man out. We cannot be the odd man out. We cannot do things our own way". What makes us think that we are allowed to have a national health care program that works on our own terms, where its success has been proven and where its popularity with the Canadian people has been demonstrated every time it is challenged. This time the popularity will be challenged too.
"You odd man out, you Canada", they have said to us, "Get into line. Stop doing things your own way. Start doing things the way they are done in the United States".
A number of speakers have said that intellectual property has to be encouraged and recognized. They are absolutely right. No one would want to bother inventing anything commercially and so on if there was not a reward for it. The question is how much of a reward should there be.
Our doctors practise medicine in this country at a great financial disadvantage compared to the United States. This is what we are told. The good ones could go to the United States and make a lot more money. Many do that. That has not stopped us from limiting the income for doctors and from saying: "You've worked hard to become a doctor. You've exercised your profession with some skill. You deserve some recompense. You deserve, by the way, to be part of the highest paid occupation-by far-in our country".
Under our present medicare system we say: "However, there is a limit. You can't extra bill. You can't charge more than the tariff that we provide". We accept that. Doctors seem to accept it. At least there is a line-up to get into every medical school in this country. It cannot be that terrible.

On the drug side, however, we are told that we are not allowed to do things in the Canadian way. We are not allowed to decide how much intellectual property should be rewarded.
I think, just like the doctors, people who invent drugs should be well paid. Prices charged for drugs should recognize there is a degree of innovation and incentive to be put into this system and that we want to encourage invention and discovery and all the rest of it. I think we do that in the system we have.
Compulsory licensing is not theft. Compulsory licensing is not piracy. Compulsory licensing is a Canadian way of compensating the drug companies in a way which has made them the most profitable manufacturing business in Canada over the last few years.
It is since we had compulsory licensing and since the Tories began to take it away. They threw it out. Like the doctors who are in the highest paid profession, the drug companies have been the highest paid manufacturing companies. I do not think they have any right to complain that there is something wrong with our system of rewarding intellectual property.
Of course they have a right to complain but I am disagreeing with their argument. I say they have not made a compelling case and they need us to move to what they call a favourable climate for doing more research and development.
I want to talk about that for a moment. I can hear the drug companies say: We cannot go on working in this country because we are at a disadvantage here. If our taxes were too high, if our labour laws were too onerous, if our environmental standards and our pollution standards were too high, but they are not complaining about any of those things.
Those are the factors of government policy on which they could legitimately complain if we were out of line. The way in which we reward patents has nothing to do with the incentive to do research and development in our country. If they invent or discover something here, they will get all the world's patent protection that they would get if they had invented it in the United States.
However, they would be subject in Canada to what Canadians, I believe, consider a fair and appropriate reward for what they do. Therefore, they cannot get
Government Orders
away with the argument that they need a more favourable climate to do research and development. It is baldly this: They are saying it is a sovereign Canada. We want a more favourable return if we are going to do research and development.
I know I do not have a lot more time, but I want to say a word about the significance of research and development. I think it is wonderful. It is great to have it going on in the country. It provides high paying jobs for a small number of our brightest Canadians who I am happy to encourage to stay in the country. We pay a lot to get that. As taxpayers, we put in a big subsidy and a big incentive for them.
If we were also to agree to this legislation, we would be giving them for the $500 million that is promised a very big return in the form of much higher drug prices, estimated by credible witnesses at about $7 billion. Maybe that figure is higher than the true figure, but the government is not willing to have an adequate debate about that.
Its smash and grab tactic is preventing us from really looking at the figures and deciding who is right and who is not. I would like to say one final thing about research and development. What we like about research and development is that if something is discovered, it will be manufactured here. Then there will be hundreds of jobs for other Canadians who are not university graduates, maybe, and who are not the brightest and the best who are doing the research.
It is kind of the front line for all the work that goes in behind successful research and development. However, those drug companies will not give that work to Canada. If anything was ever discovered here-I hope it is and things have been discovered here even while we have had compulsory licensing-by one of those international drug companies, it is going to be made in Puerto Rico, not in Canada.
In Puerto Rico, they have a deal where they do not pay any taxes at all on manufacturing that is done in the drug area. What is so exciting about getting this research and development here? Are we getting a commitment that if they discover anything, it is going to be made here? Absolutely not. Are we getting an iron clad commitment even that they will do more research and development? No, we are not.

Government Orders
We know that their business will expand in Canada in the future even if compulsory licensing continues because the market is growing. Our population is aging. More drugs and more things are being discovered. They need people here whether they like it or not just to process their applications to sell patent medicines in this country.


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


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House and support the motion at the report stage of Bill C-91, to amend the Patent Act.
The government tabled its bill in the House of Commons on June 23, and on September 17 the bill was debated at second reading.
The time has come to put this legislation before both Houses of Parliament so that it can be passed and given Royal Assent, after third and final reading. To be able to operate on the same level as other industrialized countries, we must have legislation that is in line with today's modem legislation on intellectual property. We see the bill before the House today as one of the most advanced of its kind.
We have before us legislation that is designed to promote science and technology, the acquisition of marketable experience and the ability of our researchers to meet current challenges on international markets. Providing better patent protection will help us achieve these objectives.
We have here in Canada everything we need to play a leading role in pharmaceutical research. The standard of medicine in this country is well regarded. We have a health care system that is the envy of the entire world. We have a skilled labour force, and we are now doing everything that is necessary to enhance those skills. Our tax credits are among the most generous in the world.
However, until now, something essential was lacking. We needed protection for intellectual property that was in line with the protection offered in other industrialized countries: patent legislation that would make us better able to compete for investment in research and development.
Since 1984, the government has set a high priority on intellectual property legislation, reform as part of its efforts to provide for a dynamic economy.
Today I would like to give an overview of Bill C-91, to refresh our memories and urge all members of this House to support this bill unanimously. I will answer a number of fundamental questions. What kind of amendments are we proposing to the 1987 Patent Act? What will be the principal benefits of the new legislation? Will the Canadian public also benefit from these amendments? How will it make us better able to meet the challenges in the pharmaceutical sector, on Canadian and international markets?
By reinforcing the Patent Act, we want to promote investment in an advanced technology sector. We also want to make Canada better able to compete on international markets for pharmaceutical products. It is a sector in which competition is intense, and we must make up for lost time. I am not an alarmist, but I think we should realize that we are lagging behind and that we must act now.
With the new amendments, Canada will eliminate compulsory licensing and bring its patent system into line with those of its trading partners. That is one of the main points of the new legislation. Patent holders will, from now on, be guaranteed protection for 20 years, the same period granted patent holders in all other economic sectors.
The proposed legislation will be an incentive for Canadians to develop new drugs in Canada, thus making it possible to reduce health care costs in the long run, another important aspect of this bill.
We must not forget that in recent years innovative companies discovered and developed 32 new drugs in this country, including drugs to treat cancer, Parkinson's disease and diabetes.
Last year the innovative sector of the pharmaceutical industry spent $84 million on research in universities and hospitals. Since 1987, the last time the government improved protection for drug patents, the innovative industry, which now has 18,000 employees, created 2,400 new highly-skilled jobs.
In 1987 again, the innovative industry promised to double its ratio of R and D to sales by 1996, provided the government reinforced patent protection. As of 1991, nearly five years earlier than originally planned, this objective had almost been achieved by the industry.
December 9, 1992

I might add that since the government announced last January its intention to remove compulsory licensing, the innovative companies responded by promising to invest an extra $500 million in our country between 1992 and 1996, $90 million of which in areas outside of central Canada.
Basic research on pharmaceutical products accounts for over 26 per cent of the research and development done in this country, roughly the same as in other industrialized countries. Between 1987 and 1991 the innovators in the industry spent about $1.1 billion on research and development. Between 1988 and 1991 investments grew from $30.3 million to $94.2 million just for basic research.
On June 19, 1992, Statistics Canada reported that, between 1988 and 1992 the pharmaceutical industry had registered the highest rate of growth-113 per cent- among Canadian industries in terms of R and D investments.
New products will translate into substantial sales because of the global product mandating of companies in Canada. We are at the crossroads and this legislation comes just at the right moment, as the statistics I just quoted indicate.
World class innovative companies have already decided to grant new product mandates to their Canadian plants. New investments in R and D, new scientific and technical jobs, spin-offs for other industries and increased sales abroad add up to improved Canadian competitiveness on the global market.
With the elimination of compulsory licensing, the purchase price of all the prescribed drugs and scheduled drugs that hospitals and drugstores buy should not go up, at least not for the first year. On the other hand, and this deserves to be stressed, this increase in research leading to the development of new, more effective drugs is likely to bring health costs down in Canada, if combined with improved management practices.
On the latter subject, the federal and provincial health ministers are totally in agreement and are committed to working together toward this end.
I have heard opposition members say that government was proceeding too hastily. They seem to forget that we have some $500 million in investments at stake here. Innovative pharmaceutical companies have promised to spend that much when the government announced, last
Government Orders
January, that it was going to strengthen patent protection.
These investments are vital at a time when the pharmaceutical industry is undergoing restructuring. Many other countries would like to take advantage of such investments. As a matter of fact, if Canada does not act quickly enough, it may find this door now opening forever closed. That would be very detrimental to our country.
I see that my time is up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Then I will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and the hon. member for Brant.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, its too bad that the hon. member who just spoke referred to the same figures as those mentioned by the member for Winnipeg South and other members from the other side during their speeches on this bill. Evidently those figures are wrong. They distort the facts. I cannot believe that the government would keep using these figures.
This bill is a disaster. It is a very bad bill for Canada and for Canadians. Canadians are once again being sold down the river by their government. It is not the first time it has happened with this government and I am sure it will not be the last.
Unfortunately the election has been deferred for a while. It appears we are going to have to suffer for some months longer with this continual sales job by the Government of Canadian interests to other foreign nationals.
Some people say in support of this bill that Canadians should pay their fair share. When I speak to my constituents who support this bill, and some do, they say to me that surely Canadians should pay their fair share. What constitutes a fair share? Why are drug prices in Canada so much higher than they are in Europe? Are Canadians not paying a fair price when we look at the European experience? Many of these drugs are made by multinationals with head offices in Europe.

