1992-12-08

[Stage Direction]
THIRD SESSION-THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT 41-42 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa. Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 8, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

[Stage Direction]
[English ]

Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning under Standing Order 110(2) to table a certificate of nomination in the Chamber.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, two petitions this morning. The first one points out that family class and assisted relative immigration has always been an important part of Canadian immigration and that family class and assisted relatives have people in Canada who will assist them with finding employment, housing and learning the Canadian language and customs.
It calls upon this government to reverse its current policy and undertake to make family class and assisted relatives always the priority for immigration.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the second petition points out that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of all activity in the New Delhi office in India comes from people applying for immigration or visitors' visas from the Punjab.
It also points out that it is very difficult for people to travel from the Punjab to New Delhi, and calls upon this government to immediately establish a consular service for immigration and visitors' visas in the Punjab.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions this morning.
In the first one, the petitioners are concerned about the cuts to funding for the RCMP. They ask the government to re-examine the decision to force the province to increase funding for the RCMP as a federal police force.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I have concerns the cuts to the VIA Rail system.
This petition has signatures that are mostly from Saltspring Island, Sidney and Victoria. The petitioners ask the government to maintain VIA Rail's present national network and to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is concerned with Canada's loans to Brazil and the use of that money for destroying the rain forest.
The petitioners ask that the Canadian government develop a policy that will prevent any Canadian capital from being used to damage or destroy a rain forest, including construction of dams, clearing of land for cattle ranching and development of mines, all of which would extinguish species and displace and irreparably harm native people.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners in this first instance deplore that the Government of Canada has imposed the goods and services tax on magazines, books and newspapers.
They ask that this be removed. They point out that dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, our cultural heritage and our education. rrhey point out as well that in order to have a productive society, there must be no tax.

December 8, 1992
Routine Proceedings STUDENT LOANS


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in the second instance the petitioners indicate that the 3 per cent tax on student loans is still in operation. It had been promised to have been removed.
The petitioners also indicate that other cuts to transfer payments for health and education are inappropriate and are counterproductive to increased productivity and competitiveness.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly authorized under Standing Order 36 concerning Bill C-91 which is coincidentally being debated in the House today.
The petitioners point out that Bill C-91 will, as Bill C-22 its predecessor did, make drugs more costly to the Canadian public. It will be an added financial burden on the provincial and private drug plans. They point out that although it was said that Bill C-22 would not result in increased drug prices, it did. The petitioners have no confidence that Bill C-91 will do any better.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of presenting two petitions.
The first is from a group of my constituents in Happy Valley, Goose Bay and Labrador, who are calling upon Parliament and indeed all Canadians to support the Proud to be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive, life long relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of people from the island portion of my province who are calling upon Parliament to reaffirm its commitment to seek to eliminate poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from the Kamloops constituency, namely the community of Clearwater, who point out their deep concern regarding a plan to divert part of the North Thompson River near Valemont in order to sell one million acre feet of fresh water to California, U.S.A.
They are simply asking the government to announce and take steps to pass legislation ensuring that our Canadian rivers will not be diverted.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another issue, the petitioners again from Kamloops point out that selected professional groups now under the Income Thx Act can deduct a write-off for dues, equipment and services necessary for the operation of their profession.
Under the present law, teachers are precluded from receiving such benefits. They are calling upon the government to take action to provide an element of fairness in the tax system and to treat teachers as other professionals are treated.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, again the petitioners from Kamloops are concerned about what they perceive to be increasing levels of lawlessness in some of the rural communities.
They are asking the federal government to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can fulfil its mandate and role appropriately.
.	FIRST NATIONS OF CANADA


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, a number of petitioners from the communities of Fort St. James, Simon Fraser University, Nanaimo, Chemainus, Qualicum Bay and Ladysmith, point out that they hope the day of June 21 will be set aside as a day respecting a national solidarity date for the First Nations of Canada.
They unfortunately point out that the Conservatives in the House of Commons would not co-operate and therefore this is not proceeding at the moment.
December 8, 1992


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt, but hon. members know that in presenting petitions, they must slick very closely to what the petition is demanding and not get into debate.
The reason for that is that nobody else can enter into debate LI' the comments that are made seem in the minds of some others to be rebutted. I know hon. members will want to co-operate on that.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting to the Elouse a petition signed by a number of people of Windsor in Essex county.
The petitioners request that Parliament take all necessary measures to preserve the policies of section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and continue to work in partnership with the province of Ontario to train and retrain the residents of Windsor and Essex County in this time of excessive unemployment.
These petitions have been duly certified according to the rules of the House.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from the area of Lebel-sur-Quevillon. The petitioners state that movies of violence on television and certain news reports on the radio are dangerous and should be prohibited because they encourage more violence.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray this Parliament legislate on those points in order to restrain violence in our society, and thus better protect our children and give Canadian citizens a better quality of life.
[English ]


Hon. William Scott (Victoria -Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions signed by 97 citizens from Lindsay, Omemee, Pontypool, Kirkfield, Little Britain, Beaverton, Dunsford, Oakwood, Newmarket and Osha-wa.
They are calling upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an
Privilege
updated juvenile delinquents act and a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the fact that the Minister of National Defence has consistently refused to appear before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
The minister has given as his excuse the fact that he is too busy and that he cannot put it into his schedule. Yet the minister has seen fit to appear before a Senate committee and another committee of this House.


SPEAKER' RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Labrador feels that the fact the minister has not appeared before the committee is a breach of the member's privileges and not the privileges of the House. I understand perfectly well the grievance that the hon. member brings to the floor of the Chamber but it is not a question of privilege.
Whether a minister appears before a committee or not is not to be debated here unless of course the committee decides to ask the House to compel the minister or any other member to appear and that must be the avenue of relief that I would ask the hon. member to pursue.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, on this point-


Mr. Speaker:: I have made my ruling. Just a moment, nor have I recognized the member. The member for Victoria rises on this point. I have made my ruling and while I am always very sympathetic and sensitive to those who want clarification of rulings, once the ruling is made that is it. I am sure the hon. member will understand that.

December 8, 1992
Business of the House


John F. Brewin: The Speaker read my mind. I was going to seek clarification of the Speaker's ruling so that we might, as members of the defence committee, more clearly understand.
As I understood it. the Speaker was suggesting that it is necessary for-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The hon. member not only read my mind, he listened to what I said. The two do not necessarily always happen in conjunction, one with the other.
The members of the committee are free to discuss among themselves what they wish to do. It is not for the Speaker to tell them what to do or, for that matter, to go beyond the most subtle suggestions. I am sure the hon. member, as he did earlier, has read my mind.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the parliamentary secretary concerning House business for today and perhaps even tomorrow.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has been reported in the press as saying that the resolution which has been passed in the New Brunswick legislature will be coming before Parliament, and there was some suggestion that it might be here later this day.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would provide us with a copy of the resolution and perhaps provide further information as to when he intends to proceed with it.
Second, on the Notice Paper for Thursday, December 8, 1992, appears a Statutory Order pursuant to section 7, subsection (2) of the Special Economic Measures Act which calls upon the House to have a three-hour debate concerning the subject matter contained therein. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary is in a position to indicate to the House when we will proceed with that debate.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on my friend's first question of the New Brunswick constitutional resolution, something that I am sure we all welcome, my understanding is that there are consultations going on among the minister and members opposite, the leadership of the parties, and that there well may be potential agreement to have a resolution dealt with today.
I will certainly endeavour to get a copy of the resolution into the hands of my hon. friend.
With reference to the other matter he raises, the amendment that has been proposed, I submit, is ultra vires the Special Economic Measures Act. Motions under section 7 of the act are allowed only in relation to orders and regulations made under section 4 of the act. That is specified in section 7(1).
Section 4 of the act authorizes the adoption of orders and regulations for specified purposes. Matters limited to the relationship between Canada and third states, that is states other than Canada or the states subject to sanctions, are not among the enumerated purposes.
Regulations and orders under section 4 are to be directed at restricting or prohibiting activities that involve the direct relationship between Canada or Canadians on the one hand and the sanctioned state on the other hand. Therefore, the proposed amendment would appear to be beyond the scope of the regulation-making power.
I would ask my hon. friend whether he considers it wise to propose something which is clearly illegal.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we get into a discussion of this-as the hon. parliamentary secretary has raised it-if we are going to have a debate on whether or not this matter ought properly to be in front of the House, I would ask both the parliamentary secretary for the government and the leaders of the opposition parties to be in touch with me immediately and we will arrange to hear that debate. I do not think it is appropriate to raise it now.
I am not going to signal what my decision might be, but if there is a serious debate on this, then that is what it should be and it should not necessarily take place at the moment.
I would ask both sides to discuss this matter and to be in touch with the Chair. I will set a time when it can be debated.
December 8. 1992


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could perhaps get your guidance and elaboration. The parliamentary secretary has made an intervention with regard to this particular subject matter, suggesting that it is ultra vires, unconstitutional, and therefore the House ought not to be seized with it.
I suggest respectfully that it is important that we have an early adjudication of whether or not this is procedurally correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I hesitate to interfere-


David Charles Dingwall: If I could be allowed to complete my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but I am not asking for debate right now. I agree completely with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that if the issue is to be raised, it should be raised very quickly.
I am asking the parliamentary secretary and the leaders of the opposition parties to consult in the next few minutes, to contact me, and I will comply with the very sensible suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and we will hear this matter. The mailer has now been raised in answer to a question, not as a formal proposal at all, and I would like to have the thing put on a more formal basis.
I agree completely with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that if this is going to be the position of the government, it should be in front of the Chair, and it should be in front of the Chair very quickly. I am asking hon. members to co-operate with me in this regard.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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 mailers, as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee.
Government Orders

Mr. Speaker:: I am obliged to give a ruling with respect to motions, that is amendments, to Bill C-91.
I want to say something about this. Most of these motions came in yesterday afternoon and up until six o'clock. The Table and the Chair have dealt with them. I have to say to hon. members that this procedure is asking more of the Table than is fair and it is asking more of the Chair than is appropriate.
We are in a position now, because of the way the rules stand, that an almost impossible task is often being asked with respect to these amendments. People worked all night to bring this to my attention this morning and, with the best will in the world, I have to hope that those who were working on these amendments have come to the appropriate decisions. I have gone over them, I have discussed it, but it is a process which I ask hon. members to consider and, hopefully, to reconsider. This is putting a burden on the Table which, in many cases and certainly with the number of amendments that are in front of us right now, goes beyond the bounds of good sense and the operation of this Chamber.
There are 73 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage 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.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth and Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of voting on Motion No. 1.
b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 1.

Motions Nos. 3, 10, 22, 24, 29, 37, 59, 62, 66 and 72 standing in the name of the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville are identical to Motions Nos. 4, 9, 21, 23, 28, 36, 58, 63, 65 and 71.
Motions Nos. 8 and 64 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth are identical to Motions Nos. 7 and 63. For this reason these motions will not be selected.

Government Orders

Motions Nos. 4 and 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North and Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North would amend sections of the original act, which contravenes quotation 698(6) in Beau-chesne's sixth edition. For that reason, the Chair must declare the amendment out of order.

Motions Nos. 9 and 13 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North, Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Motions Nos. 11 and 19 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 12.
b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 9.
c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the necessity of voting on Motions Nos. 11 and 12.
d)	A negative vote on Motion No. 9 requires the question being put on Motions Nos. 11 and 12.
e)	Motion No. 19 will be voted upon separately. [Translation]
Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North gives procedural difficulties to the Chair because it infringes on the royal recommendation, contrary to quotation 698(7) in Beauchesne's sixth edition. The Chair has no choice but to consider the motion out of order.

Motions Nos. 15, 18, 20 and 38 standing in name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Motions Nos. 16, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36 and 39 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North, and Motions Nos. 25, 30, 32 and 33 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
a)	Motion No. 15 will be voted upon separately.
b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 16 will obviate the question being put on Motion No. 38.
c)	A negative vote on Motion No. 16 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 38.
d)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 38 will obviate the question being put on Motion No. 36.
e)	A negative vote on Motion No. 38 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 36.
f)	A vote on Motion No. 18 will apply to Motion No.
20.
g)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 18 will obviate the question being put on Motions Nos. 21, 23, 25 and 26.
h)	A negative vote on Motions No. 18 will necessitate the question being put on Motions Nos. 21, 23, 25 and 26.
i)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 28 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34.
j)	A negative vote on Motion No. 28 will necessitate the question being put on Motions Nos. 30, 31 and 33.
k)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 33 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 32 and 34.
l)	A negative vote on Motion No. 33 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 32 and 34.
m)	Motions Nos. 35 and 39 will be voted upon separately.

Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North infringes on the royal recommendation. For that reason, the Chair has no choice but to declare it out of order.

Motions Nos. 40, 45, 47, 48, 52 and 56 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Motions Nos. 46 and 55 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth, Motion No. 51 standing in the name of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, and Motions Nos. 49, 50, 53 and 54 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
December 8. 1992

a)	Motions Nos. 40, 45, 46 and 47 will be voted upon separately.
b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 49 and 50.
c)	A negative vote on Motion No. 48 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 49 and 50.
d)	Motion No. 51 will be voted upon separately.
e)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 52 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 54 and 55.
f)	A negative vote on Motion No. 52 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 54 and 55.
g)	Motions Nos. 53 and 56 will be voted upon separately-

Motions Nos. 41 and 43 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth will be grouped for debated and voted upon as follows:
a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 41 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 43.
b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 41 necessitates the question being put on Motion No.43.
Motion No. 42 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth infringes on the royal recommendation, contrary to quotation 698(7) in Beauchesne's sixth edition. For that reason, the Chair has to consider the motion out of order.
Motion No. 44 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North infringes on the royal recommendation and the Chair regrets that it must declare the motion our of order.

Motions Nos. 57 and 68 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Motions Nos. 58, 60 and 63 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North, and Motions Nos. 61 and 67 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
a)	Motion No. 57 will be voted upon separately.
b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 61 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 58 and 60.
Government Orders
c)	A negative vote on Motion No. 61 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 58 and 60.
d)	Motions Nos. 63, 67 and 68 will be voted upon separately.

Motion No. 65 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North is contrary to the royal recommendation and quotation 698(7) of Beauchesne's sixth edition. The Chair has no choice but to declare the motion out of order.