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
Canadian drag prices are 32 per cent lower than American drag prices. Does that mean that our prices are somehow unfair? Does that mean because Americans are being gouged for their drags by the multinational drag companies that Canadians should pay more? Does that make it unfair that we are getting away with a bargain because we have different rales that apply to drag manufacturing in this country? I suggest it does not.
I suggest what is fair is determined by the marketplace. We have set up a system for Canadian manufacturers to get involved in the drag manufacturing process that is fair for Canadians. It creates jobs in Canada. It has created a large industry in this country that is flourishing. What this government wants to do is undermine the industry and transfer all the money to the big multinational drag companies.
That is what this bill is all about. It is unfair for Canadians that their government is the one so avidly supporting this at a time when it has no need to support it and when it has chosen to pull this policy out of the air for no apparent reason.
The minister cites these foreign agreements and says somehow Canada is bound by foreign agreements to do this. Not one of those agreements is in force yet. The GATT agreement under which this was a proposal has not been agreed to. The minister is prepared to give away anything in order to make a deal. He gives it away before he is at the negotiating table, which is a shocking way to carry on any negotiation.
We have seen it before. We have seen it in negotiations with the provinces. We have seen it in negotiations with the United States in the free trade deal. We have seen it in all kinds of negotiations it has carried on with its public servants. It is incapable of negotiating properly. It is incapable of governing and this bill is further evidence of that.
This bill gives $700 million to one company, Merck Frosst Canada, on sales of just one of its products. That is the estimate we have in respect of just one drug because of the extended patent protection.
Where is that money coming from? Out of the pockets of every Canadian. Canadian taxpayers will pay for it in
the government financed drag plans across this country, Canadian purchasers of drags who have to buy them out of their own pocket, and finally the buyers of medical and drag insurance who will have to pay increased premiums to cover the cost of these drags.


An hon. member:: Senior citizens.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Many of them are senior citizens, but in most cases they are provided by government so all taxpayers will bear that cost. It is going to be a very significant additional cost. In some cases we have governments like the Government of Ontario that takes drags off the list so senior citizens have to buy the drags on their own. This is going to drive up their costs.
Who benefits from all this additional money, the $700 million that is taken out of Canadians' pockets? Who gets the money? The drag companies get the money. That is who. The international drag companies get the money.
Sure, they told us that if we pass this bill there will be another $500 million in investment in research and development in this country. That is great, but how much are Canadians going to pay in order to get the $500 million in research? The cost of the retroactive provisions of this bill alone are estimated at over $2 billion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South says that is nonsense. The government figures that she has put forward are a fraud on the Canadian public. They amount to nothing but a fraud on the Canadian public. The government's estimate is $550 million. Two billion dollars is the estimate from respected international experts who know a lot more about the drag industry than the hon. member or any member of this government obviously does.
What this government sees is dollar signs for its friends. It flashes away and says: "We will give you whatever you want". That is what is going on in this bill.
Where is the guarantee that the $500 million will be invested in Canada? Where is the guarantee that any percentage of the extra funds generated for these drag companies will be invested in Canada? You will look through the bill in vain, Mr. Speaker. It is not there. There is no guarantee written into this legislation.
December 9, 1992

How much are Canadians going to pay for this research? On the retroactive provisions alone, $2 billion. That is $4 for every $1 of research guaranteed, and that is only the cost on the retroactive provisions. The estimate that Dr. Stephen Schondelmeyer gave the other day was that this bill was going to cost something like $7 billion by 2010.
I think the hon. member was on the committee. She must know the figures. She says he trumped those up over a weekend. That is what she said in her speech the other day. I never heard such rubbish in my life.
The gentleman is a very capable expert, a professor of pharmaceutical economics and director of the Prime Institute of the College of Pharmacy. He knows more about drugs than everybody in this House put together. He says that is what the bill is going to cost.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South is clearly burying her head in the sand on this and trying to pretend that her government has not let her down again. She is wagging her head and mumbling from her seat, trying to tell me that the figures that this expert has quoted are wrong. She knows that this government has led her down the garden path again. She must have been embarrassed to make the speech she had to make yesterday, trying to discredit this expert and ignoring the facts on which we are basing our arguments that this whole bill and all the arguments government members have put forward in support of it are a fraud on the public. They are deceiving the Canadian public with their figures. They are wrong. They know they are wrong and they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for putting them forward.
Canadians are so badly served by the arguments put forward by this government on this bill that it amounts to another national disgrace.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South, in the course of her speech, wondered how anyone could know more about drugs than Canada's Public Service. She knows that her government has chopped the Public Service: cut, cut, cut. It has taken people out of the Public Service. It has driven good people out of the Public Service. The Public Service is hardly able to do the cost projections required in order to come up with figures to support the
Government Orders
government's arguments on this bill. They do not have the arguments. They do not have the figures, and the hon. member knows it.
The hon. member for London-Middlesex, in the course of his speech the other day, tried to let on that somehow I opposed research and development. That is absolute rubbish and it hardly bears answering. The hon. member for London-Middlesex who so rarely speaks here suddenly made a speech. Because I told him what he was saying was rubbish he went on to say that I was opposed to research and development.
I am not prepared to support research and development when we are paying billions and billions for peanuts. That is what the hon. member is doing. She is going to have Canadians pay $7 billion in exchange for $500 million in research. She will not even put a guarantee in the bill that the $500 million will be spent. I urge her to read Bill C-91 before she speaks again and see exactly what it says. She will find out there are no guarantees in the bill and then maybe she will not be talking through her hat.
Finally I want to turn to members of the party on my left. The other night they forced the House to sit for five and a half hours so we could vote on various provisions of a bill. They did it because they took the view that where time allocation is being used it is unfair and they had to show their objection.
I want to see them show their objections to this procedure tonight and insist on a vote on every clause. Let us see what they do. Or are they going to follow what Bobby Rae does and go soft on this bill? Bobby Rae told them to go soft on this bill in his speech yesterday. Are they going to do what Bobby Rae says, go soft on the bill and allow all the votes to be applied? Or are they going to sit here tonight and insist on the votes tonight? I will be here. I call on the hon. member to stay and to insist on it.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few hours we have heard many inaccurate estimates and many exaggerated statements about prices and things like that. It is time to try to set the record straight.

Government Orders
Perhaps the most extreme and unsubstantiated claim being made is that Bill C-91 will significantly increase the cost of health care in Canada. Let us look at the facts. First, the entire wholesale drug market in Canada constitutes only 6 per cent of Canada's annual health care bill of about $60 billion, some $4 billion annually.
Patented drugs, which are the medicines affected by this legislation, make up only about 43 per cent of the annual total value of all drugs sold in Canada. That translates into a total annual cost of about $2 billion. That is the total cost for all the patented medicines.
Yet the member opposite has been running off at the mouth, saying there will be a $7 billion increase in prices while the total amount of patented medicines used in Canada only has a value of $2 billion.
Therefore, for opponents of this bill to charge that it will cost the Canadian health care system billions of dollars indicates to me they have a total lack of understanding of what this legislation is about.
As those who have read the legislation before this House will know, Bill C-91 will protect Canadian consumers from unwarranted increases in the cost of pharmaceutical products by expanding the powers of the board that reviews patented drug prices in Canada.
Some would say: "On a perfect road you would not need a review board". However, it is very necessary that we have a review board because it has proven itself since it was introduced in 1987.
First, let me explain exactly what the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board, the PMPRB, does. The board was created under the amendments to the Patent Act that came into force on December 7, 1987. Among other things, the amendments increased the patent protection available to the pharmaceutical firms. In exchange for the extended patent protection the Canadian pharmaceutical industry undertook to double its ratio of research and development to sales by the end of 1996.
I am reminded of the doom and gloom the members opposite talked about when we were doing the bill back in 1987.1 remember the demonstrations out on the lawn. I remember the job losses that were predicted by the opposition members. None of those things came about.
What did come about was the research that was promised by the companies and the extra jobs.
I will try to outline what has happened with the review board. The mandate of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board is to ensure that the prices for patented medicines are not excessive. The board itself is an independent, quasi-judicial body. The Patent Act gives no power, formal or informal, to the government to direct the board or to review its decision and its orders.
However, decisions of the board are subject to judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada on jurisdictional or procedural grounds. This board's mandate has three specific components. First, the board's regulatory function is to ensure that the prices of patented medicines charged by patentees are not excessive. Second, the board is required to report annually on its activities, including a summary of pricing trends in the pharmaceutical industry. Third, the board must report annually on the ratios of research and development expenditures to sales for individual patentees and for the patented pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
The board has no regulatory authority over the prices of medicines that are not patented. Nor can it direct the levels of or nature of research and development expenditures of the pharmaceutical companies.
How does the board determine if the price is excessive? The Patent Act provides that the board take into consideration the following factors in determining whether the price of a patented medicine is excessive: the price of the medicine in the previous five years; the price of other medicines in the same therapeutic class; the price of those medicines in other countries; and the Consumer Price Index.
The board has developed its guidelines in recognition of the factors set out in the act put forward in 1987. These guidelines are not a rigid set of decision-making rules. They are intended to provide patentees with adequate information to establish in advance prices that may be presumed not to be excessive.
The record shows that the board has been successful in keeping increases in the prices of patented drugs well below the rate of inflation. Since this board was created the prices of existing patented drugs have risen by an average of only 2.9 per cent a year while the Consumer Price Index has risen by an average of about 4.4 per cent.
December 9, 1992