Motions Nos. 69 and 71 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North, Motion No. 70 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Motion No. 73 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 73 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 69, 70 and 71.
b)	A negative vote on Motion No. 73 requires the question being put on Motion No. 69.
c)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 69 obviates the question being put on Motions Nos. 70 and 71.
d)	A negative vote on Motion No. 69 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 70.
e)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 70 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 71.
f)	A negative vote on Motion No. 70 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 71.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Speaker:: I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-91 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 12 to
14 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"3. Subsections 39(1) to (3) of the said Act are repealed.
4.	The definition "Board" in subsection 39.1(1) of the said Act is
repealed and the following substituted therefor:
39.1 (1) "Board" means the Patented Medicine Prices Review
Board continued by section 88;

December 8. 1992
Government Orders
5.	Seclion 39.15 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
39.15 (1) Where an order under paragraph 81(l)(tf) is made by the Board, the Commissioner shall forthwith inform the holder of each licence granted under section 39 in respect of any invention pertaining to the medicine to which the order relates of the terms of the order.
(2) Where the Commissioner revokes a patent pursuant to a direction of the Board made under subsection 80(4), the Commissioner shall forthwith inform the holder of each licence granted under section 39 in respect of any invention pertaining to the medicine to which the direction relates.
6.	Subsections 39.16 (5) to (13) of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(5) Where an order is made under subsection (4), the Commissioner shall forthwith inform the holder of each licence granted under section 39 in respect of any invention pertaining to the medicine to which the order relates of the terms of the order.
7.	Subsections 39.17 (1) to (3) of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
39.17 (1) A hearing by the Commissioner under section 39.16 shall be public unless the Commissioner is satisfied on representations made by the person to whom the hearing relates that specific, direct and substantial harm would be caused to the person by the disclosure of the information or documentation to which the hearing relates.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3), information and documentation provided to the Commissioner under section 39.16 is privileged and shall not, without the authorization of the person who provided the information and documentation, knowingly be or be permitted to be communicated, disclosed or made available by any person who has obtained that information and documentation pursuant to this Act unless the information and documentation is disclosed at a public hearing held by the Commissioner under that section.
(3)	Information and documentation referred to in subsection (2) that is obtained by the Commissioner may be used by the Commissioner for the purpose of the report referred to in subsection (4) and may be communicated, disclosed or made available by the Commissioner to a person engaged in the administration of this Act under the direction of the Commissioner.
8.	Sections 39.18 to 39.25 are repealed.
9.	Subsections 39.26 (1) to (4) are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
39.26 (1) After the expiration of nine years after section 39.11 comes into force, sections 39.11 to 39.17 shall stand referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for that purpose and the committee shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of those sections and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon includingsuch recommendations pertaining to the continuation of those sections and changes required therein as the committee may wish to make.
(2) No action or proceeding for any compensation or damages lies against Her Majesty in right of Canada as a result of the application of subsection 39.11 (1) to 39.14 (1) to a licence referred to in that subsection."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 3.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple point of order. I know you want to get to the substance of the bill because we have not really had too much chance to debate its substance. Normally is there not a necessity to have two ministers in the House to move the government motion or bill?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to that is no. Of course members may wish to pursue whatever commentary may flow from it.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the debate on this particular motion I want to indicate that it has been a very difficult time for members of the opposition in trying to prepare themselves to deal with this particular debate.
I know we may have put some unusual stresses and strain on the staff at the Journals branch, but quite simply we had no choice because the government has proceeded in unholy haste with this bill. It has taken it before the Chamber, let us debate it for three hours and invoked closure on it at second reading. It sent it to committee and, something I have never seen before at committee, forced time allocation in committee.
The government passed a motion with its majority at the committee which indicated clearly that we only had x number of hours of debate. If members of the opposition did not agree it would have passed a motion in the House which would have seen the bill reported back without any witnesses.
Yes, it has been very difficult and I offer my apologies if we have overworked the staff here, but it is not of our doing. When the government decides to barrel through riding shotgun on a bill like this one, we have had to stay up at times 24 hours just getting ready for what the government was trying to perpetrate on the Canadian public. We start off by setting the record straight about who has been doing what on this bill.
December 8, 1992

The motion that is before us right now, Motion No. 1 which is in my name, is a very key amendment. It is perhaps the most key amendment we will debate all day today. What the government has done on this particular bill is that it has come in with Bill C-91 and decided to dismantle the system of compulsory licensing that we have had in Canada for a number of years, a system of compulsory licensing of drugs which has served Canadian consumers very well. It has served the health care system extremely well. It has served the provincial pharmacare programs extremely well.
However, this government has made the decision that a few billion dollars here or a few billion dollars there coming from provincial pharmacare programs, from those diminishing health care budgets of our provinces, and coming from consumers' pockets is an okay Christmas gift to give the multinational drug companies.
With Bill C-91, the government has deleted provisions in the old act, old Bill C-22. It has deleted the provisions that provided for compulsory licensing of patent medicines in Canada.
The effect of this amendment is to reintroduce into Bill C-91 those provisions which allowed Canada to have a unique system of regulation when it dealt with prescription drugs.
I want to go back a little bit. In the 1960s there were a whole number of reports dealing with drug prices in Canada. It was clear from the reports governments had done and from an examination of the facts that the people of Canada were paying prices which were far too high for prescription drugs. One of the reasons was that there was no competition. Once an individual or a company obtained a patent on a drug it was treated in the same way as a patent on a hockey helmet, which it is not. There is a vast difference. However, that is how it was treated back then.
The Liberal Party at the time, and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who was the minister in the late 1960s, introduced the system of compulsory licensing. This instilled competition in the marketplace. It allowed a generic company to make an application to produce a generic drug. The company would pay a royalty back to the patent holder. There was no need to cry big crocodile tears for the multinationals because they still made money. However, in Canada it allowed a unique system where we had competition.
Government Orders
Now what did that do, one might ask. There are all kinds of studies around about what compulsory licensing has done for Canada. Clearly compulsory licensing has made our system of universal health care an affordable one.
During the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s compulsory licensing literally saved Canadian consumers and the health care system billions of dollars. Those dollars would otherwise have been bled out of the system. They would have been taken from hospital care. They would have been taken from all kinds of services we take for granted in Canada. Those dollars would have been transferred out of the country because higher drug prices to multinational drug companies would have been the order of the day. It worked well.
In 1987 my hon. colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond fought very hard against the government's first attempt to get rid of compulsory licensing. At that point in time he argued, as I and other members of our caucus will today, to preserve a system. In 1987 when the government first decided to try to change the rules of the game, he argued against changing the system because he knew what it would do to health care in Canada. It would make it less affordable and it would take billions of dollars out of the system.
The effect of this amendment is to put things right again. It would reinstate those clauses which had been deleted by the bill and effectively allow us to have a system where compulsory licensing is back in Canada.
Somebody may ask: "What does compulsory licensing do? If you have a generic competitor out there, does it really drop prices?" While we were having truncated committee hearings we had the minister of health from British Columbia appear. In her brief she says very, very keenly that the province of Ontario alone estimated that generic drugs saved its drug plan $80 million to $100 million per year or 15 per cent of the total drug costs of its programs. That is what compulsory licensing does.
In addition to that, we have had expert testimony from a Dr. Schondelmeyer who appeared before the committee. Dr. Schondelmeyer again reinforced it. He made it clear that compulsory licensing in Canada in 1991 alone saved the Canadian health care system in excess of $450 million. These are not peanuts we are dealing with. That is $450 million in 1991 alone. In one year the compulsory licensing system saved the health care system that much money.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
There is other evidence. What happens when you get a generic competitor in the marketplace? The government will even agree that on average it drops the price of that particular pharmaceutical product, that chemical entity by anywhere from 25 per cent to 32 per cent because with competition, prices come down.
I am going to refer to a table dealing with the effect of competition on drug prices. If there are two competitors in the marketplace the average cost of the prescription is 76.2 per cent of what it would be if there was no generic competition. If there are three competitors in the marketplace, the cost to consumers for that drug goes down to 61.2 per cent of what it would be. With four competitors in the marketplace, four compulsory licences, it drops down to 45.1 per cent.
When the integrity of Canada's health care system is in question why in the name of goodness would the government ram a bill down the throats of parliamentarians? It has done this by having three hours of debate, closing the debate, sending the bill to committee, refusing to hear the witnesses who wanted to be heard at committee, then bringing the bill back to the House.
If I want to be prophetic, probably at some point in the next few hours it will try to ram both report stage and third reading through the House by using closure. Why are they doing it?
Members of the Liberal Party have made it very clear from the beginning that we are opposed to this type of billion dollar bonus to multinational drug companies. We have heard evidence even at those truncated hearings that the loss of compulsory licensing in Canada will cost the Canadian health care system in the next 12 years between $4 billion and $7 billion. That is the effect of eliminating compulsory licensing.
The government is not just going to eliminate compulsory licensing. It has decided to do something unique. Not only when this bill passes will compulsory licensing be gone, but it is also going back to December 20, 1991. The impact of retroactively getting rid of compulsory licensing in Canada is that it could cost Canadian consumers over $2 billion just for the retroactivity alone.
It is no wonder this government does not want a full airing of the impact of this bill on Canadian consumers. No wonder it wants to hide itself in the rules of Parliament and the tyranny of the majority called closure.
The government knows full well that what it is doing is obscene. It is obscene at the very time that Canada's health care ministers are dealing with reduced transfers by the federal government to maintain quality health care no matter where one lives in this country. This government comes in with a bill effectively giving the biggest bonus Parliament has ever given to anybody or any organization.
If this bill passes by Christmas with the elimination of compulsory licensing there will be a multibillion dollar Christmas bonus to multinational drug companies in Canada.
We are going to have full debate on the floor of this Chamber today, tomorrow, the next day, and the next day, and the next day if we have to so that Canadians understand what this bunch opposite is doing.
By the time we finish on this side of the House I know there will be some Tory backbenchers opposite who will be just a little widgety and squidgety in their chairs. They are going to be getting calls from consumers back home asking why they would ever support a bill like Bill C-91 that gets rid of compulsory licensing and that may damage the integrity of Canada's health care system.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to rise and speak on this amendment.
The amendment I have put forward has the same effect of restoring compulsory licensing on pharmaceuticals in Canada. Before I start speaking on the substance we should look at what has happened in the last two weeks to Canadian democracy as it applies to this bill.
The government introduced the bill on November 16 and after only three hours of debate brought in time allocation which forced closure the following day. On the following Monday we set up the committee to study this bill.
December 8, 1992

There had already been a great deal of controversy and a lot of contradictory information as to the impact of the bill. At a steering committee, the government informed us that it was not prepared under any circumstances to have full and thorough hearings on the bill. It wanted the committee wrapped up and all witnesses heard by the following Tuesday.
The next day, we went back to the committee and tried to dialogue with government members. We tried to get them to understand the significance of this bill to Canadians, to families, to seniors, to provincial health plans and to get them to agree to a realistic timetable for committee study.
We put forward a clear timetable, to study this bill for three weeks, and then take the Christmas break off. We would have an opportunity in the last two weeks of January to call more witnesses, to debate this bill clause by clause in committee.
We guaranteed this government that we would bring this bill back to the House so that the House could make a proper decision no later than February 15, within two weeks of the House returning from its Christmas recess.
Anybody out there knows that was a fair and equitable position. What did the government do? It said no and it simply adjourned the committee from Tuesday until Thursday. On Thursday the government made clear to us that this bill was going to be reported back to the House and that witnesses were going to be heard no later than the following Tuesday. If we did not agree to a short, truncated committee hearing, the government was perfectly willing to have the committee report with no witnesses being called.
We immediately agreed to start hearing witnesses. Of course, on that type of time schedule it was difficult getting organizations to come forward. On Friday, only two out of the six witnesses appeared.
We had six hours of hearings set aside but only two witnesses appeared. At the end of the first hour I tried to put a question to one of the witnesses and I was ruled out of order by the chair. The government would not let me put additional questions to the Canadian Medical Association.
At the end of the next hour we had not finished properly questioning the witnesses. We had four hours wherein we were going to do nothing. I asked for consent that the witnesses be allowed to stand over so we could
Government Orders
ask additional questions. What did I get from the government? It was a denial. We had the witnesses there and the government would not even let us put questions.
It became clear and obvious to everybody on this committee that the government was determined to push this bill through before the Canadian public could understand the consequences. What are the consequences? They have become well-known.
A study in the United States shows that Canadian drug prices are 32 per cent lower than in the United States. We have had expert witnesses testify based on information provided by the ministers of health from across this country and others that the cost is going to be in the billions of dollars.
We have had information that the promises made in former Bill C-22 as to the number of jobs being created in research and development have not materialized. Information has been presented that the investments multinational drug companies make in Canada are mainly because of the tax write-offs, not because of the patent legislation in Canada.
We start thinking, why is the government pushing ahead, why is it trampling on democracy? First of all, it said it was because of GATT. Two things have emerged. GATT has not been agreed to. Even in the drafts of GATT it was clear that there would be long periods of phase-in and there would be opportunities for exemptions. It became obvious that government's excuse around GATT did not hold water.
Then of course it was because of NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement with the United States, Mexico and Canada. It required the government to bring its laws into line with those of the United States in terms of patent protection. However, NAFTA has not been approved. Why the hurry? NAFTA is not going to be approved for several months even in this Parliament, let alone in the United States.
Of course, it became increasingly clear that this whole process was being directed from outside of Canada by the American drug companies, the big multinationals. They were deathly afraid that with the election of President-elect Bill Clinton in the United States, he would take a second look at drug prices in the United States and decide that the only possible way to control drug prices in that country would be to adopt a Canadian system of compulsory licensing and prices review.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
Bill Clinton is on the hook. His "read my lips" means two things. He said: "I will bring in a national health insurance program and I will do something to control drug prices". If he cannot deliver on those two things, he will be, like George Bush, toast, and he knows it.
The multinational drug companies are getting anxious because if Bill Clinton comes in and starts looking, he will have to look north. The government said: "Oh, that's not true, that's not true".
Two prominent Democrats, Henry Waxman and David Pryor, have stated clearly that they believe the U.S. should introduce a system of compulsoiy drug licensing to allow early entry of generics into the marketplace and to create a patent medicines prices review board to lower health care costs in the United States. These are two prominent Democrats who will be advising Clinton.
We also have learned, and I think it is significant, that the real push behind this is from the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. It said clearly that it had two or three goals: One was to get rid of compulsory licensing.
I will quote again from Edgar G. Davis, the former vice-president of Eli Lilly, who said: "Putting the patent provisions in the North American accord was a master stroke-was a master stroke."
Gerald Mossinghoff, president of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, said that once they get rid of compulsory licensing they have two other goals. Again, I will quote. He said his members "would like to eliminate Canada's government price controls" and that American drug makers would "oppose formularies because they bring down the costs".
What we have here is a classic battle: On the one side, we have seniors who are concerned about their health and escalating drug costs, families, particularly low income families, that have difficulty paying for medications when they are required, and provincial pharmacy programs which see their costs escalating dramatically. For one drug alone, B.C. has estimated it will be $120 million. On the other side we see the Tories fronting for the multinational drug companies, along with Judy
Erola, chief spokesperson for the multinational drug companies, the rich and the powerful. They are saying: "We do not care about Canadians, we do not care about the poor, the elderly, the families; our bottom line is we want to maximize our profit".
Myself and the New Democrats will always stand on the side of the seniors, families and the elderly.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak to every single motion that the opposition put forward today. I do feel that it is important to set the record straight because some of the things that have been said this morning are clearly inaccurate and outrageous.
First of all, the member of the Official Opposition who spoke to begin with would have to admit under pressure that in fact other members of the Official Opposition agree with this bill. It is a member of a previous Liberal government who is leading the lobby forces in favour of this bill for the innovative drug companies. In fact, she was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at one time.
I think it is highly inaccurate to say that they all officially oppose the bill because in fact that is not true. I understand of course it is their task and their job to stand up and beat us up today because of this legislation and make it look like they are doing their jobs in opposition.
The Liberals, the NDP and my other hon. friend over here made a great deal of fuss about the fact that there is not enough time to debate the bill. The facts are that the NDP, some Liberals as well, not all, but the NDP particularly, filibustered throughout all stages of the committee, making a mockery of the legislative committee process.
I think they should be ashamed of not just their activities during the committee stage but some of the things they have said since. It is highly unfair to the parliamentary process. It makes a mockery of the very important work that we all try to do here every day and the serious attitude that some members take toward that work.
December 8, 1992

I would also say that opposition members from both parties brought American so-called experts to Canada which surprised me a little bit considering we have heard a lot of denigration of Americans in general with regard to Bill C-91.
Both of these parties brought to the committee process American experts that they quoted over the facts and figures presented by our own civil service. This surprises me because the opposition is continually telling us how they are the champions of our Public Service and yet they are the ones who refuse to believe what members of our Public Service have told us as to what will be the effects and impacts of this bill on costs.
The facts are, as told to us by our Public Service in which I have a great deal of confidence, that this bill will cost approximately $129 million accumulative over six years: about $1 per person per year, not the billions of dollars suggested by Mr. Schondelmeyer who admitted and confessed in committee that in fact he had pulled these figures together and had come up with these outrageous and outlandish projections on a Thanksgiving weekend.