The PMPRB has been so successful it has earned the attention of our neighbours to the south. In the United States a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office recently compared the cost of prescription drugs in the United States and Canada. The study found that on average the manufacturers' price for prescription drugs was 32 per cent higher in the U.S. than in Canada.
Furthermore, the study found that half the drugs studied cost wholesalers at least 50 per cent more in the United States. Of the top selling 200 drugs, 27 cost at least 100 per cent more, three drugs cost 500 per cent more, and one, Isordril, which is used in the treatment of angina, cost an incredible 967 per cent more.
The Americans concluded that the Canadian system of controlling drug costs was working very well. The new legislation will make that system work even better.
Bill C-91 strengthens and extends the powers of the PMPRB. The board will continue to have the power to roll back prices to non-excessive levels and, because it will no longer be able to invoke compulsory licences as a remedy for excessive pricing, the bill provides the PMPRB with a range of new remedies.
The board will have the power to recoup excessive revenues earned by a company while the medicine was excessively priced. It will be able to order an extra price reduction for a sufficient period to claw back these excessive revenues, or alternatively it can impose a monetaiy penalty in the same amount.
In addition, if the board finds that the patentee has engaged in a policy of excessive pricing it will be able to impose double damages. That is, it can recoup twice the estimated excess revenues either through a price reduction order or a monetary penalty.
Much tougher sanctions will be also applied to patentees that fail to comply with a board order. This will be punishable as a criminal offence on a summaiy conviction and liable to fines of up to $100,000 per day for corporations and up to $25,000 per day for individuals.
Individuals will also be subject to imprisonment for up to one year. Alternately, the board will be able to file its orders with the Federal Court. Non-compliance with the Federal Court order would then be enforceable by the
Government Orders
usual sanctions for contempt of court, which are unlimited fines and periods of imprisonment.
Finally, the board will also be in a position to order double damages on the grounds that non-compliance amounts to a policy of excessive pricing. Tough penalties will also apply to companies that fail to submit required data. The PMPRB is a proven and effective mechanism for controlling patented drug prices.
Bill C-91 will make it even more effective in deterring unreasonable prices. Canada's track record on drug prices compares favourably with the situation in other countries. For example, the U.S. General Accounting Office showed that prices for most drugs in the U.S. doubled between 1985 and 1991, and some prices even quadrupled.
In Canada, as a result of the PMPRB, patented drug prices rose less than the rate of inflation. The Canadian system of drug price controls, centred on the PMPRB, has been extremely effective. In fact, pharmaceutical companies in Canada have a good record of compliance with the board's guidelines, and there has rarely been any need to respond-


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


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a very limited amount of time. I believe I have six minutes before the bells ring.
I want to make one or two points on Bill C-91. This is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation introduced by the most unpopular government in the history of our country, certainly since the beginning of polling in this country.
I find it very strange that we are in this House today, in 1992, debating whether we should keep compulsory licensing in the drug industry. We have a government that is very unpopular with a very unpopular piece of legislation saying that we should get rid of compulsory licensing. Yet at the same time a new President has been elected south of the border and a large fraction of the Democratic Party in Washington is now coming out in favour of compulsory licensing in its own country. Why? It is to bring down the cost of drugs to the American consumers.

Government Orders
Yet we have the Conservatives saying: "No, it is not going to affect the prices. It is not going to increase prices any more than the cost of living, whatever that might be in 10 years' time".
Somebody is wrong. Somebody is not telling the truth. We have American congressmen and senators visiting our capital from time to time extolling the virtues of our medicare system. Many in the U.S. Congress want to adopt a system similar to the medicare system in Canada which, on balance, has worked very well over the years since it was first implemented.
We now have a Conservative government which incidentally was opposed to medicare 25 years ago saying that the price of drugs will increase and that it is not going to do anything about it. This huge international drug cartel will be allowed to make even greater profits, driving up the price of drugs. That in turn will have a veiy serious impact on medicare.
The cost of drugs and the cost of medicare are really part of the same parcel. Many of our drugs in this country are provided to people, particularly to senior citizens and people on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast, on a point of order.


Mr. Kindy:: I call for a quorum count, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I see a quorum. The hon. member for Brant has the floor.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that the cost of drugs is a very important and integral part of our medicare system. In our country, unlike most of the states in the United States, we do provide drugs free for our senior citizens and to those who cannot afford them, those on public assistance.
With the increase in the drug prices that this bill will create over the next several years, it means either the cost to the taxpayers, who provide the money for those drugs, will go up and our taxes will go up in order to keep that public drug program or we are going to have to become more exclusive and restrictive in our public drug programs with higher threshold entry levels.
We cannot have it both ways. That is an expression the people across from us in this very backward Conservative government like to use a lot in their arguments on a number of bills in this House.
It is very interesting that at this time we are listening to arguments by the government which say: "Listen, there is a possibility that the drug companies, if this bill goes through might invest half a billion dollars in research in this country". Yet at the same time, we have also been told by experts that the cost of drugs cumulatively could go up over the next 10 or 15 years, I believe, by $7 billion.
If that is a good business deal for the Conservatives, is it any wonder that our economy is in such a mess at this time? They cannot tell the difference between a good business deal and a lousy business deal.
Are we to allow Bill C-91 to go through and launch a massive assault directly and indirectly on our public medicare system in this country, or can we do anything at all in this Chamber to drive some common sense into the people opposite us in the Conservative government and say: "We do not have to necessarily on this point move in lock step with the United States".
I know this Conservative government would love to continue to Americanize our country. The Conservatives have done everything they can through the free trade agreement. They are going to continue it through NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement. For Heaven's sakes, when are we going to come to our senses and say that our country is different from the United States, or at least it used to be and what is left of that difference should be preserved.
Here again in this drug patent bill we see a caving in once again to powerful American drug companies in order to be in sync with the FTA, the free trade agreement, and with NAFTA. That is basically what it is all about. We are caving in once again to American corporate interests. We all know that the cost of drugs in the United States is astronomically higher than it is in Canada.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, the time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are hon. members willing not to see the clock so that the hon. member can have five minutes? Is there unanimous consent?
December 9, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-91 is going to affect our pharmaceutical industry in Canada for years to come. The government has brought in closure on the bill because I believe it does not want the bill to be debated on its substance.
This bill is protecting patents up to 20 years. It is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer a tremendous amount of money. That money is going to come from the Canadian taxpayer. The Canadian health care system is going to suffer because of that. It is estimated that it is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer over a billion dollars a year. There are different estimates. Maybe this one is a little bit high, but still it is an estimate that is certainly credible.
The Canadian Pharmaceutical Association believes that this bill is going to hurt those Canadian pharmaceutical companies that have their head offices in Canada, not those that are abroad. Most of the big pharmaceutical companies are located in Switzerland, Germany, France, England and the United States.
When I used to practise medicine, I could see that Canadians were beginning through the generic companies to manufacture drugs under licence. This was creating made in Canada companies. This government through its policies has been listening to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Minister for International Trade says that we need NAFTA. NAFTA is part of this deal and because of that, we will not have a manufacturing industry in Canada.
Since this bill was introduced, we have only had nine hours of debate. It is a major bill that is going to hurt manufacturing of drugs made in Canada. The government tells us this money that the big companies are going to make in Canada is going to be used for research and development. Naturally, some of this money might go to a couple of universities for research, but we are talking about huge amounts of money that the companies are going to transfer back to their head offices, whether it be in England, the United States, Switzerland, France or Germany. This is certainly not conducive to making Canada a country where industry can flourish.
What we need is not Bill C-91 or Bill C-22, but a reform of our taxation system where we would reward
Government Orders
wealth creation by Canadian companies. We should not create companies here that have head offices abroad.
Therefore I am voting against this bill and I hope that members who believe that Canada has to have its own trade policies will do the same.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day, 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 report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I think you may find there is disposition in the House to deem each of the proposed amendments to Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act currently on the Order Paper to be moved by the member in whose name it stands on the Order Paper and seconded by his or her respective House leader in the case of the Liberal Party Whip and in the case of the New Democratic Party, except for Motion No. 51 standing in the name of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, whose seconder is myself, and that the House proceed immediately to the taking of divisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous agreement?

December 9, 1992
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 2 at page 2 the following:
"55.1 (1) It shall not be an act of infringement to:
(a)	manufacture a product for the purposes of determining the capabilities of the manufacturer to manufacture the product in commercial quantities;
(b)	use a process for the manufacture of a product for the purpose of determining the capability of the user to use the process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product produced by the process; or
(c)	use the products obtained by (a) or (b) above for the purposes of applying for regulatory approval or for the purposes of stocking the product for sale in commercial quantities.
(2)	It shall not be an act of infringement to manufacture or sell a product for the purposes of exporting the product in commercial quantities.
(3)	The patent of every person who contravenes or fails to comply with sections 80 or 85 or subsections 81(3) or 81(4) or any order made under section 81 regarding that patent shall automatically expire one month after such order.
(4)	It shall not be an infringement to make, use, sell or export a product containing the same medicine as one for which an order of the Board shall not have been fully complied with within the time provided by the Board."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved:: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 3 to 11 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"55.2 (1) It is not an infringement of a patent for any person to make, construct, use or sell the patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law of Canada, a province or a country other than Canada that regulates the manufacture, construction, use or sale of any product.
(2)	It is not an infringement of a patent for any person who makes, constructs, uses or sells a patented invention in accordance with subsection (1) to make, construct or use the invention, during the applicable period provided for by the regulations, for the manufacture and storage of articles intended for sale after the date on which the term of the patent expires.
(3)	The Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of subsection (2), but any period provided for by the regulations must terminate immediately preceding the date on which the term of the patent expires.
(4)	The Governor in Council may make such regulations as the Governor in Council considers necessary for preventing the infringement of a patent by any person who makes, constructs, uses or sells a patented invention in accordance with subsection (1) or (2) including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, regulations
(a)	respecting the conditions that must be fulfilled before a notice, certificate, permit or other document concerning any product to which a patent may relate may be issued to a patentee or other person under any Act of Parliament that regulates the manufacture, construction, use or sale of that product, in addition to any conditions provided for by or under that Act;
(b)	respecting the earliest date on which a notice, certificate, permit or other document referred to in paragraph (a) that is issued or to be issued to a person other than the patentee may take effect and respecting the manner in which that date is to be determined;
(c)	governing the resolution of disputes between a patentee or former patentee and any person who applies for a notice, certificate, permit or other document referred to in paragraph
(a)	as to the date on which that notice, certificate, permit or other document may be issued or take effect;
(d)	conferring rights of action in any court of competent jurisdiction with respect to any disputes referred to in paragraph (c) and respecting the remedies that may be sought in the court, the procedure of the court in the matter and the decisions and orders it may make; and
(e)	generally governing the issue of a notice, certificate, permit or other document referred to in paragraph (<z) in circumstances where the issue of that notice, certificate, permit or other document might result directly or indirectly in the infringement of a patent.
December 9, 1992

(5)	In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between
(a)	this section or any regulations made under this section, and
(b)	any Act of Parliament or any regulations made thereunder, this section or the regulations made under this section shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
(6)	For greater certainty, subsection (1)".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 5.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 1 to
35 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor.
"76.1 (1) The patent of every person who contravenes or fails to comply with sections 80 or 85 or subsections 81(3) or 81(4) or any order made under section 81 regarding that patent shall automatically expire one month after such order.
(2)	Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with sections 80 or 85 or subsections 81(3) or 81(4) or any order made under section 81 is also guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable:
(a)	in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five
thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year or to both; and
(b)	in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding one
hundred thousand dollars.
(3)	Proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) may be commenced within but not later than two years after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose or became known.
(4)	Where an offence under subsection (1) is committed or continued on more than one day, the person who committed the offence is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is committed or continued."


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth) moved:: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 1 at
page 3 and substituting the following therefor
"76.1 (1) Subject to subsection 80(4), every person who contravenes or".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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.

Government Orders


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13 and 19 are a grouping.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 6
(a)	by striking out lines 2 and 3 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"fails to comply with section 80, 81, 82 or 88 or any order made thereunder is guilty"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 14 and 15 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"to comply with section 84 or any order made under section 83 is guilty of".


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 6.


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 5 the following:
"(4) Where a patentee fails to comply with an order made under this section within the time set out in the order and has on another occasion failed to comply with another order made under this section, the Board may direct the Commissioner to revoke the patent of the patentee for the invention pertaining to the medicine to which the direction relates for as many years as the Board deems advisable.
(5)	Where the Commissioner is directed to revoke a patent under subsection (4), the Commissioner shall forthwith revoke the patent for the number of years indicated by the Board in its direction."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 13. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 9,11 and 12. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 9.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 11 and 12. A negative vote on Motion No. 9 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 11 and 12.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out lines 8 to 11 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
""Minister" means the Minister of National Health and Welfare or such other Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this section and sections 80 to 103;"; and
December 9, 1992

Government Orders
(b)	by striking out lines 15 to 22 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"the patent for that invention and includes, where any other person is entitled to exercise any rights in relation to that patent other than under a licence continued by subsection 11(1) of the Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992, that other person in respect of those rights;".


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: ;
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by adding immediately after line 11 at page 4, the following:
""Minister" means the Minister of National Health and Welfare;";
(b)	by striking out lines 9 and 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"ministers of the Crown for the"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 31 to 33 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"this Act under the direction of the Board and to the ministers of the Crown".


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out lines 30 to 35 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"80. (1) A patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine shall, as required by and in accordance with the regulations, provide the Board with such information and documents as the regulations may specify re-";
(b)	by striking out line 39 on page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing or has been"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 5 to 25 on page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) any other related matters.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3), a person who is a former patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine shall, as required by and in accordance with the regulations, provide the Board with such information and documents as the regulations may specify respecting
(a) the identity of the medicine;
(b)	the price at which the medicine was sold in any market in Canada and elsewhere during the period in which the person was a patentee of the invention;
(c)	the costs of making and marketing the medicine produced during that period, whether incurred before or after the patent was issued, where that information is available to the person in Canada or is within the knowledge or control of the person;
(d)	the factors referred to in section 85; and
(e)	any other related matters.
(3)	Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who has not been entitled to the benefit of the patent or to exercise any rights in relation to the patent for a period of three or more years.
81.	(1) The Board may, by order, require a patentee or former patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine to provide the Board with information and documents respecting
(a)	in the case of a patentee, any of the matters referred to in paragraphs 80(l)(a) to (e);
(b)	in the case of a former patentee, any of the matters referred to in paragraphs 80(2)(a) to (e); and
(c)	such other related matters as the Board may require.
(2)	A patentee or former patentee in respect of whom an order is made under subsection (1) shall comply with the order within such time as is specified in the order or as the Board may allow.
(3)	No order may be made under subsection (1) in respect of a former patentee who, more than three years before the day on which the order is proposed to be made, ceased to be entitled to the benefit of the patent or to exercise any rights in relation to the patent.
82.	(1) A patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine who intends to sell the medicine in a market in Canada in which it has not previously been sold shall, as soon as practicable after determining the date on which the medicine will be first offered for sale in that market, notify the Board of its intention and of that date.
(2)	Where the Board receives a notice under subsection (1) from a patentee or otherwise has reason to believe that a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine intends to sell the medicine in a market in Canada in which the medicine has not previously been sold, the Board may, by order, require the patentee to provide the Board with information and documents respecting the price at which the medicine is intended to be sold in that market.
(3)	Subject to subsection (4), a patentee in respect of whom an order is made under subsection (2) shall comply with the order within such time as is specified in the order or as the Board may allow.
(4)	No patentee shall be required to comply with an order made under subsection (2) prior to the sixtieth day preceding the date on which the patentee intends to first offer the medicine for sale in the relevant market."

Government Orders
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 26 to 46 at page 5, lines 1 to 49 at page 6 and lines 1 to 46 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"83. (1) Where the Board finds that a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine is selling the medicine in any market in Canada at a price that, in the Board's opinion, is excessive, the Board may, by order, direct the patentee to cause the maximum price at which the patentee sells the medicine in that market to be reduced to such level as the Board considers not to be excessive and as is specified in the order.
(2)	Subject to subsection (4), where the Board finds that a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine has, while a patentee, sold the medicine in any market in Canada at a price that, in the Board's opinion, was excessive, the Board may, by order, direct the patentee to do any one or more of the following things as will, in the Board's opinion, offset the amount of the excess revenues estimated by it to have been derived by the patentee from the sale of the medicine at an excessive price:
(a)	reduce the price at which the patentee sells the medicine in any market in Canada, to such extent and for such period as is specified in the order;
(b)	reduce the price at which the patentee sells one other medicine to which a patented invention of the patentee pertains in any market in Canada, to such extent and for such period as is specified in the order; or
(c)	pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada an amount specified in the order.
(3)	Subject to subsection (4), where the Board finds that a former patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine had, while a patentee, sold the medicine in any market in Canada at a price that, in the Board's opinion, was excessive, the Board may, by order, direct the former patentee to do any one or more of the following things as will, in the Board's opinion, offset the amount of the excess revenues estimated by it to have been derived by the former patentee from the sale of the medicine at an excessive price:
(a)	reduce the price at which the former patentee sells a medicine to which a patented invention of the former patentee pertains in any market in Canada, to such extent and for such period as is specified in the order; or
(b)	pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada an amount specified in the order.
(4)	Where the Board, having regard to the extent and duration of the sales of the medicine at an excessive price, is of the opinion that the patentee or former patentee has engaged in a policy of selling the medicine at an excessive price, the Board may, by order, in lieu of any order it may make under subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be, direct the patentee or former patentee to do any one or more of the things referred to in that subsection as will, in the Board's opinion, offset not more than twice the amount of the excess revenues estimated by it to have been derived by the patentee or former patentee from the sale of the medicine at an excessive price.
(5)	In estimating the amount of excess revenues under subsection
(2), (3) or (4), the Board shall not consider any revenues derived by a patentee or former patentee before December 20, 1991 or any revenues derived by a former patentee after the former patentee ceased to be entitled to the benefit of the patent or to exercise any rights in relation to the patent.
(6)	Before the Board makes an order under this section, it shall provide the patentee or former patentee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
(7)	No order may be made under this section in respect of a former patentee who, more than three years before the day on which the proceedings in the matter commenced, ceased to be entitled to the benefit of the patent or to exercise any rights in relation to the patent.
84. (1) A patentee or former patentee who is required by any order made under section 83 to reduce the price of a medicine shall commence compliance with the order within one month after the date of the order or within such greater period after that date as the Board determines is practical and reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the patentee or former patentee.
(2)	A patentee or former patentee who is directed by any order made under section 83 to pay an amount to Her Majesty shall pay that amount within one month after the date of the order or within such greater period after that date as the Board determines is practical and reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the patentee or former patentee.
(3)	An amount payable by a patentee or former patentee to Her Majesty under any order made under section 83 constitutes a debt due to Her Majesty and may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction."