An hon. member:: What does that mean?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: We can, I think, take from that a pretty good inference that his information was highly unreliable. As for Mr. Nader, I do not know what he knows about the cost of pharmaceuticals; obviously not very much because his prognostications were just as outlandish and ridiculous. To bring two Americans to Canada to tell us how to do our business to me is beyond the pale and an insult to our own Canadian civil service.
The facts are simple. Bill C-91 makes Canada more competitive. It will help us attract investment. Already over $500 million worth of investment and research and development has been promised to Canadians. This is very important at a time when people are looking for jobs, not just jobs slinging hash in some cafe or perhaps in a repetitive manufacturing atmosphere, but value-added jobs, high technology jobs, information-based jobs.
Bill C-91 creates an atmosphere in this country that will allow us to attract those kinds of jobs to our country. I think that is important. If the opposition members would put aside some of their partisan biases, they would
Government Orders
admit that this is the kind of legislation that will help Canadians become more actively employed in very important value-added jobs.
I might also mention that the U.S. study for the government accounting office, which has been broadly and quite frequently inaccurately quoted here in this House, said that there were two reasons that in Canada drug prices were lower than in the United States. They did not talk about compulsory licensing.
I must say as an aside, compulsory licensing is something I never really understood. To provide a licence to someone to break your own patent law makes absolutely no sense. Bill C-91 will remove compulsory licensing but it will not increase prices in the way they are projecting. What the government accounting office found in its report in the United States was that in Canada drug prices were lower for two reasons. One, provincial drug plans and their formularies, which means that everybody knows what drugs cost and provincial drug plans generally choose the cheaper priced drugs or recommend them to their hospitals.
Second, and most important, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the PMPRB, has been effective in Canada in the last five years. It kept patented medicine drug price increases at 2.9 per cent when the CPI was 4.4 per cent. However, it will be even more effective under Bill C-91. If members opposite are concerned about drug prices then they should certainly support the enhanced authorities of the PMPRB. This bill gives the PMPRB the ability and the authority to roll back prices if they are too high. It allows it to impose very heavy fines, up to $100,000 per day. It even allows it to impose jail sentences. Now we have a bill and a Prices Review Board with real teeth, one that can ensure that prices will be kept lower in Canada. If we are to believe the study that was done in the United States, those two reasons alone will keep drug prices down.
As we get into the business of the motions today, I want to just repeat, in spite of all the rhetoric we might hear from the other side from time to time, this bill is in this stage and the government is determined to put it forward because it will make Canada more competitive and it will provide more jobs, more research and development for Canadians and a better future for us all.
148.18

December 8, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate and speak to the first motion, the first amendment to the bill. I congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth who so ably defended the interests of Canadian consumers and'all Canadians who will suffer the disastrous effects of this Tory policy.
[English ]
The Canadian Medical Association testified before our parliamentary committee and talked about this bill. Members across will say: "Don't worry, be happy. Prescription drugs only form a small part of the total health care bill anyway". That is the Tory argument.
The Canadian Medical Association told us that the amount now spent on drugs exceeds the amount spent on physician care in this country. It is a large component of our health care costs. The CMA should know something about it. It appeared before our committee and said that unless the bill was amended, it could not support it. I challenge any member across to say otherwise. That is exactly what was said. I was at the committee.
Even those who favoured the bill felt that it should be amended, that it should be strengthened to protect the consumer.

For instance, I have a letter here from the Montreal Urban Community, dated December 1,1992.1 will read a few passages. I quote:
-	new powers enabling the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) to calculate reasonable prices for new drugs and enforce them;
That is one of the amendments they want. They also want the following:
-	a clear definition of what constitutes R & D spending. In our opinion, it should include basic research activities, the development of new products, and clinical research, not marketing research.
So you see that even groups that are in favour of the bill want certain improvements. These are people who happen to like the bill. Imagine what some of us who do not like the bill think.

I am one who does not think much of all this. My colleague has proposed an amendment with regard to the retroactivity provision.
We asked the members across at committee, the minister and the parliamentary secretary why we have this retroactivity provision. The first thing is they refused to admit it is a retroactive provision. To do something retroactively is not retroactive if you are a Conservative. This needs further explanation, as the House can imagine.
The government says it is a phase-in, it is not retroactive. It is a phase-in in reverse from the date that it is applied, but it is not retroactive. I would like the government to explain that a little better later so that all Canadian consumers can understand that concept.
People had applied, people had been granted something and it is cancelled after it was approved. For me, that is retroactive.
Imagine driving down the Queensway in Ottawa at 100 kilometres an hour, the speed limit, and someone changes the speed limit today to 80 and says you were driving at 100 kilometres last week, therefore you are fined. Imagine that parallel. That is exactly what we are doing. That cannot be right.
I say to the members of the Conservative Party, even if they insist with proceeding with this legislation, there is no way this legislation should come into effect prior to the date of proclamation. They will say it only comes into effect on the day of proclamation, but it is effective a day previous, December 20, 1991, which is retroactive. They are saying that is the fault of Mr. Dunkel and the Dunkel report on the GATT negotiations.
First of all, we have not concluded those discussions yet. We have not agreed to them. Assuming for one minute that we agree to what is in there, which is not at all clear at this moment anyway, and proceed from there, should there not be a phase-in to adopt what is in the Dunkel report?


An hon. member:: GATT allows that.
December 8. 1992


Don Boudria: That is the point. My colleague from London says that the GATT allows that and that is exactly the way we should proceed, assuming that we do it at all. Why should we sign a document with other countries notwithstanding the fact that there are provisions in there to phase in something that we would actually adopt retroactively, rather, at a date prior to the passage of the bill? I am sorry, I cannot say retroactively here, it is against the moral principles of the government across.
Clearly this clause needs to be amended. Very clearly there is no way that these kinds of windfall profits should be given to the multinationals.
The other point about all this, about retroactivity, is that the pricing structures of the products produced are already established. If a brand name company established that a particular product would be on the market for whatever, a certain number of years, and it markets it at a price to recover its costs of investment, profit and so on, to go back now and change decisions retroactively, what does it do? Where does that money go? Obviously, it is profit for the companies.
There is nothing wrong with making profits, some members across will say. Perhaps not. What social purpose, what policy purpose is achieved by the retroactive provision? Will it enhance research and development in Canada to do this retroactively on something that was already approved? How does it do that? Is there a guarantee in the bill that as it pertains to the profit generated from the retroactivity provision those moneys will be reinvested in Canada? No, as a matter of fact, there is not such a clause with regard to the profit as a__ whole.
I want to ask the hon. member opposite who was mouthing something or other: What is the point of having this provision on retroactivity? What else will it do besides taking money out of the pockets of Canadian consumers?

The members across finally talk about our competitiveness as a nation. I say to the members across that they are missing one point. Many times in labour contracts now we have a competitive advantage as a nation. I am thinking particularly of the large companies, the auto sector, for instance, well represented by my
Government Orders
colleague here. The fact is that some of our payroll burdens are lowered in other countries because we have a national health care system. That gives us a competitive advantage.
I turn the argument right around on the members across. Doing something that will damage our health care system in Canada is not going to make us more competitive. It is perhaps one of those things that in the long run and perhaps even in the short run are going to make us less competitive as a nation because it is removing from us one of those useful tools that we have now.

In concluding, I would ask all members on both sides of the House to carefully consider the motion now before the House. I am sure they will realize they can vote only in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dartmouth.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the amendment by my colleague from Dartmouth to Bill C-91 which is really dealing with compulsory licensing and asking, in a nutshell, that it remain the same.
This is a very important piece of legislation. Over the past several months I have received numerous pieces of correspondence on this issue and have met with concerned individuals to garner their point of view.
In 1969 a Liberal government introduced compulsory licensing, giving generic drug manufacturers the right to produce generic copies of brand name drugs before the expiration of the packed life. This was done to increase competition in the pharmaceutical industry and to reduce the aggregate price of drugs sold in the Canadian market.
Figures from the industry and figures from independent bodies indicate that since compulsory licensing was implemented Canadian consumers have saved approximately $1 billion per year in lowered drug costs.
After closely studying this bill and after listening to numerous Canadians, we on this side of the House believe that Bill C-91 is a flawed piece of legislation which will significantly increase the costs of drugs for Canadians. It will see the end of compulsory licensing or the right of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce generic copies of patented medicines before the expiry of the patent life.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
Compulsory licensing in Canada has been extremely effective in lowering the cost of drugs in comparison with other industrialized nations. Therefore, why is this Conservative government once again abandoning a process which has been effective and good for Canadians? Once again it is catering to American interests over Canadian ones.
The Conservative government's decision to eliminate compulsory licensing in this bill represents two major concessions to the United States in both the GATT negotiations and the North American free trade agreement negotiations.
While U.S. firms and other multinationals operating in Canada will gain considerable advantage from this decision, it is still a mystery what, if anything, Canada will receive.
When I engaged in consultations with various groups regarding Bill C-91, the cost of drugs in Canada was a recurring issue. The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, consumer groups and senior citizen groups have all indicated their anxiety that this bill will lead to higher drug prices. The Ontario Ministry of Health expects the elimination of compulsory licensing to have a major negative impact on the province of Ontario's drug benefit plan. According to the minister, Ontario could lose as much as $80 million to $100 million per year if compulsory licensing is eliminated. This view has been echoed by other provinces.
The CDMA says that the bill would adversely affect its members. Expansion plans would have to be abandoned and growth would stagnate.
Furthermore, because the legislation would be retroactive to December 20, 1991 and my colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, just talked about that, some 22 patented medicines approved since that date would be revoked. Retroactivity is what he was speaking of.
As a result, Canadians will not have the benefit of competition on these 22 products because generic copies are far less costly. It is estimated that if these were granted and generic copies were produced and sold on the market, Canadian consumers would save over $400 million before the year 1996.
The regulating body which is the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has been ineffective in protecting Canadian consumers. This is not only my opinion but
also my colleague's opinion. I would like to tell you what is wrong with the present Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
This board was created in 1987 and it was the aftermath of the wonderful Shamrock conference in Quebec when the Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan and the heads of two major American corporations got together. Nobody among the pharmacists or public at large understands its reporting mechanisms.
If you want to stop and think about what has happened to the pharmaceutical manufacturers in Canada, none of the board's reports about the increases in cost of drugs corresponds to independent price surveys; reports from insurance companies, the provincial government formularies or drug payment benefits.
You would even stop and think about the chairman of that board. He might be a good economist but he has not the biggest idea about the pharmaceutical industry because he happens to also have a conflict of interest when he sits as an employer of the University of Toronto which is a major recipient of scholarships and research grants from the pharmaceutical interests. The vice-chairman of the board has a direct conflict also. He is a pharmacologist at the University of Montreal and he also accepts research grants.
Have you ever heard of a pharmaceutical manufacturing company going bankrupt or going out of business in the last few years? They just listed this past week the seven or eight companies in the world that are the major profit making industries. The pharmaceutical industry is one of them.
Not a single pharmaceutical industry in 25 years has gone out of business. Very little basic drug development research is done in Canada despite all the promises from the PMAC and the situation will never change. I think the solution to this has to be to establish a new prices review board with more human and financial resources and greater legal powers.
It should be comprised of seven full time members appointed from the certain groups. They should be representative of the consumer groups, the provincial drug benefit formularies, the brand name pharmaceutical manufacturers, the generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, a retail pharmacist, a hospital pharmacist, a physician with background in family medicine and geriatrics.
December 8. 1992

The calculations for the increase in the cost of drug prices should be made simple and easy by this board, and the cost of any drug should not increase by more than the current rate of inflation. Such increases should only be allowed once a year.
The powers of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board have to be modified so the board can more effectively control the price of new drugs entering the Canadian market, the increase in the cost of existing drugs in the marketplace and the reconstitution of the drug formulas. A new improved board with powers to control the situation outlined above would be more effective in protecting consumers.
We also believe that these new powers must be clearly outlined in the legislation and not left to future regulations as this Conservative government is proposing. Prior to the 1987 changes to the Patent Act, the brand name pharmaceutical industry made some significant commitments to research and development.
It pledged an eight per cent ratio of R and D expenditures to sales by 1991 and 10 per cent by 1996. However, this time around no commitment has been made whatsoever and there must be a strong commitment from the brand name multinationals to increase R and D in Canada. We hear from them that they will be giving money to R and D but they certainly are not giving all of the money to R and D that the increases will allow.
What the pharmaceutical industry has failed to announce is that it is only investing a small amount of what it projects to amass in windfall profits as a result of the government's decision to give it an additional three years of monopoly protection over products that would have otherwise been subject to strict competition from the generic industry.
The Conservative government could have used this piece of legislation to demonstrate a firm commitment to R and D in Canada. Once again it chose not to, preferring instead to cater to American interests.
This causes me great consternation. I am extremely concerned that the government has bowed to pressure from multinationals and the U.S. government by abandoning its commitment to a vibrant, multifaceted drug
Government Orders
industry in Canada and to a regulatory environment that protects Canadian consumers from higher drug prices and the Canadian health care system from ever increasing drug costs.
Since the introduction of compulsory licensing in Canada a balancing has existed in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. Canadian consumers have had access to pharmaceuticals and competitive prices because ot generic competition, while at the same time both brand name companies and generic companies have made extremely healthy profits. I believe the balance should be maintained.
Another danger is that if this bill is passed prior to signing the GATT and the NAFTA, future governments will never be able to change it. It will be there in perpetuity and that is just dreadful.
We as Liberals support a strong and competitive pharmaceutical industry in Canada both generic and patented. What we do not support, however, are policies which endeavour to increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and put added pressure on our health care system.
The only appropriate way to ensure such a balance is maintained is to increase and change the powers of a Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in debate on the motions before the House with respect to Bill C-91.
Having served on the committee I listened to quite a number of very interesting witnesses on both sides of the issue. I listened even more to an extraordinary amount of time that was in my judgment wasted with filibustering. Time was used up that in fact could have been more beneficially used listening to other witnesses who could have contributed to our understanding of the issues involved.
This is one of those issues-I have noticed a number in my short time here-where the government proposes legislation which government members support and opposition members oppose. One wonders whether the exercise is not sometimes a little mindless on both sides.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
I must say that when this legislation was first proposed I heard some very simplistic suggestions. As with any complicated issue it is much easier to pick something out and terrorize people about the implications of it than to take the time to understand the depth and the full impact it might have. When I first saw this legislation I reacted the way I think a lot of Canadians are reacting to it. I was scared by the implications of it for drug prices in Canada.
Then I started to study the issue because I ended up on the committee. It was not a committee I chose to be on, but by circumstance I ended up being on it and it turned out to be a very informative experience. Having studied the information presented on both sides of the issue, I find the issue is in fact somewhat more complicated than is being presented by my hon. friends opposite or by their American expert.
It was kind of interesting that last week my friends opposite who seem to have xenophobic anti-Americanism at times brought in a consultant from the United States who could not have come in if it was not for the free trade agreement that allowed business across the border in that way. I thought it was kind of interesting that when they get in trouble they resort to Americans to back them up and support them, yet the last thing we should do is see an American dollar used to create a job for a Canadian; God forbid that this should happen. I digress.
I understand that shortly we are going to have another big PR game downstairs with a press conference. That is fine and dandy but let us talk about the real issue here and try to put a balanced picture on the table of what is involved.
What we have here is a conflict between two industries in Canada. One is the patented medicine industry, the industry that goes out and does the research and finds the drugs that save people a lot of pain and save lives. The other is the copycat industry that comes along and says: "We are going to cherry-pick your really successful things and without investing any of our money we are going to try to profiteer on that". That is basically there.
The upside for the consumer-and there is an upside for the consumer-is that generic companies can put the drugs out cheaper. There is a benefit for the consumer from those particular drugs that the patented medicine
companies have already created. That then becomes the issue.
My hon. friend opposite talks about free trade. This is not an issue about trade. This is an issue about the ownership of rights to creators: Do creators have a right to own that which they created and to have an opportunity not only to get a recompense for the time, the energy and the investment but to make sure they recoup the very considerable cost in investment involved?
I have heard a great deal from the opposition trying to turn this into an issue of multinationals versus Canadian companies. We have heard a great deal of talk about that. I have to ask the question: Does the person who is sick and whose life may be made immeasurably better by a drug that was developed by a multinational company that may be based in the United States or anywhere else ask whether or not that drug was developed in Canada? Do they say: "I am not going to take that drug even though it will save my life because it is a drug created by a multinational drug company and I would rather suffer pain or die than put up with taking drugs produced by a multinational"?
It seems to me that is quite a phoney issue. The issue we are concerned about is saving people's lives and saving people pain. That is really what this issue is all about.
We talk more about the whole issue of multinationals. The truth of the matter is that there are very successful Canadian patented medicine companies. We have not heard a lot about them from the opposition. Take a company like Quadra Logics based in Vancouver which is doing some very important cancer research. That is a Canadian company, that is a Canadian owned company.
Yes, there are multinationals. The big players in this industry are multinationals. That is the reality of the situation, but what are the jobs implications? We hear a lot from the opposition saying that the government should do something to create jobs. These patented medicine companies employ over 18,000 people in this country. By comparison, the generics which are dominated by two large companies employ about 2,500 people in this country. Interestingly enough, since Bill C-22 came in to place more new jobs have been created in this country in the patented medicine industry than exist in the entire generic industry.
December 8, 1992