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, could you please inform the House what motion we are voting on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are on a
grouping which includes Motions Nos. 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 39. Group 4.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that motions 15,16 and 18 were grouped together. It might be better to put them one by one, Mr. Speaker, because we could approve one motion and be against another. If they are presented together, it would be difficult to decide.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am going to put all the questions right now and then we will vote on them.

December 9, 1992


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I think part of the difficulty is that as you went through the motions they are in the names of both government members and opposition members. The reality is that we are going to end up having to force a vote and sort it out when we come to the actual voting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have put the question on Motions Nos. 16 and 18.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is an appropriate time to try again to see if there is agreement to deem that all motions have been moved in the names of the members in whose name they stand on the Order Paper and seconded by the House leader of either caucus and the motion of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, by myself, and then we can sort it out after the fact.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very reasonable suggestion. However, for the purposes of the House this does not mean in any way that we are now voting. All it means is that we can proceed with the vote on the various motions which will have to be adjudicated in this Chamber. In no way, Mr. Speaker, does it interfere with how members will wish to vote on any particular amendment put forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 32
and 33 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"Board, is or was excessive, the Board shall, by order, direct the patentee to issue a licence to a Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer which licence shall require a royalty payment of 4 per cent of net sales, or do any one or".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 9 to
13 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"at any time since December 7, 1987 from the sale of the medicine at an excessive price and while the patentee was entitled to the benefit of the patent;".
Government Orders
"(d) direct that, effective on the date specified in the order, subsections 39.11(1) and 39.14(1) ceases to apply in respect or both of
(i)	the patent for the invention pertaining to the medicine, or
(ii)	any other patent of the patentee for an invention that pertains to one other medicine, whether granted before or after the date specified in the order;" and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 42 at page 6, the following:
"(2) Where an order is made under paragraph (1 \d) in respect of a medicine, the prohibitions set out in subsections 39.11 (1) and 39.14 (1) cease to apply in respect of the medicine effective on the date of the order."


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 7 the following:
"(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), an order maybe made under this section in respect of a patentee described in subsection (5) in any proceeding commenced in respect of the patentee more than two years after the day on which the patentee ceased to be entitled to the benefit of the relevant patent, where the Board within two years following that day, provides the patentee with written notice that proceedings might be commenced in respect of the patentee more than two years after the day on which the patentee ceased to be entitled to the benefit of the relevant patent and that if such proceedings are commenced, an order may be made under this section in respect of the patentee in those proceedings."
Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 2 to 19 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada, the term excessive price means a price that does not exceed by more than 4 per cent the lower of:
(a)	the price at which similar medicines are available in countries in which competition is not limited by patents; and
(b)	the price at which similar medicines would be available in Canada if competition were not limited by patents."


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 8 the following:
"(b) the value of the medicine in preventing or reducing expenditures from public or private sources in health treatment or other support programs to patients;
[DOT]. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth) moved:
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by
(a) adding immediately after line 25 at page 6 the following:
(c)	the potential value of export sales of medicines produced in Canada;
(d)	income support for ongoing research and development in Canada for the medicine under review or new medicine;
(e)	an internationally competitive return on investment."
Motion No. 25.

Government Orders


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out lines 11 to 14 at page 8; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 45 at page 8 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or the regulations made thereunder, in determining under section 81 whether a medicine is being or has been sold in any market in Canada at an excessive price, the Board shall not take into consideration the prices at which the medicine and other medicines in the same therapeutic class have been sold in countries other than Canada."


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 16 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
''(e) the patentee's profit margin in respect of the medicine; and".
Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 16 to 29 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) the costs of making and marketing the medicine; and
(f)	such other factors as may be specified".


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 17 to 29 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) the costs of making and marketing the medicine; and
(f)	such other factors as may be specified".
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 8 the following:
"82.1 (1) Notwithstanding any provision in this Act, the Board shall, in any proceeding under section 80, find that the medicine is being sold or has been sold by the patentee in any market in Canada at an excessive price where the percentage increase in the price of that medicine exceeds the percentage of revenues expended by the patentee in Canada on research and development relating to medicine in the year preceding the proceeding.
(2)	Notwithstanding any provision in this Act, where the Board makes a finding under subsection (1) it may make any order that it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
(3)	The Board shall, at the commencement of a proceeding under section 80, make an order requiring the patentee to provide the Board with information and documents respecting the expenditures made by the patentee in Canada on research and development relating to medicine.
(4)	For the purpose of this section "revenues" means all of the revenues of a patentee from sales of medicine in Canada in the year referred to in subsection (1)."
Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 47 at page 8 and lines 1 to 15 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"be held in public.
(2)	A hearing under section 81 shall be held upon application by any Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer accompanied by a swom statement attesting that, if permitted, that manufacturer would sell similar medicine at a price substantially below that of the patentee.
(3)	A hearing under section 81 shall be held upon application by any ministers of the Crown for the provinces who are responsible for health and the Board shall give notice to all such ministers of any hearing under section 81, and each of them is entitled to appear and make representations to the Board with respect to the matter being heard.
(4)	The Board shall give notice to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who shall be the Minister responsible for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and shall be entitled to appear and make representations to the Board with respect to any matter being heard."


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a) by striking out lines 9 to 11 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or such other Minister as may be designated by the regulations and to provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for health of"; and
(i>) by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or such other Minister as may be designated by the regulations and to the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for".


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 9 the following:
"84.1 (1) Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament or the regulation made thereunder, where the Board issues guidelines in respect of the price range within which an invention pertaining to a medicine should be sold when it is first offered for sale, and the patentee, before a notice of compliance has been issued in respect of that invention, informs the Board that the patentee intends to sell the invention at a price in excess of that price range, no notice of compliance shall be issued in respect of that invention.
December 9, 1992

Government Orders
(2) For the purposes of this section "notice of compliance" has the meaning given to that term by subsection 39.1(1) of the former Act, and the definition of that term in that subsection shall continue to apply for the purposes of this section as if it had not been repealed by section 3 of this Act."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the change of Speakers in the chair, I think that there might be a disposition in the House that all of the motions that have been put be accepted as being moved by the person whose name appears on the Order Paper and the House leader of their party and they be deemed to have been properly moved and seconded and that we proceed directly to the division on the rest of the motions.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 16

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 16 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 38. A negative vote on Motion No. 16 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 38.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 38 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 36 and a negative vote on Motion No. 38 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 36.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18. This vote also applies to Motion No. 20.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 18 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 21, 23, 25 and 26. A negative vote on Motion No. 18 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 21, 23, 25 and 26.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a) by striking out lines 30 to 35 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:

Government Orders
"80. (1) A patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine shall, as required by and in accordance with the regulations, provide the Board with such information and documents as the regulations may specify re-";
(b)	by striking out line 39 on page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing or has been"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 5 to 25 on page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) any other related matters.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3), a person who is a former patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine shall, as required by and in accordance with the regulations, provide the Board with such information and documents as the regulations may specify respecting
(a)	the identity of the medicine;
(b)	the price at which the medicine was sold in any market in Canada and elsewhere during the period in which the person was a patentee of the invention;
(c)	the costs of making and marketing the medicine produced during that period, whether incurred before or after the patent was issued, where that information is available to the person in Canada or is within the knowledge or control of the person;
(4)	the factors referred to in section 85; and
(e) any other related matters.
(3)	Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who has not been entitled to the benefit of the patent or to exercise any rights in relation to the patent for a period of three or more years.
81.	(1) The Board may, by order, require a patentee or former patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine to provide the Board with information and documents respecting
(a)	in the case of a patentee, any of the matters referred to in paragraphs 80(l)(a) to (e);
(b)	in the case of a former patentee, any of the matters referred to in paragraphs 80(2)(a) to (e); and
(c)	such other related matters as the Board may require.
(2)	A patentee or former patentee in respect of whom an order is made under subsection (1) shall comply with the order within such time as is specified in the order or as the Board may allow.
(3)	No order may be made under subsection (1) in respect of a former patentee who, more than three years before the day on which the order is proposed to be made, ceased to be entitled to the benefit of the patent or to exercise any rights in relation to the patent.
82.	(1) A patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine who intends to sell the medicine in a market in Canada in which it has not previously been sold shall, as soon as practicable after determining the date on which the medicine will be first offered for sale in that market, notify the Board of its intention and of that date.
(2) Where the Board receives a notice under subsection (1) from a patentee or otherwise has reason to believe that a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine intends to sell the medicine in a
market in Canada in which the medicine has not previously been sold, the Board may, by order, require the patentee to provide the Board with information and documents respecting the price at which the medicine is intended to be sold in that market.
(3)	Subject to subsection (4), a patentee in respect of whom an order is made under subsection (2) shall comply with the order within such time as is specified in the order or as the Board may allow.
(4)	No patentee shall be required to comply with an order made under subsection (2) prior to the sixtieth day preceding the date on which the patentee intends to first offer the medicine for sale in the relevant market."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 28. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 28 obviates the need for a vote on Motions. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. A negative vote on Motion No. 28 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 30,31 and 33.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 33 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 32 and 34. A negative vote on Motion No. 33 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 32 and 34.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 28.


December 9, 1992

That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 2 to 19
at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada, the term excessive price means a price that does not exceed by more than 4 per cent the lower of:
(a)	the price at which similar medicines are available in countries
in which competition is not limited by patents; and
(b)	the price at which similar medicines would be available in
Canada if competition were not limited by patents."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 35.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately
after line 45 at page 8 the following:
"82.1 (1) Notwithstanding any provision in this Act, the Board shall, in any proceeding under section 80, find that the medicine is being sold or has been sold by the patentee in any market in Canada at an excessive price where the percentage increase in the price of that medicine exceeds the percentage of revenues expended by the patentee in Canada on research and development relating to medicine in the year preceding the proceeding.
(2)	Notwithstanding any provision in this Act, where the Board makes a finding under subsection (1) it may make any order that it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
(3)	The Board shall, at the commencement of a proceeding under section 80, make an order requiring the patentee to provide the Board with information and documents respecting the expenditures made by the patentee in Canada on research and development relating to medicine.
Government Orders
(4)	For the purpose of this section "revenues" means all of the revenues of a patentee from sales of medicine in Canada in the year referred to in subsection (1)."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately
after line 39 at page 9 the following:
"84.1 (1) Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament or the regulation made thereunder, where the Board issues guidelines in respect of the price range within which an invention pertaining to a medicine should be sold when it is first offered for sale, and the patentee, before a notice of compliance has been issued in respect of that invention, informs the Board that the patentee intends to sell the invention at a price in excess of that price range, no notice of compliance shall be issued in respect of that invention.
(2) For the purposes of this section "notice of compliance" has the meaning given to that term by subsection 39.1(1) of the former Act, and the definition of that term in that subsection shall continue to apply for the purposes of this section as if it had not been repealed by section 3 of this Act."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

December 9, 1992
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately
after line 29 at page 4 the following:
"Reformultated Medicines
80.	(1) Where in the opinion of the Board, a patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine has reformulated the medicine after the coming into force of this section, and is selling or has sold the reformulated medicine in Canada, the Board may, by order, require the patentee to provide the Board with such information and documents respecting that medicine as is specified in the order and as is available to the patentee in Canada or within the knowledge or control of the patentee.
(2)	A patentee in respect of whom an order is made under subsection (1) shall comply with the order within such time as is specified in the order.
(3)	Where a patentee in respect of whom an order is made under subsection (1) does not comply with the order the prohibitions set out in subsections 39.11 (1) and 39.14 (1) cease to apply in respect of the medicine effective in the date of the order.
81.	(1) Where after providing a patentee described in subsection 80(1) with a reasonable opportunity to be, the Board finds that the patentee is selling or has sold medicine that has been reformulated after the coming into force of this section, the prohibitions set out in subsections 39.11 (1) and 39.14 (1) cease to apply in respect of the medicine effective on the day the Board makes its finding.
(2) No proceeding may be commenced under section 81 more than three years after the day on which the patentee ceased to be entitled to the benefit of the relevant patent.
82.	Sections 83 and 84, apply with such modifications as are necessary in respect of any proceeding held under section 81 or any information or document provided to the Board under section 80 or in any proceeding under section 81."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some bon. members: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 40.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 40 to
45 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"88. (1) A patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine shall, as required by and in accordance with the regulations, or as the Board may, by order, require, provide the Board with such information and documents as the regulations or the order may specify re-".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pierre Blais: December 9, 1992

Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"view Board is hereby continued, and".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out line 35 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"to be appointed by the Governor in Council in accordance with this section.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3), three of the five members appointed to the Board shall be appointed from a list of candidates submitted to the Governor in Council by the Lieutenant Governor of each province.
(3)	Where the majority of provinces has agreed on the lists from which an appointment shall be made and advises the Governor in Council of the lists it has agreed to, the Governor in Council shall make the appointments from those lists."
(b)	by striking out line 40 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) Subject to subsection (3), a member of the Board, on the expira-".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately
after line 12 at page 12 the following:
"92. (l)The Minister may establish an advisory panel to advise the Minister on the appointment of persons to the Board, which panel shall include representatives of the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for health, representatives of consumer groups, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate to appoint.
(2) The Minister shall consult with an advisory panel established under subsection (1) for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Governor in Council with respect to the appointment of a person to the Board."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 47 agreed to.

December 9, 1992
Government Orders


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"its jurisdiction, but, subject to section 84.1, such guidelines and state-".
Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 35 and 36 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) The Statutory Instruments shall apply to guidelines and statements issued".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I should advise the House that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 49 and 50. A negative vote on Motion No. 48 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 49 and 50.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order just to make sure. We are dealing with Motion No. 48, are we not?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am about to put Motion No. 48 to the House.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 30 to 36 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Subject to subsection (5), the Board may issue guidelines with respect to any matter within its jurisdiction but such guidelines are not binding on the Board or any patentee.
(5)	Before the Board issues any guidelines, it shall consult with the Minister, the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for health and such representatives of consumer groups and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry as the Minister may designate for the purpose.
(6)	The Statutory Instruments Act does not apply to guidelines issued".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion No. 48 agreed to.


Some hon. members:: No. Order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I waited but nobody rose. Therefore, Motion No. 48 was agreed to on division.
The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead on a point of order.


Mr. Gerin:: Madam Speaker, I would like to know what happened. Are you trying to pass motions here without giving the members a chance to say whether they are for or against? I believe five members rose-


Some hon. members:: No, no.


François Gérin: Come on.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that the Chair put the question correctly. There were some yeas and some nays. I waited for a few seconds- Really, I looked but nobody got up.
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast on a point of order.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, when you asked whether there should be a recorded vote, five members stood up and I was one of them.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I consulted with the people around me and in fact only four members asked for a recorded division when I said that the motion was agreed to on division. I can assure the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead that I can count to four.
December 9, 1992

The hon. member on a point of order.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, we tried to co-operate but I see that not everybody is co-operating in this House. Madam Speaker, for the rest of the evening, I would ask you to read so that we can understand what is said and to stop saying dispensed or not dispensed and all that. When questions are put to the members, when we have to answer yes or no, or even when we have to rise, let's make sure that we get a fair vote. In fact, five members did rise and I could name them for you.
If this is the procedure this evening, I would ask that you go slowly enough for us to follow what is going on.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 12 at
page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"pharmaceutical industry which shall outline and compare
wholesale and retail prices; and".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a) by striking out lines 30 to 38 at page 15 and substituting the
following therefor:
Government Orders
"101. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) specifying the information and documents that shall be
provided to the Board under subsection 80(1) or (2) or 88(1);";
(ft) by striking out line 3 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) specifying";
(c)	by striking out line 8 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) designating a Minister for the purposes of subsection 86(2) or paragraph 87(2Xa);
(f) defining, for the purposes of sections";
(d)	by striking out line 11 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(g) requiring fees to be paid before the is-";
(e)	by striking out line 15 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(h) requiring or";
(j) by striking out line 23 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) conferring on"; and
(g) by striking out lines 31 to 38 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) No regulations may be made under paragraph (1 )(rf), (f), (ft) or (i) except on the recommendation of the Minister, made after the Minister has consulted with the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for health and with such representatives of consumer groups and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry as".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Karpoff moves:
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 (a) by striking out at line 8-


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, just to make things perfectly clear. Motion No. 52 which you just read cannot be put to the vote along with Motion No. 53 which was presented by the hon. member from the opposition. Therefore, we will not be able to vote on both at the same time. I think that you should call a vote first on Motion No. 52.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Under the circumstances, I did not-Even though I had announced Motions No. 52, 53 and 54, after reading Motion No. 52, considering what the hon. member just mentioned, I had started putting Motion No. 54 to the House since it is pointless to move Motion No. 53 as long as we have not voted on Motion No. 52.

Government Orders


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I think that I misunderstood what you have said. We will vote Motion No. 52, will we not?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do apologize. I was given Motions Nos. 52, 53 and 54 while I should have been given Motions Nos. 52, 54 and 55. Does that agree with the hon. member's finding?