It is my recollection the generics are now trying to convince Canadians not only that drug prices are going to skyrocket but that they are going to be put out of business. They said the same thing in 1987 and the generic industry in Canada, with all due respect, is stronger than it ever was.
As for the issue I suppose there is an implication on the other that we do not want investment by multinational corporations, that there is something kind of villainous about being employed by a multinational corporation.
I grew up in a very nice household in a modestly affluent family, because my father was employed by a multinational company, an American based multinational company at that. That company enabled us to live in a very nice standard and enables my father to live in retirement in a very nice standard. I might also mention that in my own constituency of South Shore we have a huge multinational that employs 1,600 people, the Mi-chelin Tire Corporation.
I suppose my hon. friends opposite do not think that anybody should be allowed to work for Michelin because it is a multinational company. The 1,600 families in my constituency whose lives and security are based on employment with that company are very glad it is there. A lot of people in my constituency would be delighted to see a second Michelin Tire plant, or they would be delighted to see Merck Frosst or one of the pharmaceutical companies that have made commitments of over $500 billion in newer investment since the government announced that it was bringing in this legislation. We would love to see one of those plants in the South Shore of Nova Scotia. We would love to see those job opportunities created.
On this bogyman fear that my friends opposite have about multinational corporations, I would just like to say that we do not have and we would be delighted to have the investment and job opportunities that are created there.
What does Bill C-91 do? I have only two minutes left. There are more issues to be explore but I will come back to them at a future time. [DOT]


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Government Orders


Peter L. McCreath: I see we are having lots of debate. I know my hon. friend from Dartmouth opposite will probably want to talk a lot. I look forward to what he might have to say having listened to him for many hours the other day. I will continue my remarks at another time.
In the interim what I am saying is: let us try not to be partisan in this exercise. Let us try to balance the score and take a look at what the benefits are to Canadians as well as the potential cost: $1 per year per Canadian I understand is the number, not some of the far-fetched numbers I have heard thrown out by some of the vested interests that have been used by my friends opposite to articulate their point of view. Let us look at the benefits to Canadians and what is the value.
I asked the Minister of Health for British Columbia when she appeared before the committee: "What is the value of a human life to the Government of British Columbia?" She did not seem to have an answer because she was too busy articulating the point of view of her party and the movement she represented.
If we are going to talk about cost, let us talk about the cost in pain. Let us talk about the cost in lives that may be saved or would be lost if the research is not done here. Let us talk about whether Canadians are going to participate in this important research or whether Canadians are simply going to be freeloaders as my friends opposite seem to suggest we should be.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to put on the record my sincere appreciation for the work of my colleague from Surrey North. He has done an outstanding job in highlighting this issue on behalf of all Canadians.
I also want to say at the outset, since my time is quite brief in this debate, a couple of things that must be put on the record. I want to take this opportunity to do it.
First I want to quote from Edgar G. Davis, a former vice-president of Eli Lilly and Company, one of the multinationals my friends are talking about. Mr. Davis is now at the Kennedy Centre of Business and Government at Harvard University. He is quoted as saying about this particular piece of legislation: "It is a master stroke. It shows what an industry that has its act together can accomplish". He is referring to the fact that this will be enshrined in the North American free trade agreement.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
The Canadian people have to understand beyond the specifics of this particular very bad piece of legislation exactly what political scenario is being played out in this country. This particular bill is a focus for that. The government of the day unabashedly represents a right wing, neo-Conservative philosophy that has no flexibility whatsoever, but it is to be admired that it is adherent at least to a philosophy.
I disapprove of the North American free trade agreement. I disapprove of its philosophy. Frankly every Canadian should be shocked and alarmed that after eight years in power this government has turned this country upside down, hopefully not irreparably. It was a course that was set out deliberately by the Prime Minister and we should not be alarmed.
We need to be alarmed about where the Liberal Party sits on this issue. I want to go through step by step what is playing out and what will play out over the next year. Along with the Crow rate this particular legislation once it is passed in this Elouse will be enshrined in perpetuity under the North American free trade agreement. We will have a bill in the House to ratify the North American free trade agreement come spring.
After that bill is passed in opposition by both the Liberals and the New Democrats the next scenario will be a federal election. During that election the Liberal Party will take the position: "Oh, my goodness, the bill is passed: we can do nothing about it". I want to alert the Canadian people to a timetable that the Liberal Party has not reckoned with and is ticking away.
The government is clear. It has taken its position. The Liberal Party opposite is opposed to it. Once it is passed it will say: "We can do nothing about it".
However, the target date for Canadians to focus on is January 1, 1994 when this bill and the impact on the Crow rate to farmers and all the other damage done under the FTA will be folded into the day of reckoning of the implementation of the North American free trade agreement.
It will not be a question of abrogating, it will not be a question of renegotiating. It will be a question of political will of implementing.
I am warning every Canadian to understand that by the time January 1, 1994 rolls around, there will be a new government in Canada. That government will face the question of whether it meant it when it said in this House that it will not go along with this kind of legislation. That government will face the day of reckoning of whether it was telling the truth about its commitment against the North American free trade agreement and that will be during the election campaign.
The people of Canada will ask a simple question. If the Tories are elected this will go ahead. If the Liberals are elected, will they implement the North American free trade agreement that folds this act in on January 1, 1994?
I want to say on the record that the New Democratic Party has said that should it be elected to government before January 1, 1994, it will not ratify the North American free trade agreement. This is not renegotiation. This is not abrogation. This is ratification.
If the Liberal Party is telling the truth, then we insist that its leader stand up today or as soon as possible and let the Canadian people know whether it is playing a charade in this debate or whether it means it. The way to let the Canadian people know if it means it is to pledge here on the floor of this House that should it be elected the next Government of Canada, it will not implement the North American free trade agreement, that way preventing this bill and the loss of the Crow rate to take place.
I want to understand and say very clearly that in my opinion the Liberal Party is hiding behind the Conservatives, talking against this bill, fighting against it, but then when the chips are down on implementation, when it is there in government, it will say it is too late to do something about it.
I want to look into the camera and tell the Canadian people how this can be stopped. The only way this can be stopped is by electing a government that says come January 1, 1994, it will not implement the free trade agreement with the U.S., Mexico and Canada.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
December 8. 1992


David Barrett: I hear the nervousness of the Liberal Party. I enjoy the banter of this House. I enjoy the cross-fire and all the pleasure, but the real issue is where does it stand? Will it pledge to the Canadian people, through the mouth of its leader and its trade critic, that should it be elected government in Canada before January 1, 1994, it will not implement the North American free trade agreement?
That is the question of the election. That is the question that every Canadian has a right to know and no duplicity, no dodging, no weaving, no hiding behind the Tories will escape that question. We insist that the Liberals tell the Canadian people that if they get the trust of the Canadian people through the vote, they will not implement NAFTA. Anything less than that is mere puffery, it is mere politics, it is mere denying the Canadian people exactly where the Liberals stand as the Official Opposition.
With all the yap, yap, yap from the Liberals, all the interjections, the reality is where does the Liberal Party stand? Is it with Canadians against this bill or is it really just playing a game with the government? January 1, 1994, will it implement? Let every Canadian know the value of that question.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise and speak to the report stage of this bill. Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act that has few, if any, redeeming features and an act that government members should be ashamed to defend.
Before I proceed further I would like to seize this opportunity to congratulate and thank my Liberal colleague, the member for Dartmouth, who has provided true leadership in this House and has challenged the conscience of all members of Parliament.
I would also like to seize this opportunity to thank the immediate member from the NDP for recognizing the imminent victory of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I will speak today on Motion No. 1, an amendment to the bill. The motion relates to the retroactivity clause, an amendment setting a doubtful precedent in Canadian legislation and to the restoration of compulsory licensing.
There is a tradition of democracy whereby no one may be penalized for an action taken before the birth or enactment of any law. We know of the truism no ex post
Government Orders
facto law shall be enacted. This democratic tradition, specifically this fundamental tenet of our common law, has found itself even in sports, where no one may change the rules of the game midstream. You cannot expect people to plan in a vacuum of uncertainty.
That very thing has been demanded directly of our generic drug industry by this government and indirectly of all Canadians in a despicable display of arrogance and hypocrisy by this federal government.
Generics will be penalized by a government that is a lap-dog to the multinationals, nudging our own homegrown industries into oblivion. This is especially true when the bad medicine of Bill C-91 is swallowed with the hemlock of NAFTA, where the drug industry has made our international trade minister and our own Prime Minister rush to praise and sign.
It becomes even more repugnant to think that this retroactive clause would find itself in this bill, particularly when it is being proposed by this government which has lost the trust of Canadians.
While I am not surprised that the government has spawned retroactivity in legislation, I am embarrassed for the government's lack of honour and integrity.
The minister is not even clear on the intent of the pharmaceutical industry; not specific with respect to drugs for which licences have been granted by December 20, 1991, and for which licences, issued later, should be permitted. Without such clarity, there could be a second class of monopoly among generics themselves. One can only imagine a company issued a licence after December 20, 1991 but filed before that date and which has spent substantial amounts of time and money preparing this product for the market could be severely prejudiced by the proposed legislation.
This is truly a flawed deal.
At this point I would like to indicate to the House why the retroactivity clause is even more alarming and obnoxious. We know that it is a result of lobbying by the U.S. drug companies through their intellectual property committee, as reported in the media. Apparently, in its February 26, 1992 letter to the U.S. trade representative Carla Hills, the committee wrote: "In clear, straightforward language, NAFTA must require Canada to dismantle its discriminatory compulsory generic licensing requirements for pharmaceutical products and to suspend the granting of any compulsory generic licences from December 20, 1991 and onward".

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
This was not a date chosen by this government after dutiful study. This was a date of retroactivity because it has caved in to that big, big lobby. The said letter apparently was full of commands, such as insist and must.
These brand name companies, in essence, made the rules and had seen to it how those rules could be adopted as international standards.
They wanted to set a precedent for the world, but who is the guinea pig? Canada.
We do not even know if there is ever any intention on the part of the pharmaceutical companies offshore to transfer biomedical research to Canada in exchange for Bill C-91. Why did we not ask for that?
A special assistant to President Bush, Gail Wilensky, said: "Canada does not have to worry about having a biomedical research industry, it can make use of ours. That is what it means to be a small country next to a large country''.
What a mocking attitude and what arrogance. This government has chosen to be mocked and has chosen to surrender.
Retroactivity would knock about two dozen generic licences into oblivion. Worse, if Bill C-91 is passed and entrenched in the North American free trade agreement, it will be virtually impossible to change later on.
What does this mean? It means that in future no Canadian government would be able to provide for its citizens without violating the international trade agreement. More seriously, when entrenched with the international trade agreement it would wipe out the sovereign right of this Parliament to allow generic companies to provide cheaper bio-equivalent drugs of brand name drugs to the poor, the elderly and the sick. Are we prepared, as members of Parliament, to truly surrender our right?
I ask all members of Parliament, particularly those from the other side who seem to be defending the position of the government, to come to their consciences. I am really groping for words to define the
attitude of this government. This bill is more than unfairness, it is more than arrogance, it is more than lack of sensitivity, it is more than lack of leadership and integrity; it is the sum total of all these.
It is as though low-income and middle-class Canadians no longer matter in our society; no wonder most Canadians are disillusioned with this government.
Bill C-91 is a reflection that this government has lost touch with the pulse of Canadians. Even this government which talks of'fairness to business will not allow other businesses to flourish. The saddest truism in Canada is that life is harder now than when this government came into power in 1984. The irony is that it is the same government that promised prosperity and now with Bill C-91 this government would like it to be even harder for the Canadians of tomorrow.
I appeal through the Chair, the ultimate authority in this House, to use its great persuasive powers to change the hearts and hands of this government. Can the Chair tell us of any parliamentary procedure that I can share with my constituents so that we can change the hearts and intention of this government and all its members? I only know of one approach and that is for this Parliament to be dissolved and for the government to call an election. Is there anything within the Chair's power that can invoke this wish of Canadians?
This is about the only retroactivity that we can allow, that we should not have elected this government to begin with in 1984. Surely this government is not blind to the 1.6 million unemployed and blind to the food banks.
As I conclude with the remaining minute allowed to me, we know of the havoc that Bill C-22 has wreaked and four years later in these December days, again we will see the havoc to be wrought by Bill C-91. Is this the Christmas gift the government is prepared to offer Canadians during this holiday season? I trust that its conscience will be stirred.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in the debate with my colleagues today on the drug patent bill, C-91.
December 8, 1992

As a member of the legislative committee, I shared in the time spent and wasted to a large degree in the committee that did not give us a chance to express ourselves due to the filibustering from both parties of the opposition.
In January 1992, Canada endorsed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade proposals to extend patent protection for pharmaceuticals by eliminating compulsory licensing. On June 23, 1992, we introduced Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to increase brand name pharmaceutical protection from 17 to 20 years.
Why are we doing this? It will mean more investments, more jobs, more research, better medicines, fairness and reward for innovation-


Dorothy I. Dobbie: That is right. A future for our children.


Robert E.J. Layton: We are committed to an international trade consensus through GATT which represents 108 countries. We must do it now because investment decisions are being made world-wide. Industry is restructuring globally.
We must create the right environment in Canada to attract investments and by the by to attract back our very fine scientists who were drawn away from Canada to the job opportunities in the United States and around the world. The reverse brain-drain is happening and it will be good for Canada.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: That is right. More jobs for us.


Robert E.J. Layton: It is because patent protection is a critical factor in any new investment decisions. The current patent regime in Canada is simply non-competitive.
Some claim we are rushing this bill. The government's policy decision was announced a year ago. There has been ample opportunity for input from all stakeholders over the past months. The provinces, generic copiers, innovative companies and many others were consulted. Any further delay will jeopardize $500 million in investment commitments. Announcements are being made nearly every day.
Yesterday it was $170 million by the Eli Lilly Company, earlier it was Merck and beyond that it was Glaxo. They are all looking for an opportunity to invest in Canada.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Because of bills like this.
Government Orders


Robert E.J. Layton: Just because of bills like this. The track record is good.
Bill C-22 which preceded Bill C-91 has been a great success. Innovative companies have kept their promises on all fronts. There have been more investments; over $1 billion. There have been more jobs; 2,400 by 1991, on-track for 3,000 in 1996.
There has been more R and D. Canada, its universities and its brilliant scientists are leading the world in a number of areas, well ahead of the promises that were made for 1987, up from 4.9 per cent of sales in 1987 to more than 9.6 per cent in 1991.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Real opportunities for Canadians.