Pierre Blais: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but if you look at Motion No. 52 you will see that I presented it; Motion No. 53 was presented by Mr. Karpoff; Motion No. 54, by Mr. Karpoff and Motion No. 55, by Mr. MacDonald. In my opinion, Motion No. 52 must put to the vote separately from the three others, Madam Speaker, otherwise it will be very confusing.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have to put Motions Nos. 52, 54 and 55. They just have to be read to the House; then we will have a voice vote on Motion No. 52. Depending on the vote on Motion No. 52, we will vote on Motion No. 54 or on Motion No. 55. For now, I do not intend to put Motions Nos. 54 and 55, but just to read them so that hon. members will know on what they are voting.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out line 8 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) subject to subsection (2), defining, for the purposes of sections 82.1,"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 30 at page 16 the following:
"(2) Any regulation made under paragraph (e) shall be made on the recommendation of the Minister, after the Minister has consulted with the ministers of the Crown for the provinces who are responsible for health but the Minister shall not make any recommendation unless a majority of those ministers have agreed upon a definition of the expression "research and development"."


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by
(a)	striking out line 8 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) subject to subsection (2), defining, for the purposes of sections"; and
(b)	striking out line 32 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(1)(0, (e) or (h) shall be made on the rec".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I now put to the House the question on Motion No. 52.

If Motion No. 52 is carried, Motions Nos. 54 and 55 will not be put. If Motion No. 52 is negatived, Motions Nos. 54 and 55 will be put.
The question is on Motion No. 52.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 5 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"82 (1), including factors relating to".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
December 9, 1992


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 56.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 16 the following:
"Meetings with Minister
102.	(1) The Minister may at any time convene a meeting of the following persons:
(a)	the Chairperson and such members of the Board as the Chairperson may designate;
(b)	the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for health or such representatives as they may designate;
(c)	such representatives of consumer groups and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry as the Minister may designate; and
(d)	such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) The participants at a meeting convened under subsection (1) shall consider such matters in relation to the administration or operation of sections 79 to 101 as the Minister may determine.
103.	The Minister may enter into agreements with any province respecting the distribution to that province of amounts received or collected by the Receiver General under section 84, less any costs incurred in relation to the collection and distribution of those amounts."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Government Orders
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 11 the following:
"Research and Development
87.	(1) Every patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine shall by the 31st day of January 1997 provide the Board with evidence that the patentee has, between the 31st day of December, 1996 and the day this section comes into force, expended in Canada on research and development relating to medicine, at least 15 per cent of the revenues of the patentee from the sales of medicine in Canada between the day this section comes into force and the 31st of December 1996.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where a patentee does not comply with subsection (1), the Board shall so advise the Commissioner and the Commissioner may revoke any patent of the patentee for an invention pertaining to a medicine.
88.	(1) Where after providing a patentee described in subsection 87.1 with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Board finds that the evidence referred to in that subsection does not establish that the patentee expended by the 31st day of December, 1996, at least the amount referred to in subsection (1), the Board shall so advise the Commissioner and the Commissioner may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, revoke any patent of the patentee for an invention pertainin to a medicine.
(2)	No proceeding referred to in subsection (1) may be commenced more than one year after the 31st day of January, 1997.
(3)	Sections 83 and 84 apply with such modifications as are necessary in respect of a proceeding commenced under section 88 or any evidence provided to the Board under section 87 or in a proceeding commenced under section 88.
89.	The Board may make regulations defining, for the purposes of sections 87 and 88, the expresssion "research and development".
Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 11 the following:
"Research and Development
87.	(1) Every patentee of an invention pertaining to a medicine shall, at the end of every year, provide the Board with evidence that the patentee has, in that year, expended in Canada on basic research and development relating to medicine, at least thirty five percent of all monies expended in Canada on all research and development relating to medicine in that year.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where a patentee does not comply with subsection (1), the Board shall so advise the Commissioner, and the Commissioner may revoke any patent of the patentee for an invention pertaining to a medicine.

Government Orders
88.	(1) Where after providing a patentee described in section 87(1) with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Board finds that the evidence does not establish that the patentee expended at least the amount referred to in that subsection in the year in respect of which the proceeding relates, the Board shall so advise the Commissioner and the Commissioner may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, revoke any patent of the patentee for an invention pertaining to a medicine.
(2)	No proceeding referred to in subsection (1) may be commenced not more than one year after the year in respect of which it relates.
(3)	Sections 83 and 84 apply with such modifications as are necessary in respect of a proceeding commenced under section 88 or any evidence provided to the Board under section 87 or in a proceeding under section 88.
89.	The Board may make regulations defining, for the purposes of section 87 and 88, the expressions "research and development" and "basic research and development"."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 41. If Motion No. 41 is carried, Motion No. 43 will not be put.

A negative vote on Motion No. 41 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 43.
The question is on Motion No. 41. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We now come to Motion No. 57.


Pierre Blais: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker. What Motion is it?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 57.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, have we voted on them separately? I heard you put Motion No. 43, but not Motion No. 41.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I read the terms of Motion No. 41, then the terms of Motion No. 43. Afterwards, I put Motion No. 41. The vote was deferred. I cannot put Motion No. 43 before the House has voted on Motion No. 41. Agreed?


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 57.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 6 at
page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"which section 3 of this Act comes into force;".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next group covers Motions Nos. 58, 60 and 61 which I will now put to the House.
December 9, 1992


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 58.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 18 to 22 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"11. (1) A licence that has been filed or granted under section 39 of the former Act before the commencement day shall continue to exist and remain in effect according to its".
Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 27 at page 17 the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, where a licence described in subsection (1) has been granted in respect of a patent of an invention intended or capable of being used for medicine or production of medicine, an application may be made by a person for a licence in respect of that patent and sections 39 to 39.14 shall continue to apply in respect of the application, the granting of a licence and any licence granted, as if those sections had not been repealed by section 3 of this Act."


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 11.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please
say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 12.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Government Orders


An hon. member:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 67.
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 13.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 68.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 14
(a) by striking out lines 16 to 18 at page 18 and substituting the
following therefor:

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
"after this Act is assented to, the provisions of the Patent Act enacted by this Act shall be referred to such";
(b)	by striking out, in the English version, lines 25 to 27 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"prehensive review of the provisions of the Patent Act enacted by this Act and shall, with-"; and
(c)	by striking out line 34 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"to those provisions."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Motion No. 69.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 35 to 38 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"15. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, which day may not be earlier than the adoption by Her Majesty in the right of Canada of the treaty of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Uruguay Round)."


Pierre Blais: Motion No. 70.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 35 to 38 at page 18 and substituting the following Iherefor:
"15. This Act or any provision thereof, or any provision of the Patent Act enacted by this Act, shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council."
Motion No. 71.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 38 at
page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"the date this Act receives Royal Assent."


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 73.
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 15.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 73.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 73 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 69, 70 and 71. A negative vote on Motion No. 73 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 69.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 69 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 70 and 71. A negative vote on Motion No. 69 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 70. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 70 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 71. A negative vote on No. 70 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 71.
The vote is now on Motion No. 73. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House. The first vote will be on Motion No. 2.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

December 9, 1992

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 2 negatived.

The next question is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth).



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order a large number of votes will take place. In view of the substance of the motion which has just been voted on and its similarity to other motions and its similar consequences thereto, I think you could apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 4,1,9, 11 and 13 because of their similar consequences.
We could apply it in reverse to Motions No. 5 and 12 which would then allow us to proceed to Motion No. 19 and have a vote on that particular one.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent has not been given. [Translation]
I clearly heard that no consent was given.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 4 negatived.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The vote which has just been taken is the same vote which was applied to Motion No. 1. In view of its subject matter and its consequences thereto, there might be a disposition to have the vote on Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 4 apply to Motions. Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 13 and apply in reverse to Motions Nos. 5 and 12 so that we could proceed to Motion No. 19 with a vote on that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the vote to be applied?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have unanimous consent.

The next question is on Motion No. 5.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the Motion No. 5 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 7.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. In view of the substance of the motion and its similarity to Motion No. 12, perhaps the vote on Motion No. 5 could be applied to Motion No. 12, as well as the vote which was just taken on Motions Nos. 1 and 4 could also apply to Motions Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 13 and we could proceed with a vote on Motion No. 19.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 12. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 9.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 11 and 12, and a negative vote on Motion No. 9 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 11 and 12. The question is on Motion No. 13.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. My record has not been too good, but perhaps there might be a disposition to apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 13 so we could proceed with Motion No. 19 which covers a number of similar motions in substance and the consequences thereto.
Anderson
Attewell
Bernier
Blackburn (Jonqui&re)
Blenkam
Brightwell
Cadieux
Chadwick
Chartrand
Couture
Darling
Desjardins
Dobbie
Dorin
Epp
Felt ham Fretz
Atkinson
Beatty
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Charest
Clifford
Danis
DeBlois
Dick
Domm
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Gerin

December 9, 1992
Government Orders
Gustafson	HaUiday
Hawkes	Horner
Hughes	Jacques
James	Kempling
Langlois	Layton
Lewis	Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McKnight
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Paproski
Plamondon	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Richardson	Rocheleau
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Tardif	Thacker
Thompson	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vankoughnet
Vien	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-90	Winegard



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. The next question is on Motion No. 9.