Robert E.J. Layton: We have strong price controls, increases that have been held to 2.9 per cent per year, well below the consumer price index of 4.4 per cent.
Finally, Bill C-91 improves price controls. There are new powers being given to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. There are better controls on the prices of new drugs and a greater role for provincial and consumer inputs. Nothing in the bill will contribute to increases of individual patent drug prices. These will continue to be regulated by the board.
The Montreal Gazette has not given a lot of support to our government initiatives but in this case it said last Friday in an editorial that went across the country: "Knee-jerk reactions don't help: The bill to extend drug patents is a sensible step".
How could such a sensible, necessary piece of legislation generate so much near hysteria? The bill is simple and fair. It is intended to give pharmaceutical companies the same 20-year patent protection that all other manufacturers get for their invented products. It will bring Canada into line with countries which support the GATT proposal giving drug makers 20-year patent protection.
"The bill also contains protection for consumers by strengthening the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board", says The Gazette to ensure that prices for all patented drugs remain reasonable. The Canadian pharmaceutical industry will not survive, let alone thrive without some respect for intellectual properties.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be standing here today to talk about a very important issue for all Canadians and for the people of Kenora-Rainy River.
It is a shame that we have to enter this debate in such a hurry, and the hurry that I talk about is that of course we are dealing with the same situation with which we deal with most controversial bills in this place, that is with the threat of closure.
Bill C-91 is an issue that the Conservative government has brought forward to deal with the extension of patent protection for brand name pharmaceutical manufacturers. I might add that it is at the expense of Canadian consumers.
There was a lot of discussion in this place this morning as to what the facts are. Maybe we can just look at some of the facts. There is no doubt that the government has the right and the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of Canadians. It is true that we live in a very global, competitive market and have to be prepared to negotiate agreements with the rest of the world.
The question is: Has this government been a good negotiator? Let us take a look at the facts. Not too long ago, we debated in this place the North American free trade agreement. We debated in the 1988 election and previous to the election the free trade agreement with the U.S.
Those debates were based on whether in fact Canadians were getting a good negotiated deal. Again, the question has to be asked if indeed that is a fact. I want to look at some of the facts just to put on the record what we are getting with Bill C-91. Of course, what we are getting is an extended amount of patent protection for pharmaceutical manufacturers; up to 20 years. A lot of members opposite believe that bringing us in line with other countries is a good thing.
First of all, we have to look at the differences between one country and another. Canada, of course, is a very unique country. There is the fact that we have some large issues that we have to deal with. Of course, there is our geography and our demographic situation. It is because of our distances that health costs are sometimes much higher than in other countries, or potentially can be.
What we have in Canada is a very different system, a national health care system that reflects the unique needs of Canadians. We simply cannot say that we are
the same as everyone else because if we were, we would just have one state in the world. We would not be different than another country on the globe.
We would be all the same and have the same kinds of regulations, the same kind of environmental protection. That is not the case at all. It seems though that the ideology and the belief of the Conservative government is that we are all the same and should be treated as such.
Let us take a look at what is going to take place with Bill C-91. The drug products affected by Bill C-91 will average 7.2 years of extended patent protection. Beginning in 1993, Bill C-91 will cost Canadians $7.5 million and by the year 2000, the added cost of Bill C-91 will be $455 million annually.
The cumulative costs of Bill C-91 from 1993 to the year 2000 will be $1.7 billion and by the year 2010, the cumulative cost from 1993 will be $4 billion. The question is in this negotiated system that we are talking about: What are we getting for the $4 billion that we are giving the large pharmaceutical companies? Are we getting more jobs as was suggested in 1987? No, we are not getting more jobs. Are we getting more research and development? Maybe so. The suggested amount of research and development because of this patent protection, the added amount of time that will protect these big pharmaceutical companies which, by the way are 85 per cent foreign owned, is an estimated total of $500 million.
What we hear on the one hand is that Canadians, as consumers, are going to give up roughly $4 billion out of their pockets for higher drug prices because now what we are talking about is going from the Canadian system to a level playing field similar to the American system. It is a fact that Americans pay 62 per cent more for prescription drugs than the average Canadian citizen. If we were to follow that through, that means by the year 2010 we will be on a level playing field with the Americans. Our drugs should rise proportionately to the point where we will be equal to the Americans as far as the price that we pay for drugs.
The question has to be asked in this place. That is why we are debating this, not because we are the loyal opposition and we disagree with the legislation. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament, to put the facts before the Canadian people so that they can decide whether the legislation that the government is presenting today is a good piece of legislation for the good of all Canadians.
December 8. 1992

On the one hand, we have the minister who was the same minister who negotiated the free trade agreement and now is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. He is also the Minister for International Trade and he is negotiating on our behalf another agreement, which is this particular legislation that we are talking about. His negotiating skills are what we are talking about here today. On the one hand, we are removing roughly $4 billion out of the pockets of Canadians. In essence this money is going to the U.S. because they are all multinationals. On the other hand, it is being suggested that we are getting $500 million in research and development.
Under the research and development process there are also some tax incentives. The Canadian government provides in tax incentives to the large international companies which are into research and development in this country roughly 70 per cent of the bill. That means in essence they are paying 30 per cent out of their own pocket for research and development in this country.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that in essence the $500 million that is being quoted is not $500 million at all. It is a much smaller amount than that. It is only $150 million.
We are asking Canadian consumers to pay roughly $4 billion more in drug costs in the next 20 years in exchange for $150 million in research and development. Can you imagine, what kind of negotiator I would have been in my previous life if I came back to the membership that I used to represent and gave them those numbers? That is in my previous life when I used to have a much more enjoyable time. That is because they did not give us 10 minute deadlines to speak in those days. If I did that, I would not last more than five minutes in that room with those people whom I represented.
What we are trying to suggest today to the government is that the minister's negotiating skills can only lead us to one conclusion. That conclusion is that it is his swan song before he goes back to the corporate world to be able to say to the corporate world: "Look what I gave you". He certainly is not giving the Canadian people anything to talk about, anything to be joyous about, any kind of a Christmas present.
What are we going to do?
Government Orders
The NDP is suggesting that we are in bed with the Conservatives. I find that to be the most ludicrous thing I could ever think of, simply because in the last four years I have gone through the kind of NDP rhetoric we are hearing in the House today in Ontario. In Ontario, Bob Rae has said continually, and was elected for it, that he had an agenda for the people. He was going to give all sorts of improvements to Ontario. There were hundreds of promises and they were never fulfilled.
I caution Canadians when they listen to members from the NDP side saying that they are going to do the right thing if they get to be the government come election time. I know for a fact that is not true and I say to people out there be very careful when you accept that kind of rhetoric because we in Ontario know that is not the case.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and to Minister of Multi-culturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this debate on third reading of Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, 1992.
I have already spoken on this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I simply want to point out that we are at report stage, considering the report of the committee that examined Bill C-91.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr.Speaker, we will get there one day, that is for sure, because I believe that this bill is important. As I said in my last speech, it is so important for Quebec now that people are starting to talk only about it. I find it unfortunate that the member who just spoke gives his place to a party that will defend this bill, namely the Bloc Quebecois. We cannot really call it a party, we will just call it the Bloc Quebecois.
This morning, on coming to the House, I read La Presse and, before starting my speech, I would like to quote an article for my colleagues in the Liberal Party. I think it is too bad, because the Liberal Party was in power long enough to know the difference between good and bad. The article, dated December 8, 1992, was written by Mario Fontaine and has the caption, "Ghislain Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat, together with Bloc Quebecois President Lucien Bouchard".

December 8. 1992
Government Orders
That is serious and I would like my colleagues to pay close attention. It bothers me because I believe it is up to them to defend this bill, not up to a small group.
The article says: "Ironically, the Conseil du patronat, the actively federalist Quebec employers' council, has had more problems with the Liberals under centralizer Jean Chretien than with Lucien Bouchard's sovereig-nisls. The reason is that the Liberal Party is reluctant to pass Bill C-91 on drug patents."
I do not know if my colleague opposite could shut up and listen for once. He might learn something, because things are happening in Quebec now. Things are happening there because people want the bill passed, because-


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that the member opposite has been in this place long enough to know that we are not supposed to call hon. members by their names in this House. On that side of the House they continually do that on a regular basis. If it is going to be the rule to start doing that, then I would love to change that approach.
If that is the case then I would like to change my speech to reflect that Mr. Wilson is the sell-out artist of all time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Yes, by tradition, we are not supposed to name a member. I believe the hon. member was quoting something, and of course the issue is more complex then.


Vincent Della Noce: I was just going to ask you that, Mr. Speaker. I quoted from a newspaper article as it was written. I have been here long enough to know that when a Liberal rises to raise this kind of point, it is to prevent us from talking about the bill and making them listen to some good points. I have understood that. If the hon. member opposite does not know what is happening in Quebec, he could perhaps start to read La Presse. He could keep up with things.
When you say such things here, you should look in the mirror. I would be ashamed to be a Liberal this morning,
knowing that the CPQ cannot get a hearing from the Liberals or their centralizing leader and is reportedly going to see the Bloc.
Also, as a resident of Laval and for the riding I represent, I must add that this legislation is very important for research and development. Because of the Armand Frappier Centre, people I meet every day say to us that they need Bill C-91.1 met the director of Marion and he told me that we would soon be invited to the opening of their expansion. They are doubling the square footage they now have in Laval. What is happening in my riding must certainly be positive.


An hon. member:: Tell me about the military college.


Vincent Della Noce: My colleague asks me to tell him about the military college. Like it or not-this may not be the topic today-my colleague must know that Mississauga and Laval are the only two cities in Canada that are growing at a rate over 10 per cent; Montreal is growing at only 1.7 per cent.
Regardless of what my colleague wants to talk about, I can tell him about the military college all he wants. I did not own the land, he can be sure of that. That does not interest me. What interests me is that we have some things in Laval.
I think that Laval and Ville Saint-Laurent are models for research and development in Quebec. If the hon. member wants to hear about it, he could certainly be invited to take a tour. It is wonderful.
Again last week, driving to Ottawa, I saw more buildings going up for research and development, especially Biochem, and that will please my colleague from York. The president, Mr. Bellini, is a wonderful fellow, and not just because he is Italian. They are people who are investing in our area, who believe in Laval and create many jobs as well. We in Laval want to have something extraordinary. We are interested in the environment and things that do not pollute. The mayor is always trying to attract investors and trying to give them the best. He has even provided a park with a special residence for our researchers, because we do not want them to go away; we want to attract them, but some people want to send them away.
December 8. 1992

Whai has happened is that we had to go and find them in the United States and tell them: "Come back. You have a chance with us, because all future legislation will protect this investment".
Sure, some people will give figures. 1 heard some figures just now. Millions and millions and millions. It is easy. If a company could invent a drug one day that could cure 20 or 30 per cent of the patients in hospital, I think that Canada and Quebec and everyone would really come out ahead. That is what we are looking for.
Unfortunately, I had to go to hospital last week. It is frightening. I had priority because I had chest pains. People wait four to five hours. Research is important. If it costs $500 million to save $2 billion, well, that is $2 billion in taxpayers' money we can save.
Why we arc doing this? If the hon. member will listen, I will tell him. We are doing this because we want more investment, more jobs, more research and better drugs. We want to reward innovators, we want to reward research, and we want to give our young people a chance. He keeps harping on the negative side. It is going to cost more. Of course, research costs money, but some day we will get a return on that investment.
Research is indeed like a long-term investment. Some of the investments I have made did not seem like much at first, but in the long run they grew and grew, and that is what research and investment are all about.
This morning, when I was listening to the hon. member, I felt he ought to be ashamed to let the Bloc Quebecois defend his party and defend the people who believe in Bill C-91 in Montreal.
His question was: "Why act now, why don't we wait?" This is typical of people who do not want to keep up with new developments. Let us put it off until tomorrow. I was in business for 25 years, and I could never afford to say "we'll wail". People who wait are losers. We cannot wait. We must stay ahead of the pack. We must slay fO years ahead of everybody else. But no, let us wait.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I only have two minutes left, so in concluding, I will quote, for the benefit of my colleagues, an old saying my Italian grandfather always used: "No money, no candy".
Today in Le Devoir, I noticed someone plagiarised my grandfather's maxim, and I will name her, Mrs. Judy Erola, a former Liberal and former member of cabinet. She is now a lobbyist, like many others of her ilk, whatever their political affiliation. Many have started a new career this way. Mrs. Erola was saying the same thing. I agree. I do not think this is blackmail: "No money, no candy", no investment, no jobs; no research, no jobs.
To the residents of Laval, the city I represent, Bill C-91 is important. I hope my colleagues will stop delaying its passage and avoid losing ground as they did during the consideration of Bill C-22. That particular bill was crucial to them, and this is a new Bill C-22, if you like. My colleague said that I often referred to Bill C-22, but I cannot help it, because that is the bill that brought $500 million to my riding and activated investment there. I am not saying that Quebec or Laval are better, but Laval is my home. It is a young city, barely 25 years old, and we are anxious to attract this kind of investment. Special residences and parks were built for researchers in a special environment, because a city does well to attract researchers and R and D components.
I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-91, as I promised the people I represent. This bill must be passed, and we will try to convince our friends opposite-even if they want to be stubborn and quote all kinds of figures-by quoting back to them what my grandfather said: "No money, no candy".


Dorothy I. Dobbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent in the House to extend through the mid-day interruption.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members; Agreed.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on what the member for Laval was indicating; namely, no money, no candy.
I want to refresh the memory of this House and all Canadians who listen to the promises of candy when Canadians put their hands into their pockets and put out literally hundreds of millions of dollars with Bill C-22.
The drug companies, the patent drug companies, the multinationals, promised 3,000 high-skill, high-paying jobs in Canada if Bill C-22 would pass these Chambers.
So far, five years into that mandate-my hon. colleague opposite wants to hear this-there have been a grand total of 700 lay-offs in the industry; not job creation, lay-offs. If the truth is out and if the members opposite can read one of those multinationals, Eli Lilly in Scarborough, Ontario, which promises to spend another $150 million on R and D even though the Canadian taxpayer is going to pick up 70 per cent of that in tax write-offs, has reported since Bill C-22 profits to its parent in the United States in excess of 100 per cent return on investment per annum over the course of the last five years.
Good Lord in heaven, what are we going to do? What more incentive do the multinationals need in order to put back some candy in the pockets of Canadians who have been footing the bill, one hundred per cent return on investment each of the last five years?
Now what is it asking for? It is asking for continued protection for an additional three years because it needs it. The government needs it desperately. I do not know why because it has not delivered on jobs. It has been getting tremendous return on its investment and if any corporation, be it multinational, local or parochial got one third of that kind of return on its investment it would think it was running a super duper profitable franchise.
No, we are not talking about that at all. We are talking about the biggest mind boggling rip-off Canadians have yet to see and are going to witness to their chagrin over the course of the next while if this bill actually passes this House. Lord forbid that happens. Many of us are going to turn very religious because we will have to invoke our faith in the divine in order to prevent this travesty from being visited upon Canadians. It is a travesty.
We have to take a look at the kinds of claims being made and the truth that is evidenced by action. We are talking about investment that is going to be made, but over the course of the last several years R and D spending; for example, in the United States has exceeded the R and D spending in Canada by 50 per cent.
With a return on investment of 100 per cent, why is there that kind of a discrepancy? Where are the jobs for our young chemists, our young bio-researchers? Where are our investments in the universities? Where are our investments in Canadian industry?
When compulsory licensing was put in place, as Canadians will well remember, it was to develop a critical mass in expertise at our universities, academic institutions, and bio-medical research facilities. It was designed so we could create the kind of financial base for our industries, our naissant industries in bio-medical research, in the drug research if you will, in order to allow Canadians to develop an industrial base and a pattern that would encourage industry that was going to accrue benefits to our medical research and medical system.
Colleagues on both sides of this House will have to admit compulsory licensing is an integral part of the Canadian medicare system. Without it, the system cannot function and in fact will not function. The member opposite is so fond of saying: "Ooh, I see these buildings go up and you know we are going to create jobs". Those jobs are going to disappear tomorrow.
The profits are being transferred back across the border. Canadian companies are investing every single penny of profits in this country because they pay taxes in this country. They do not transfer their taxes via expenses to some tax-free haven like Puerto Rico.
The integral component of our medicare system is the affordability of drugs. That affordability is being eroded by this legislation and just think how nefarious this legislation is.
My colleague from Dartmouth who has argued so valiantly on this bill has pointed out on more than one occasion the retroactivity component of this particular amendment that we are dealing with now. It is so bad that not only does it reach into our pockets to pay more, it is pulling our pants right off our bodies. It is saying it is not enough that it is going to get an additional three years. In fact, it is going to be much more than three years of patent protection.
December 8. 1992

It is going to be much more.