[Stage Direction]
++YEAS
Members
nil/aucun
Althouse
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Boudria
Clancy
Crawford
Duhamel
Flis
Fulton
Gagliano
Hopkins
Kaplan
Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-C
MacLellan
McLaughlin
Mills
Nault
Robinson
Skelly (North Island - Powell River)
Speller
Vanclief
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Attewell
Barrett
Blaikie
Caccia
Copps
Dingwall
Ferguson
Foster
Gaffney
Harvard
Hovdebo
Keyes
Kindy
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Marchi Mil liken Murphy Pickard Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Tobin
Waddell
Whittaker
Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-48
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. The next question is on Motion No. 11.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.

The next question is on Motion No. 12, standing in the name of Mr. Blais.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An hon. member:: On division.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 12	Scott (Victoria - Haliburton) Shields	Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth) Siddoncarried.	Sobeski	SparrowStevenson	Tetreault[English]	Thompson Van De Walle	Tremblay (Quebec-Est) VankoughnetThe next question is	Vien	Vincenton Motion No. 19.	Wilbee Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)



[Stage Direction]
++YEAS
Althouse
Barrett
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Catterall
Crawford
Duhamel
Foster
Gaffney
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont -Du ndas)
Lee
MacLellan
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Pickard
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stewart
Vanclief
Walker
Members
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Caccia
Copps
Dingwall
Flis
Fulton
Harvard
Hopkins
Keyes
Kindy
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Marchi
Mills
Nault
Nystrom
Phinney
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Tobin
Volpe
Whittaker-46
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on-


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. In view of the subject matter which we have just voted on, there might be a disposition in the House to apply the division taken on Motion No. 19 to Motions Nos. 16, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 39 and apply it in reverse to Motions Nos. 15, 18 and 38, keeping in mind that these are very similar in terms of their substance and the consequences thereof. Then we could proceed to a vote
December 9, 1992

Government Orders
on Motion No. 17. There are several other votes after that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 15.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 15 carried.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The vote taken on Motion No. 15 might apply to Motions Nos. 18 and 38 and the vote which was taken on Motion No. 19 could apply to Motions Nos. 16, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 39 which would then allow us to proceed to Motion No. 17.
I wonder if there might a disposition in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The consequence of the agreement of the House is that Motions Nos. 15, 18 and 38 are carried. Motions Nos. 16, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 39 are negatived.


Louis Plamondon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was no unanimous consent on the motions you have just enumerated.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I asked the House twice.

Government Orders
The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was	PAIRED MEMBERS
negatived on the following division:
oil/aucun
(Division No. 376)
Members
++YEAS
Alt house Barrett
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Catterall
Crawford
Duhamcl
Foster
Gaffney
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont - Du ndas)
Lee
MacLellan
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Pickard
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stewart
Vanclief
Walker
Members
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Caccia
Copps
Dingwall
FI is
Fulton
Harvard
Hopkins
Keyes
Kindy
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Marchi
Mills
Nault
Nystrom
Phinney
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Volpe
Whittaker-46
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Belsher	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkam	Bosley
Brightwell	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	C hares t
Chartrand	Clifford
Cole	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	DeBlois
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dobbie	Duceppe
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Felt ham
Ferland	Fontaine
Gerin	Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Horner
Horning	Hudon
Jacques	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kempling
Larrivee	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Mayer	Mazankowski
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Paproski
Plamondon	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Robitaille	Rocheleau
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Shields	Siddon
Sobeski	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tetreault
Thompson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle	Vankoughnet
Vien	Vincent
Wilbee	
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-89



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
++YEAS

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-89

[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1992
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
++YEAS
nil/aucun
Althouse
Barrett
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Catterall
Crawford
Duhamel
Foster
Gaffney
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)
I-ee
MacLellan
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Pickard
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stewart
Vanclief
Walker
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Cole
Couture
Darling
Della Noce
Dobbie
Edwards
Fee
Members
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Caccia
Copps
Dingwall
Elis
E^ulton
Harvard
Hopkins
Keyes
Kindy
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Marchi
Mills
Nault
Nystrom
Phinney
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Volpe
Whittaker-46
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Browes
Chadwick
Charest
Clifford
Cote
Danis
DeBlois
Desjardins
Duceppe
Epp
Felt ham

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Attewell
Belsher
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Brightwell
Champagne (Champlain)
Cote
Darling
Della Noce
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-1
Halliday
Hawkes
Horner
Joncas
Loiselle
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Mayer
McDermid
Moore
Paproski
Porter
Reid
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Vien
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple C Worthy-79
Atkinson Beatty Bernier Blais Boyer Browes Clifford Danis DeBlois Desjardins Duceppe Epp
Feltham Fretz Gerin
Grey (Beaver River)
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hogue Jacques Jourdenais Lopez MacKay Mazankowski Monteith Oberle Plamondon Redway Ricard Rocheleau Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria -Haliburton) Shields Sobeski Sparrow Tardif Thompson Vankoughnet Vincent
-Assiniboia)
Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 17.



[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 387)
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. The next question is on Motion No. 40.
Alt house
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Blaikie
Catterall
Copps
Dingwall
Ferguson
Fits
Fhlton
Gagliano
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Kilger (Stormont - Dundas) Kristiansen
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Mifflin
Nault
Nystrom
Phinney
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Tobin
Volpe
Whittaker
Members
Angus
Belair
Blackburn (Brant)
Caccia
Comuzzi
Crawford
Duhamel
Finestone
Foster
Gaffney
Harvard
Hopkins
Keyes
Kindy
Lee



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. The hon. member on a point of order.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be agreement in the House to apply the same vote on the last motion to Motions No. 45 and 47?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 45.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Vien
Sparrow
Tardif
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Winegard	Worthy-71



[Stage Direction]
The next question is on Motion No. 46.	na/aucun
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Just to try again, I wonder if the House might agree on the basis of reversing the vote on 46 to apply to Motions Nos. 47 and 48.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 51.


François Gérin: What happens to Motions Nos. 47 and 48?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 47 and 48 were carried on division this afternoon.
The question is on Motion No. 51.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the House might be in agreement to apply the vote on Motion No. 51 in reverse to Motions Nos. 52 and 56.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent has not been given.
Government Orders
The next question is on Motion No. 52. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 52 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 54 and 55 and a negative vote on Motion No. 52 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 54 and 55.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It will not be necessary to vote on Motions Nos. 54 and 55. The next question is on Motion No. 53.
MacKay
Mazankowski
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Nicholson
Paproski
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Saint-Ju lien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) Shields
Mayer
McDermid
Monteith
Oberle
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Rocheleau
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth) Soetens
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Vankoughnet
Wilbee
Sparrow
Thmer (Halton-Peel)
Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Winegard - 72



Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 56.



[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [English]


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if there might be agreement to apply the vote on Motion No. 46 in reverse to Motions Nos. 41 and 43.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent is not given.
The next question is on Motion No. 41. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 41 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 43. A negative vote on Motion No. 41 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 43.
Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Belsher	Bird
Bjorason	Blackburn (Jonquiire)
Blais	Blenkarn
Bosley	Boyer
Brightwell	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Champagne (Champlain)	Cole
Danis	Darling
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dobbie	Dorin
Duceppe	Edwards
Epp	Felt ham
Ferland	Fretz
Friesen	Germ
Gray (Bonaventu re-Iles-de- ia-Madeleine) Gustafson	
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hockin	Hogue
Hudon	Hughes
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDougall (Timis learning)	MacKay
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer	Mazankowski
McDennid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Oberle	Paproski
Porter	Pronovost
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Richardson
Rocheleau	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Tardif
Thompson	TYemblay (Quebec-Est)
Vankoughnet	Vien
Wilbee Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek -	-Assiniboia)
Winegard	Worthy-82



[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1992
Government Orders
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. The next question is on Motion No. 43.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder whether it could put to the House that the vote that has just been taken on Motion No. 41, which is very similar to Motion No. 43, could apply to that motion and apply in reverse to Motion No. 57. We could then proceed to Motion No. 61.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 43. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 57.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [English]


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I wonder if, in the spirit of Christmas and because the members are tired and have been working hard all night, we might be able to find some agreement to apply the vote on Motion No. 61
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Brightwcll
Champagne (Champlain)
Danis
Desjardins
Dorin
Edwards
Feltham
Friesen
December 9, 1992

Government Orders
to Motions Nos. 58, 60, 63, 67, 73 and 69 and to apply in reverse to Motions Nos. 68 and 70.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 61. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 61 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 58 and 60 and a negative vote on Motion No. 61 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 58 and 60.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 58. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 58 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 60. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 60 negatived.
Angus
Bellemare
Black
Boudria
Butland
Catterall
Comuzzi
Crawford
Duhamel
EH is
Gagliano
Harvard
Hopkins
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont -Du ndas)
Langdon (Essex -Windsor)
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Marchi
Mifflin
Nault
Pagtakhan
Simmons
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stupich
Vanclief
Walker
Anderson
Attewell
Belsher
Bird
Blais
Boyer
Champagne (Champlain)
Cole
Danis
DeBlois
Desjardins
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Gerin

December 9, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 63. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 63 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 67. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 67 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 68. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 68 agreed to.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 73. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 73 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The negative vote on Motion No. 73 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 69. The next question is on Motion No. 69.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 69 negatived.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 70. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 70 agreed to.


Pierre 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, as amended, be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]
It being 10.37 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 10, 1992