Ronald MacDonald: Up to 14 years.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Up to 14 years, my colleague from Dartmouth says and in fact the average is about 9.5 years. Not only is it going to reach forward, it will also reach backward. I have not seen anything so inane. On a moral basis, it just does not make any sense. On a legislative basis, it is an affront to liberal democratic principles that you would pass legislation that reaches further back and makes criminals of those who have abided by the laws of this country and made investment decisions on the basis of the laws of this country as unjust as they might have been.
No, no. The members of the government opposite are not happy to have pilfered Canadians and pillaged our political system. They want to make sure they burn and raze to the ground any vestiges of Canadian industry, Canadian bio-medical research and Canadian achievement through a medical system that is the paragon of example the world wide. They want to erode for all time the basis of a social policy that might in fact give credence to the claims, to our boasts in fact, we are a truly progressive society and we are doing it on the basis of investment decisions. The members opposite have the courage, the temerity, the effrontery to suggest this bill is necessary so companies can make their investment decisions and bring us money.
One of the reasons we have a crisis of confidence in our political system today among our citizens is we essentially tell all Canadians: "You're fools", and we are if we believe those kinds of claims.
Can you imagine, and this is not a partisan statement, on a very conservative estimate we are going to give, through this amendment, a gift of an additional $500 million to the brand name companies, the multinationals. That $500 million has to come out of our medicare system. It is not going to finance better doctors, better nurses or better facilities. It is $500 million that is going to be taken out of our tax system to give to companies that are already earning 100 per cent return on their investments.
Government Orders
We are going to do all that and we are going to tell Canadians: "Go ahead, give us that $500 million per annum over the course of the life of this contract. Do you know what we will do in return? We will throw away $500 million over the course of the next 10 years and that is $50 million a year in investments". Good Lord in heaven, there is not a member in this House, even from the NDP, who would not say: "Give me but a tenth of that money and I will gladly throw it back into the pockets of all Canadians through whatever kind of investment, because after all, we are dealing with your money".
This is an insane way to do business. It is a crazy way to run a government. It is an absolutely idiotic way of putting together legislation. If my colleagues on the NDP side are really honest like we are, this needs to be defeated. If passed, it should be rescinded when we get into government.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak against Bill C-91. The more truthful title for this bill would be "a bill to increase the prices of prescription drugs and the profits of the multinational prescription drug manufacturers".
The bill does not of course say that openly and directly. It does it indirectly with all kinds of diverting and irrelevant propaganda, including promises of jobs. We have heard this for eight years now: jobs, jobs, jobs. With all this government has done for jobs, we now have 1.5 million Canadians officially unemployed. There are many more unemployed unofficially and another couple of million Canadians who have to depend in whole or in part on government aid. That is the result of eight years of the Prime Minister's promise of jobs, jobs jobs.
That is what the government is promising here: jobs, jobs, jobs. The facts do not support it even on the prescription drug industry, as my colleagues have already pointed out. The fact is we have lost 700 jobs in this very industry, including lay-offs by companies promising to make more jobs.
There was a time when the multinational corporations got the highest price in the world for prescription drugs from Canadians. Our prices were higher than any others. That was before 1969.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
At that time an amendment was passed to the Patent Act which limited the patent monopoly of these foreign monopolies and limited the application in Canada to five years. After that an entrepreneur in Canada could establish a manufacturing corporation, apply for a licence from the multinational monopolies and by law get that licence.
By paying a fee to the multinational corporations, the entrepreneur in Canada could produce what we call generic drugs. Sulpha is sulpha no matter what company produces it. Penicillin is penicillin no matter what company produces it. That was the basis of the generic drug industry which has grown and produced a good many jobs in Canada. More importantly, it has lowered the price we would otherwise be paying for these prescription drugs.
The government's own office in 1983 estimated the generic drug industry had saved Canadians $200 million on the prices of drugs in the previous year. It is done very simply. The government's commission estimated when one generic drug company competes, the price the monopolies can charge becomes 20 per cent cheaper because of the competition. When five companies compete the prices average 45 per cent cheaper. When 10 versions of a generic drug compete, the prices average 70 per cent cheaper. That is not surprising considering some of the foreign multinational corporations make 100 per cent profit every year on their investment. They can well afford to let some of that go for a necessity and this is a necessity.
The health of Canadians is far more important as an obligation to this government than the super profits of a foreign multinational, even when the foreign multinational promises to make jobs. We know the record of those companies in the last four years has been the destruction of jobs in Canada, not just in the drug industry but in all kinds of manufacturing. They have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada because they find it cheaper to produce in places like Mexico where they can hold people down to $1 to $2 per hour wages.
The health of Canadians is more important than the profits of these foreign multinationals.
The amendments to the Patent Act brought their monopoly time in Canada down to five years, but the
multinationals have now campaigned to get those unlimited profits back. First they pressured this government to extend the monopoly power by the 1986 law to 10 years. That is 10 years before anybody can compete with them in Canada by producing basically the same drug under a generic title. They are now demanding 20 years of monopoly time and this government is giving it to them through its majority vote.
I want to repeat, the question basically at issue is what is fair, not just between individuals or nations, but to the whole nation. The Canadian health system developed from small beginnings to a national system that is the envy of many people in the world including more and more people in the United States of America, and I will come back to that.
Part of that envious system is the moderate price of prescription drugs which Canadian law so far has enforced: enforced not by price fixing, but by allowing competition which this government claims to admire.
The people of Canada have a moral right and a moral obligation to do this through their government and through their representatives in this House to allow that competition to keep the prices down so that they are reasonably possible for Canadians to pay, including poor people, including seniors who need more and more drugs as they grow older and including children whose lives can be stopped suddenly when they have need of these drugs.
When drugs can cost as much as $19 per pill, the companies that force such a high price are killing people for a profit. They do not need a gun to do it. They do not necessarily have to do it by industrial carelessness like the accident in Bhophal, India a few years ago, when they killed thousands of their neighbours by a careless explosion. They do it by putting the prices beyond the reach of the people.
I am glad that some American brothers and sisters have come up to Canada, not just now but through the years, to let us know what is going on in the United States with this prescription drug racket. I am glad that they and we are making common cause now because they have to pay 62 per cent more than we do on average for prescription drugs. They know what these multinational corporations cost because it is primarily from them that the multinational corporations are making those 100 per cent profits.
December 8, 1992

Government Orders
In the last few years, the people in the United States have been demanding a health system more like the one we have in Canada. It has now reached the point at which President-elect Clinton in his election campaign felt it necessary and appropriate to promise them an improved health insurance system partly to cover the $35 million people in the United States who have no health coverage whatsoever. More people than the population of Canada go without any medical health protection in the United States because of the rule of corporations like Eli Lilly and the other drug companies.
If the corporations can kill the generic drug industry in Canada and further undermine Canada's health system, they may be able to block President-elect Clinton from legislating a decent health system for the American people. I hope the Canadian people will stand up, first for ourselves, and defend our present health system and the generic drug system against Bill C-91. I hope we will defend it against the North American free trade agreement which would like to lock us into Bill C-91 for ever and ever in the future.
Second, if we do that, we will be helping the American people to gain the very same benefit.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in the short 10 minutes that we have under this procedure to speak, I want to talk about Bill C-91 in two aspects. I think these are the two basic issues.
One is the perversion of Parliament that this whole process involves and the second issue is obviously the substance of the bill.
Having been a member for a few years who still does believe, sometimes I wonder about the efficiency, the efficacy or the supremacy of Parliament. This bill, Bill C-91, is a contradiction to everything that Parliament involves.
Bill C-91 was introduced on June 23 of this year, the day we adjourned for the summer. We all know that we were very involved in constitutional discussions. There were also free trade discussions, NAFTA discussions, but the preoccupation of the country was definitely shifting to the Constitution and that is the day this bill came in.
Then the debate started on second reading on September 17, 1992, when we came back after the summer when the focus was very much on the Constitution because that is the session that passed the referendum bill.
I want these things on the record because I cannot understand any member opposite and/or certainly opposition members who do believe that Parliament does have a part to play in certain fundamental issues who can agree with the short timeframe and the jackboot allocation of time and closure that was involved with this bill. The debate started on September 17. It started at 10.25 in the morning and went untill 12.15, an hour and 50 minutes for that first day. Then we had the referendum and the House adjourned. Then October 26 came and the House came back after the referendum and that is when second reading debate continued, on November 16 when the debate started at 3.35 in the afternoon and went to six o'clock, a total of two hours and 25 minutes. Then closure came in, so the debate was going to be cut off the next day. It started on November 17 at 10.20 in the morning, went to two o'clock in the afternoon, for a total of three hours and 40 minutes, and then the resuming period of the afternoon, before the hammer of closure fell, it went from 3.20 p.m. to 4.45 p.m.
There were three days, parts of three days, for a total of eight hours and 40 minutes on a bill affecting the very health of Canada and Canadians. Anyone on the opposite side who pretends that this was Parliament at its best does not understand the whole essence of Parliament.
As I listened to some of the government speakers today talking about the merits of the bill, I can understand some members' talking about the pluses of this bill because there is definitely a very real argument on intellectual property and the fact that an inventor should be able to keep his invention. If you are a book writer you are supposed to have your copyright or if you are a painter you are supposed to have certain rights on that painting. That is fine for many of these areas where patent law applies across the board.
When you are talking about the health of Canadians, and something fundamental like drugs, you have to have the balance between the private interests of the developer and the public interest of the people you are supposed to serve. It pains me to say that the preoccupation of jobs, jobs, jobs that we have heard across the way has put in the back seat people, people, people and the health of the people that the government is supposed to represent.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
In terms ol' the time we have had to debate this bill, it should be enough to in effect see if all the good things that government spokespeople say are attributable to this bill, to let the public have a chance to hear a debate. This country is large and it takes time to build a groundswell from coast to coast on any issue.
I can talk conservatively and certainly independently about a three-day debate, parts of three days, and a grand total of eight hours and 40 minutes, and then an allocation order sending it to committee, where in effect it was parts of three days for committee witnesses and great disagreements, understandably, between opposition parlies and the government as to how many witnesses. A very few witnesses came before the committee. Here we have it back today for report stage, and 71 amendments on the Order Paper, pointing out that this is a complex bill, a complicated bill affecting all Canadians. It has not thoroughly got the scrutiny of Parliament.
I am the first to say that too often in this House we debate ad nauseum too many matters that frankly do not matter that much. I understand the government's using closure and allocation of time when the debate has gone on for days and days and perhaps the opposition is running the clock rather than really debating the merits of a bill.
Never has there been a bill in my memory with so much potential to debate both sides of the issue. To have the ramrod of allocation of time and closure on this bill is a travesty of Parliament, which is one of the reasons this institution is in such low esteem with the public which knows and senses something is wrong. This is the best example.
Before I go on to the other matters of the substance of the bill, I want to take time to pay justified credit to the member from Surrey North and especially to the member for Dartmouth of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition who is a fellow colleague from my province of Nova Scotia and who has been the spokesperson for the opposition, really leading the questions and the objections to this bill in a proper way.
I give him full credit because I certainly know from the constituency that he comes from in metro Halifax, where there is a great university community and other interests
that affect his party, that he has had cross-currents to compete with as all members have cross-currents to compete with from time to time when you get such an important bill.
The other perversion of problem, and I am not going to take long on this since other members have spoken about it and there are several amendments that are supposed to cure it, is a retroactivity feature.
Retroactive legislation in Parliament is odious. It does away with rights that were there in the law, then you pass a law like today and you take back rights that were already given. You have changed the rules of the game in midstream and that is very wrong. Hopefully it may be corrected in an amendment but I am not naive enough to believe that amendment may carry.
Those are some of the points in terms of the perversion of Parliament that some of us still believe in although it is getting difficult to believe in it when you see this type of example.
The other element of Bill C-91 is the substance of the bill. We have heard much today, we are going to hear more in the afternoon or whenever this debate terminates on all the aspects of the bill. It does not take all the graphs, facts and figures to tell the people here and the people outside that generic drugs are cheaper and keep under control the cost of prescription drugs.
When you have all the provincial ministers of health, other than the minister of health from Quebec, raising questions about this bill, writing to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, suggesting certain amendments which have not been incorporated by the government to help some of the deficiencies of this bill, then all Canadians, especially those Canadians who believe in our universal health care, should stand on guard and be concerned.
I can understand the member for Laval. If you have a lot of pharmaceutical drug companies in your backyard, of course you are going to be in favour of this bill.
If it is so great then there should be time for people to get involved in the debate so that the government could justify this hurried action rather than to have it come on to the floor of the House the way it has come on with the hope that it is going to get through before our Christmas recess.
December 8, 1992

In terms of the substance, we do not have to go too far: just two examples of how generic drugs keep in check the cost of pharmaceuticals. One is a very popular one called Valium which is a brand name drug manufactured by Roche which sells 1,000 2mg tablets for $63.50 and 1,000 10 mg tablets for $144.50.
Diazepam, the generic equivalent, sells for much cheaper; 1,000 2mg tablets costs $5.50 while 1,000 10 mg tablets only cost $6.95. I could give many other examples of the type of comparison which is one of the reasons why I have introduced an amendment which is on the floor of the House.
This price monitoring board unfortunately I still feel is a tame tiger, a tabby cat without sharp teeth. The amendment if it carries is going to make sure that when that monitoring board comes through with a comparison of pharmaceutical prices it is also going to have to compare what has happened with the wholesale price of drugs and what happens at the retail level.
I believe you could go on and on in terms of comparing other generics with pharmaceuticals. I am all for intellectual property and the fact it has to be protected to a certain degree but I believe Bill C-22 was a happy compromise and frankly there has been growth in pharmaceuticals and generics. We talk about the jobs in pharmaceuticals. There are going to be jobs affected by the generics.
In conclusion, as I know other members want to speak, everyone has talked about this, saying conform to NAFTA and GATT. If we' are going to be the Boy Scouts of the world, penalizing the Canadians we are supposed to serve-


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


Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker. I always enjoy listening to the member from Annapolis Valley-Hants speak in this House. He makes from time to time some very good points.
I think in this case he has forgotten some of the work in Parliament that one does not see in this House. He forgets about the hours that are spent in committees. I would like to listen to his timetable and agenda for what has happened in this very House with regard to this bill. He has forgotten the problem in the institution of committees. Maybe when he was chairman he would remember these things. He knows the hours that mem-
Government Orders
bers of Parliament put in on committee work. One has to recognize that many aspects of this bill were covered in committee, a lot of good points were made and a lot of the views of Canadians were heard.
He did say there are some good things in this bill and we are certainly glad to hear him make that point. He talks about the rights of invention and the fact that creative people should be rewarded. This is something that Canadians should be proud of, that their government is taking steps to protect and encourage individual achievement and development, particularly in a field that spans the world. Everyone knows we have gone to a global marketplace today. Everyone knows that we have to be competitive as individuals, as institutions, in order that our society can survive in this day and age.
He recognizes, as does this bill, that one of the most important features is the right to invent and the right to protection for your invention. Therefore the stimulation of that will give and the reports on this bill have said that from insulin to medical lasers Canada has a long history of medical discoveries. The most important factor in keeping discoveries in Canada is the will to do so.
Canadians must be prepared to make the necessary investments and trade-offs to focus on long-term rather than short-term benefits. We are trying to focus on something long term, something of which Canadians can be proud and can see long-term benefits. We are all talking in this House about the development of our economy, not just for today but for the next millennium. We need to have entrenched in the laws that we pass things that are going to make that happen. Clearly this bill does that in this field.
The development of better medicines has the potential to ultimately save on health care costs by reducing the need for more expensive treatment such as hospitalization and surgery.
Bill C-91 will encourage the search for new cures, new treatments, and new medicines by rewarding those who assume the risks of pharmaceutical research and development. It will promote the establishment of a strong, innovative and creative pharmaceutical industry in Canada. That industry in turn will generate cures and treatments for the diseases that afflict our senior citizens as well as other Canadians.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
Again, we cannot motivate Canadians if there is no protection for those who are going to invest their careers to do this sort of thing. It is one of the strongest features in this particular bill.
The strength in the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board will have a key role in ensuring that patented drug prices remain reasonable for all.
An effective balance has been sought and I believe can be seen in this bill between the need to keep prices reasonable and the need to encourage new pharmaceutical research.
In doing so it offers a solution that will serve the best interests of all Canadian consumers and especially all those in need of this service, and how it will improve their lives.
I am happy that the member opposite sees the pivotal importance of Bill C-91. He sees the most important element in it, the fact that it rewards individual Canadian intuitiveness and creativity in a field that Canadians have been known in, in a field that Canadians now will get international rewards for and cause even more Canadians in the future to be involved.
I hear the member opposite who represents a university in his home city calling this rubbish. I do not think he is going to say that to the faculty of medicine or the faculty of science at Queen's University. I do not think they want to hear that at Queen's. Queen's says it is one of Canada's top universities. I do not believe their member does not support research and development. I do not believe they have elected a member to this House to represent a university city, a city which prides itself on its medical research who does not support research and development, who does not support the right of an author to creativity. I just cannot believe that this would be true in Kingston.
It is not true in London, Ontario. We know that the tests that are done on the drugs in our community to benefit our fellow Canadians are landmarks. Our community supports this kind of endeavour.
I am shocked that some other community that prides itself on academic development, on being a world centre
in medical research, could have a member of Parliament who does not support this legislation. I just do not understand it.
I really appreciate the opportunity to put these views on the record today and find out from the members opposite that they are not prepared to listen to their constituents on this matter.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for London-Middlesex does not know what he is talking about. For him to suggest that this side of the House and my colleague from Kingston and the Islands are against research and development is absolutely ridiculous and rubbish. This is the heart of the bill.
First, it would be absolutely irresponsible of me not to spend at least a few moments talking about the process. It tells a big story about what this government is all about and what it has been doing for the past eight years. Canadians have become cynical about this institution and cynical about governments. The government continually perpetrates upon the Canadian people the view that democracy does not mean anything any more. It has abused closure more often than previous governments over the past 125 years in the short period of time that it has been in power.
It has done it again on one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this House. It has done exactly the same thing, eight hours of debate before we broke for the summer and then the referendum. We came back and had a good five hours and the Conservative member for Manitoba says that is enough. The bill goes to committee. We cannot even hear 89 witnesses who want to be heard, including the Canadian Hospital Association.
Mrs. Dobbie continues to want to say no to everyone.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am fed up with the opposition refusing to obey the rules. Yesterday in debate and again today they used my name. We know that is against the traditions of this House. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you impose the rules on the members opposite.
December 8, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Perhaps I may recall once more that members shall not be identified by name in the House.
[ English ]


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for mentioning the member's name, but perhaps I can mention the member's riding, Winnipeg South.
She is right. People are fed up with the hon. member and fed up with her government. There is absolutely no doubt about that. However, they will have their opportunity finally at election time to pay their respects or non-respects to this government by throwing it out of office. It will not be a day too soon, I can tell you that.
The process has been flawed. The Conservatives have no respect for democratic process. They did not want to hear from people who have a vested interest in this bill, the stakeholders: people in hospitals, the doctors, the consumers, the generic industry. All they allowed was three and a half or four hours. I was part of that process and I must say that it was embarrassing for me as a parliamentarian to have been part of that because it was absolutely disgusting. I do not blame people for being cynical about this whole process.
Second, I want to talk about the process of the bill. In 1987 a similar bill came before this House and it was fought long and hard by the Liberals not only here but in the Senate. The government moved toward changing the Patent Act as it relates to drugs. Some compromises were made. The government said it had to change things because the world is changing. We accepted that, reluctantly. Everybody was told that we had to move forward. What has happened?
Bill C-22 was supposed to be reviewed in 1996, after nine years, so that we could really find out the true consequences of it and its impact on Canada. We know what has happened, prices have gone up. We know that for a fact.
Expert witnesses have talked about the impact of Bill C-22. What does this government do? It says that it has to introduce Bill C-91 to change Bill C-22 because that was not enough. Why does it say it has to do that? Because it was thrust upon them by GATT, NAFTA or by global restructuring. What a bunch of hogwash that is.
Government Orders
Even GATT recognizes that countries have sovereignty and will allow a period of transition. Therefore, it is not because of GATT that we have to change our legislation, not tomorrow but retroactively to December 20, 1991. Is it because of NAFTA? We have provisions in NAFTA, as do the Mexicans and Americans, that allow a transition period of 10 years to change laws to comply with the North American free trade agreement. Why do we not seek that?
We on this side do not agree with NAFTA. We will fight it until we defeat it. You would think this government would take advantage of some opportunities it put in its own agreement.
With reference to the global restructuring in the pharmaceutical industry around the world, let us face it: even Mr. Eastman said that foreign owned companies, multinationals will, in fact, do the bulk of the research and development in their home countries. Sure Canada does research and development.
My friend from London-Middlesex said that universities do research. The University of Western Ontario does research. Let us be clear about the kind of research that is done in Canada. Not enough basic research is done. Twenty-six per cent of the research is only basic, the creative part, developing a new product. We do clinical research. That is great, but it is not the core of what Canada should be all about and that is innovation, creativity, developing our own drugs, not doing clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industries that are based outside this country. We want the positive aspects of this.
Let us review what Canada has managed to do. Canada, in many ways, always finds an accommodation or a compromise between competing interests and Canada has a unique solution. Canada has developed the compulsory licensing system. It is the only country in the world that has it. It has worked and it has worked marvellously. The President-elect of the United States wants to take a look at it. Consumer groups in the United States are taking a look at the Canadian model which, in fact, works. It balances the requirements and needs of patent protection, but at the same time the requirements for competition and new innovations that the generic industries bring forward. We have a unique Canadian solution that could be used as a model around the world, much like our supply management system in agriculture.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
Some multinationals tell us we have a bad system because it does not cater to them. They cannot make as much profit as they would like but why should we abandon what works for Canada. Surely we can stand for what is good for us as opposed to always having to march to the tune of the foreign nationals or the Americans. We should be able to do that.
We have developed a Canadian generic industry that has only 8 per cent of the market, employs some 3,000 people and has 22 per cent of all the assets of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. Do you know what? They are doing basic research and clinical research. They are doing the kinds of things we want Canadian home-grown industries to do.
Do you know what else has happened since the Liberals put compulsory licensing in place in 1969? We have been able to develop our own fine chemical industry in this country. Without our own fine chemical industry, we would not be able to have our own drugs.
Another aspect of this bill will seriously impact on people, not only the drug companies but the fine chemical industries that came about because of generic industry and our compulsory licensing system.
1 know I do not have too much time, but I want to cover two or three other aspects. One has to do with the question of retroactivity and the amount of extra cost this bill will bear on consumers.
Consumers and experts have indicated the cost of this Bill C-91 to them, the Canadian system, small businesses that pay for group insurance and the health care system will be something between $4 billion and $7 billion in the next 12 years. That is what is going to come out of the pockets of Canadians in one way, shape or form.
What have we asked for in return? At least with Bill C-22, we asked the pharmaceutical industry to put its money where its mouth was and create some good quality research jobs and not cheap ones. In this bill, we have not asked that of them. Why is that? In the United States and Europe, 20 per cent of their sales are reinvested in R and D.
In this countiy we have asked for only 10 per cent under Bill C-22 and in this bill we have not asked for anything. If we are going to give them a windfall profit, surely to God the government has an obligation and a
responsibility to Canadian society to put something back. That means R and D should be at 16 per cent or 20 per cent at least. Why are Canadians not deserving of that?
I see my time is up. I would love to talk more, but unfortunately I cannot.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too join my colleagues in the Liberal Party and caucus in condemning a piece of legislation which incorporates Bill C-91 that is very detrimental and threatening to the medicare system of Canada.
It is a one-sided piece of legislation that would essentially cripple the generic, Canadian pharmaceutical industry. That industry is entirely Canadian owned and home grown thanks to the system we have had in place since the late 1960s called the Compulsory Drug Licensing System.
That system will dissolve with the implementation of Bill C-91. That system will essentially be done away with. If we do away with the Compulsory Drug Licensing System we will first have increased prices for prescription drugs used by Canadians. That is a fact. The brand name companies have said so. The government members who have spoken on it have said so.
One of the reasons the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, when he was consumer and corporate affairs minister in the 1960s introduced this Canadian system was to moderate the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians. What is wrong with that objective? The system in fact, did that.
If the system is also done away with, it means we are not going to have any more companies like Apotex and Novopharm, which are state of the art Canadian companies operating in the pharmaceutical world. It will mean no more incentives to encourage Canadian high-tech firms operating in this domain. It will mean less diversification. It will mean a monopoly.
These are things I thought were part of the Conservative dogma of diversifying for healthy competition. The government wants to stay away from monopolies whether they are in the air or in a pharmaceutical industry. That is what is at stake, not some phony argument that if you are against Bill C-91, you are against the province of Quebec. That is phony. It is divisive and that is the "real enemy" of Canada which the Prime Minister talked about in the referendum.
December 8. 1992

He tried to pit the loyalty of one region against another. That is a phoney argument and neither we on this side of the House nor Canadians will fall for that phoney argument. We are also not saying we should run the brand name companies out of town. No one is suggesting that for one moment on this side of the House, nor is anyone suggesting the brand name companies should not get a return on their investment and make a profit after spending a lot of capital on R and D. No one is suggesting that.
The fact of the matter is, as other speakers have pointed out, the brand name companies in Canada enjoy a 92 per cent market share. They have not done that badly. We are suggesting to keep the status quo, for goodness sake. We are saying to leave the system intact, which allows generics right now, as we speak, an 8 per cent window. Any company or industry in Canada that enjoys a 92 per cent market share for most Canadian companies in this recession is dreaming. Yet we want to change a system because the brand name companies think 92 per cent of the market share is not good enough.
We know how strongly and passionately Canadians feel about our medicare system. It is good and different from others. It defines who we are in a certain sense. We travel across the globe, particularly at Christmas time and find ourselves in various parts of the world, whether on business or on holiday. People always marvel at the system we have in Canada if they get sick in those countries. Even some Conservatives are courageous enough to say so.
If they are proud that our medicare system is fairly unique in the world, why are they not proud at being very unique in the pharmaceutical industry? We have a made-in-Canada, for Canadians, by Canadians system that is working well for the health care system, for our consumers and for our Canadian pharmaceutical companies. Why should we not be proud of leaving intact and further enhancing its foundation rather than trying to dismantle it?
The government comes across saying: "Well, it is a question of research money and the universities are going to get some dollars from the brand name compan-
Government Orders
ies and it is a question of jobs." Sure, but we can also say the same for the generic firms because 100 per cent of R and D, 100 per cent of taxes paid by those companies, 100 per cent of profits and 100 per cent of all the jobs are here in Canada. You cannot say that for the brand names. A lot of profits, a lot of jobs, a lot of stimulus and a lot of R and D flow back to the parent company wherever it may be located. We can also talk about jobs and stimulus.
Members opposite talked about Eli Lilly Canada investing $170 million this week in the city the member for Broadview-Greenwood and I have the honour of representing. However, they fail to talk about the quote in The Financial Post by the president of Eli Lilly, Canada that invested $170 million in a brand name plant in Toronto. This is what he said: "The bill, C-91, currently being debated in the House of Commons did not help to bring the investment to Toronto." I repeat: "The bill, C-91," which we are debating today, "did not help to bring the investment here."
That was an honest, candid remark. If we also look at that $170 million figure, and I compliment this company for doing so at this particular juncture of our economy, we have to keep in mind $40 million is for wages. Are wages an investment or are they part of the parcel? Also, the plant expansion will cost $50 million.
I do not want members to mislead by saying it is $170 million in R and D.
The president has the honesty to say "You know, we planned this long before Bill C-91 came along. The system was fine. We were getting more return on our system".
It is going to cost taxpayers. Just the retroactivity component to last December is going to provide a windfall of $2 billion to brand name companies. Over $1.3 billion of that $2 billion windfall is going to one brand name company. Is that right? Is that fair when Canadians are reduced to worrying about job security and affordable health care in case they get sick? Is this the right message to be sending to Canadians at this moment rather than stimulating the economy and getting people back to work? We are talking about dissolving a system so our prescription drug costs will go up.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
The American election proved how disconnected George Bush was with small town America. George Bush was a prisoner of the White House. He had no idea what was going on in America. This Prime Minister lives in the cocoon at 24 Sussex. When he finds the courage to venture out of that cocoon, it is only in the confidence and pleasure of $500 a plate dinners for the PC Canada fund. When is the Prime Minister going to see the reality that faces every Canadian every working day in this country? When is he going to see Bill C-91 is not in the interest of Canada? It is not in the interest of the Canadian consumer or our Canadian health care system. It is in the interest of the multinationals. Who does the Prime Minister represent because it is payback time?


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this report stage of Bill C-91.1 am pleased to do so.
The reasons I am rising are many. Hopefully during third reading stage I will have some additional comments on why this bill is good for Canada. I have been listening to the debate that has been going on today about how the government has behaved; how it has truncated the hearing process; how it has restricted members of Parliament from participating fully in the process.
I would just like to give some information which may be of interest. I was chairman of the committee during the entire process. Although my appointment did not officially take place until Friday, two weeks ago, it was talked about on the Wednesday. I participated very fully with the clerk of the committee to see if we could line up some witnesses in advance of the actual committee stage, because numerous witnesses had requested the opportunity to appear before the committee.
In my role as chairman trying to help the committee delve into its responsibilities, I asked if we could line up some witnesses in case the committee could very quickly do its work and get the process started. I received confirmation from the clerk that if we were ready and willing, there were members of the public and interest groups who wanted to appear, and could make their cases known to the committee and members of Parliament.
Unfortunately the committee process did not work. Members of the opposition in particular spent a considerable period of time talking and in fact, prevented things from happening on that Friday. They prevented things from happening on Monday. We debated for probably three days in which order we would allow members to speak. After finally deciding on that order, on many occasions they took the opportunity to rise on points of order in committee to say: "Just a minute, we do not agree with this order, we do not agree with this order, we challenge the Chair". That is the process of committee and that is the way it works.
In the last four years that I have been here, it has been my experience the committee process is where we, the members of Parliament can do our most valuable work. It is where we can review, research and understand the views of witnesses and amend and change the legislation.
Unfortunately, that did not work.
Where we could have had five, six or seven days of hearings, where we could have heard up to eight or nine witnesses a day, we did not have the opportunity to do so because there was a filibuster.
I acknowledge that on the government side there had been a clear indication that it wanted the bill back to the House of Commons quickly. We could have, even with the government's timetable, heard some 40 to 50 witnesses without any hesitation. On the other side the government could have met its agenda as well. We members of Parliament in committee could have done work that was necessary to do.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding of parliamentary protocol is that the chair of the committee is supposed to be neutral. Again we are now seeing a demonstration as to why this committee ran into difficulty. The chair was not neutral. The chair was not even properly sworn in by the House before he was trying to bring forward the government's agenda of what was happening, saying it was going to decide that it was going to get this through by a certain date.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I may remind hon. members that the parliamentary committee has submitted its report and thus no longer exists, which also means there is no chair at this time.
December 8. 1992

I realize this is a technicality, but it is important to make this distinction in the circumstances.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I think you have just had an excellent example of the way that member and other members went through in committee. This chairman, and I, honoured all of the requirements of representing you, as Speaker. This member, the member who just rose, and others like him on the opposition side used every lactic in the book, rose on points of order, like they did this time, that were not points of order when we could have spent all of that valuable time dealing with very important subject matter of the bill. That opportunity was denied.


Mr. Mills:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I understood you correctly, you just mentioned a few seconds ago that it was not proper to talk about what was going on in the committee and now we have the chairman standing and totally ignoring what you just said to the New Democratic Party.
I think we should get some balance back into this and get some guidance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I believe the point of order raised by the hon. member for Surrey North was about the impartiality of the chair of this now defunct committee. Once the committee has submitted its report, any member of that committee, including the chair, can comment in the House at a subsequent stage, after the committee's report is tabled.
The chair would be ill-advised to ignore the freedom of speech enjoyed by every member in this House, especially if the function of the hon. member in question no longer exists and he has, so to speak, recovered his freedom of speech.
1 shall again recognize the hon. member for Ontario. [English |


Mr. Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I appreciate your ruling and the reason behind it but I do not think that was the point of order that the hon. member was raising.
Government Orders
Surely in the past there has been at least a tradition in this House that when someone agrees to participate in the panel of legislative chairs, they undertake not only to be non-partisan in the sense that they represent the Speaker's office, but that following that committee's work, the chair of that committee even undertakes not to vote on the bill at any stage in order to show clear non-partisanship.
I think that was the point that the hon. member was raising.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There may be a tradition, but there is no formal obligation that would apply once the member's mandate has expired.
Once again, I very well understand the objection raised by the hon. member. I think that it is not up to the Chair to decide this question. It is up to each member to decide whether or not, in view of his responsibilities, he should speak on a particular bill. The hon. member for Ontario has the floor.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I honour the Speaker's ruling and there is a tradition. I think it might be interesting if the Speaker would ask the hon. member if he would follow the tradition of the House and refrain from speaking and voting on this bill.
That is a tradition that has served this House well and certainly would serve the chair of committees in the future well. I think the Speaker might find the member would be quite willing to stand down and not participate in this very partisan, one-sided tirade that he is going through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Once again, I think that it would be going too far for the Chair. If the hon. member wishes to speak, I do not see why the Speaker would not recognize a member who takes the floor. It is up to the member to decide and to live with it. In this regard, the hon. member for Ontario has risen again and I will recognize him.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
| English]


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, as you can see I think we have had now four or five requests for rulings on your part on points of order that have not been points of order.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, for your benefit as I advised you during the committee process, regarding this sanctimonious bunch opposite, demanding my neutrality, tradition has it in the House of Commons that when the Speaker is acting in his role as Speaker, this bunch does not go back to his riding and start attacking, challenging and saying all kinds of things about the Speaker.
I should point out that the Liberal Party, this group opposite, which is so sanctimonious in its presentation here in the House, while I was doing the job impartially as I could, was busy attacking me.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. On behalf of all Canadians who elected me and other members in this House who are very interested, in pursuing the debate at hand, I think this is an affront to all members of this House and to all Canadians who elected them that we engage in this kind of a debate where we are talking about simple partisanship in one's own riding. It does not stand the chairman of the committee well to engage in this kind of claptrap.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is not a point of order, it is a matter of debate.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, you are certainly assisting very well in my making the point about just the way this group opposite behaved in the committee process. It used any excuse it could to prevent the committee from hearing witnesses.
I have to say there were a number of witnesses I would have loved to hear even though I had to sit there as a neutral chairperson. I think there were people out there who would have been able to give us some very valuable insights, some very good additional information that would have been useful to the committee, and we could have done that in the five, six or seven days of hearings that we could have had in the timeframe that we spent debating all kinds of things other than the legislation that was before us.
I think that is important because during the whole process, because of the fact that we had to restrict the list of witnesses, we were not able to bring before the committee a balance of witnesses.
For example, the opposition presented a witness from the United States, which was possible for all kinds of reasons. Professor Schondelmeyer was there. He presented I think a very well documented report. There were things in the report that others would clearly liked to have challenged, refuted, maybe presented an alternative opinion on but because of the process that the opposition forced on the committee we were only in many cases to hear very one-sided presentations; whether they be one-sided on behalf of the Liberal Party, one-sided on behalf of the New Democratic Party, or one-sided on behalf of the Conservative Party.
Unfortunately, the traditional roles that committees would normally have were truncated because of what was going on by the opposition members on the committee.
I stand here, understanding fully the traditions under which this House operates, and have to suggest that, yes, maybe I am straying from those traditions, not because I wanted to, but because the members opposite did their darndest, did their utmost, to stray from the traditions as I perceive them of the way a committee ought to operate.
I am sorry that they did that and sorry that the government had to respond the way it did. We could have had far more beneficial hearings.
What is happening in debate today? I have listened to some members opposite speak and they use some examples that come out of the committee process. I reference the cost of the drug plan. Whether it is $4 billion or $7 billion over the next 10 years or 20 years, it is just one of those examples.
There is clear evidence to refute much of what was presented by Dr. Schondelmeyer, simply because on the list of drugs that he had there were already quite a number, I believe 14 or 15, that already had compulsory licences issued against them. There was another group of 16 or 17 where the dates of the patent expiries were wrong. When presented with that information, the witness said: "I would be happy to correct that if I have an opportunity to study it". Unfortunately, the opportunity was not there because people opposite made it very difficult in the time frame for us to proceed with the legislation.
December 8, 1992

I just give that as one example. Another example talks about the success of the generic drug companies. It was mentioned by one of the persons during the committee process that the generic drug industry, this industry that would be suffering tremendously under the old Bill C-22 or I guess the current Bill C-22, which established the original compulsory licensing and patent legislation, had grown by some 180 per cent over the last four years. We would have liked to delve into that a little further so that we can understand the future.
Finally, I should point out that I thought it was appropriate that maybe there should be some amendments to the legislation. When we got to that day when we were to make the amendments, there was a member there who was prepared to speak to some of the amendments that I thought were appropriate based on my review of the legislation. Unfortunately he as well was denied the opportunity to speak because of the way the opposition decided to stop on one clause for an entire day to ask questions.
That concludes my comments. I will be back on third reading and I will give all kinds of good reasons why I think this bill should go forward. Today I wanted to talk simply about the process of those people opposite.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that having heard about that process I have nothing but sympathy for the people who were sitting on that committee and those who were watching TV.
1 think it is very important that we get back to the meat of this bill and the effects that it will have on Canada; effects not just on drug prices, which are bad enough, or on the undermining of our medicare system, which is terrible, but also there is no doubt in our minds that it will have an effect eventually on Canadian sovereignty.
Bill C-91 means the end of compulsory licensing of prescription drugs under the Patent Act. It means the end of the Canadian generic drug industry. It also establishes permanent control by foreign multinationals with the entrenchment of protections under the NAFTA agreement.
I think it is important, before talking about the specifics of the bill and the future implications, to go back a little bit in history. My colleagues who were here at the time will recall what had happened in the early
Government Orders
1980s. Generic drug manufacturing was allowed, companies were allowed to copy brand names drugs during that period and the price of drugs to consumers and to provincial medicare plans was reasonable.
This system increased competition and it reduced prices of patented drugs. There were studies done in Ontario in 1986 which proved this.
It also reduced medical costs for provincial governments which provide pharmaceutical plans as part of their medicare coverage, and I think particularly of the three provinces that have universal pharma-care programs which were introduced by past NDP governments. Access to cheaper generic drugs is especially important for seniors, for persons with chronic illnesses and for society in general.
During that period not only were savings significant but a significant Canadian drug industry was created. This did not last long. Nefarious capitalistic evil forces were at work. We found the brand name industry began to organize and to react. They wanted a monopoly under their control where they could raise prices and control the industry.
Multinational drug companies had parent companies located in the United States which also meant the undermining of Canadian industries. They started a very strong lobby. It was no surprise to us that the former consumer affairs minister of the Liberal administration in the early 1980s was hired by the pharmaceutical industry to lobby for it, to lobby for a strong monopoly for brand name drug companies.
By 1986 we had Bill C-22. This was bad enough but the bill we are talking about today, Bill C-91, adds a whole new dimension which will entrench and enshrine pharmaceutical or drug patent protection under the NAFTA.
We have found that Conservatives began to cave in even though public opinion was very strong in 1985-1986 against this kind of giveaway monopoly to pharmaceutical companies. However, Bill C-22 was introduced in 1986. The minister of consumer affairs in that Conservative government, I recall very clearly, denied there was any connection with the U.S.-Canada free trade deal that was being negotiated at the time. They deceived the public in this respect because documents now show that there certainly was a connection.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
I recall the very strong tactics used by the drug companies at that time, the whole pharmaceutical movement, bribery tactics that continue to be used. They promised there would be extensive research and development based in Canada which would create many more jobs. They refused to advise that the monopoly would definitely restrict generic drugs from competing, which was what they wanted. They used certain kinds of blackmail tactics.
The blackmail tactic, I must say, was very evident in the committee hearings. I recall viewing the proceeding on TV when the B.C. minister of health was a witness. Soon after there was what seemed to me to be a threat that companies might not locate in B.C. if this kind of opposition continued.
Bill C-22 meant that the drug companies were given patent protection for 10 years. Under Bill C-91 this will be extended to 20 years. There is no question this in effect means the end of the generic drug industry for Canada.
In 1986 the Tory government tried to reassure people that things would be okay. It had set up this nice Patented Medicine Prices Review Board to monitor the prices. Price increases were to be kept at the cost of living, below inflation rates. Some 3,000 research jobs in pharmaceuticals were promised to us.
Despite these promises and the bribery we know that drug prices jumped immediately. In fact they were made retroactive before the bill was in place. They were eventually increased by 11.4 per cent, far beyond the rate of inflation at the time, and prices of new drugs have doubled.
The review board in effect had no power and the promised 300 new jobs resulted in about 700 jobs being lost in the manufacturing industry. There was no talk about this.
I go back in history because it is very important for viewers, for Canadian consumers, to realize we are not talking about something that might happen in the future. We have proof and evidence that there has been a deliberate monopoly and undermining of the whole medicare system in Canada.
However, Bill C-91 makes the situation far worse. It ends compulsory licensing for drugs completely in Canada. It prevents the generic drug manufacturing industry-it will be surprising if it is even in existence-for 20 years from using any of the drugs after patents expire. It is a complete giveaway of intellectual properties under the NAFTA. I will go back to that in a few minutes. In effect this is government capitulation to the drug companies and beyond the drug companies to the U.S. government which has been behind it all along.
There will be no real development of a Canadian research industry. We know that. The centre of the industry is in the host countries which in this case is the United States. We have no major research centre created in Canada as was projected.
Prices of drugs, as I have said, are now 12 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States where they are exorbitant. To avoid limits suggested by the review board, the companies are just going ahead and overpricing new drugs. Consumers are also being affected even though in some provinces their drugs are covered by medicare plans. Many drug plans are now having to de-list certain expensive drugs. We see user fees and so on coming in.
Provincial governments, with I believe the exception of Quebec, oppose Bill C-91. The provincial minister from B.C. said that pharmacare prices in B.C. were increasing at the rate of 15 per cent per year. This was over the last four or five years. At the same time grants from the federal government have been frozen. She is faced with actually taking dollars from the needed therapies to pay for drug costs. This will get worse.
Section 1709 of the NAFTA prohibits compulsory licensing. I have a document entitled "Pharmaceutical drug patent protection demanded under NAFTA'' which shows that drug concessions have been tied to the trade deal. This is very serious. My colleague from Esquimau-Juan de Fuca dealt with this very eloquently this morning.
It locks us into the NAFTA and takes away Canada's ability to control its own destiny. It means that since it is entrenched no succeeding government can change it. When NAFTA is implemented, as it will be if the Conservatives and the Liberals have their way, this will be something that cannot be changed.
December 8. 1992

Bill C-91 is not just a bill about exorbitant drug prices. It is actually an abrogation of Canada's autonomy. It is very serious for the future of medicare and for the future of our own economy and our own autonomy. I call on all Canadians to join us in demanding an end to this bill and an end to this government.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-91 was presented to the House, it was studied by a committee which heard many witnesses. The witnesses were experts in this field from all across Canada; some of them represented the health ministers of nine provinces, except Quebec. I will return to the subject of Quebec later.
We are faced with a bill that according to all experts will undoubtedly make drug prices go up. Comparing costs with those in the United States, we know that the average American pays 62 per cent more for pharmaceuticals than Canadians do. This is only an indication. Once we have to follow the multinationals' increases in lock step, we will certainly pay the same prices. If we rationalize the drug system, we will not be able to go on paying the same price as now when all the other countries that signed an agreement pay more.
Considering what we have heard so far, common sense tells us there seems to be a major problem with this bill, when 14 amendments presented by our colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth, in Nova Scotia, are rejected. By the way, I applaud the hon. member's perseverance. It is uncbmmon to see the kind of defence that was conducted by the hon. member for Dartmouth, Three cheers.
In Quebec, the Department of Health did not bother to appear before the committee or submit a brief, let alone defend the bill, because it did not have a case, but we can assume the department hopes to see some spin-offs in R and D.
This is another myth that is going around. They want us to believe that R and D spin-offs will be extraordinary, but all we have to go by are statistics. There is no indication on the basis of past experience that this will happen. Fortunately, we were able to hear testimony by
Government Orders
people in the industry, and they pointed out that our procedure did not make sense, since no amendments were accepted. The government insists that there will be price controls. How can we believe that, considering pressure from all parts of the United States, for instance, to give up our present policy on pharmaceutical products in Canada? They want us to give it up. There is a reason, obviously. We know the kind of prices they pay in the United States, and they want us to pay the same prices in this country.
We table amendments to protect us against abuse, but the amendments are turned down. How can you expect us to take this seriously or believe in the government's good faith when it will not accept amendments that would help and protect Canadians?
Could members on the government side explain why the government will not accept safeguards-in other words, amendments-that will protect us against abuse? New products coming on the market are very expensive, right from the start. Once the bill is passed, companies will be able to say after x number of months: "Look, there were no increases". Of course not. The increase was included when the product came on the market.
Despite all the figures quoted before the committee and all the testimony on this issue, they still insist that we are acting against the best interests of Canadians. I would ask my colleagues on the government side who represent ridings in Quebec how they expect to explain future increases in the cost of pharmaceutical products. They know perfectly well that many witnesses testified the cost of our health care system would soar as a result of increases in the price of drugs.
I wonder how they expect to explain that to the people of this country. I think this is one of the worst examples of the government's betrayal of Canadians, and I am referring to what it is doing about pharmaceutical products and Bill C-91. However, the devastating impact of these increases will only be felt over time.
Some of you may no longer be here. You will not have to stand up and defend these issues, but there is no doubt in my mind that the bill before the House today was literally dictated from the outside.

December 8, 1992
Before I finish, I have a brief submitted by the Federation de I'age dor da Quebec which I would like to table.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.

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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Saint-Clement. Riviere-du-Loup, have taken over their post office, due to be closed on December 14. Why did the government let Canada Post get away with the kind of actions that have soured relations with the people it serves?
The residents of Saint-Clement, Riviere-du-Loup, and of Martintown-which happens to be in my riding- and residents of hundreds of other communities in Canada which have been affected by similar cutbacks, want the government to put an end to Canada Post's policy of closing down post offices.
Speaking on behalf of the residents of Saint-Clement, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and other rural communities in this country, I demand that the government take steps to deal with this issue.


THE SENATE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, today, the Journal de Montreal printed an article under the heading: "Clark believes abolition of the Senate possible". The article goes on to say: "Outright abolition of the Senate may be the next step in institutional reform, according to Joe Clark, Minister of Constitutional Affairs. For months before the Charlottetown Accord was concluded last August, there were frequent references to the possibility of abolishing the Senate. On some occasions, most people around the table preferred abolition but did not insist on it, realizing a compromise
would have to be struck with those who were in favour of a Triple-E Senate".
As I said in the House on June 3, 1992: The Senate must be abolished.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the federal government to go ahead with the redevelopment of Pearson airport terminals 1 and 2 is a case of terminal madness.
Rather than make a meaningful investment in Canada's transportation infrastructure, the Minister of Transport is pushing a costly scheme that the airline industry neither wants nor can afford.
The Tories are pretending to create jobs with the Pearson project after they clearly failed to do so in the finance minister's economic statement last week. Any job creation resulting from this project is years away.
The Pearson terminal project is opposed by Canadian Airlines, Air Canada, by the government of Ontario and reportedly even by senior staff at Transport Canada.
The airline industry is in a critical condition right now. The last thing it needs is a project that will raise costs to the airlines and fares to the travelling public.
It is truly ironic that this government which claims to be the party of business is taking this position in the face of opposition from the marketplace itself.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, sixth grade students from Jean-Leman School in Candiac, in my riding, came to visit Parliament and told me about their serious concerns about air pollution and the depletion of the ozone layer which protects our planet.
These young people begged me to ask Canadians and those responsible for protecting the quality of life on this earth to be more aware and more concerned about the serious consequences of what we may do unthinkingly, because if we are not careful, we will destroy our own future and that of subsequent generations.
December 8, 1992

We must remain vigilant in order to preserve and purify the air on our planet. That is the message these young people asked me to pass on to you, urging us to act to prevent heedless and irresponsible attacks on the environment which in the end will destroy our present way of life.


TRANS-LABRADOR HIGHWAY
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, people in my riding are pleased to see the federal government finally demonstrating the will to fulfil the long-term goal of many Labradorians, the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
In his budget statement of December 2, the Minister of Finance announced that his government would set aside certain funds for work on the Trans-Labrador Highway. At that time, he did not specify exactly how much money would be involved nor did he indicate when work would begin.
However, the people of Labrador hope that it will be a sufficient amount soon enough to make substantial progress on improving and extending the road system in Labrador. I trust that the minister will soon make a specific commitment both in terms of money and in terms of time.
With its enormous social and economic potential, Labradorians are anxious to see the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway from Labrador west through to the straits.
I call upon the government to see the value of this project and commit itself to a budget and a timetable as soon as possible.


BILL C-333
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, private member's Bill C-333 will be debated in the House of Commons this week. This is a bill that fire-fighters and police officers want because it would establish uniform protocols for infectious diseases notification.
In the course of saving lives, police and fire-fighters arc often exposed to individuals with infectious diseases.
Notification about possible exposure to an infectious disease would allow emergency response personnel to obtain early treatment and reduce the possibility of further transmission.
Bill C-333 would ensure that the provinces establish these lines of communication while maintaining the confidentiality of the patient.
On behalf of the NDP caucus, I call on government members to support referral of this bill to the standing committee on health and welfare for study and recommendations.
Police and fire-fighters should be supported on a matter of such fundamental personal and public safety.


SMALL BUSINESS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last week, as a result of the determination, persistence and commitment of the Minister of State for Small Businesses, the government announced that the ceiling under the Small Businesses Loans Act would be increased to $250,000, that it would work to broaden the application of the act to include some forms of working capital, that the Small Business Financing Program would be extended to the end of 1994 and that it would expect Canada's banks to make a special effort to play a constructive role in ensuring the success of the program.
Now that is terrific news, but remember that the measures to assist small business which were announced in the February budget still have not been enacted into law. The minister tells me he hopes to pass enabling legislation at all stages this Friday.
It is time for all members of this House to show the same commitment as the minister to help small business. The actions of this House on Friday will speak much louder than any words.


HON. MEMBER FOR SKEENA
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex - Kent):: Mr. Speaker, last week I was made aware of a visit to my riding by the hon. member for Skeena. Residents of Essex-Kent expect truth and honesty from MPs. The MP from Skeena failed to meet these standards. Instead, he offered his unfounded-

December 8, 1992


Mr. Speaker:: Wait a minute. We have a past Speaker's ruling that statements by members are not to be used to make a personal attack on another member. I am sure the hon. member would understand that and perhaps revise his comments and use them at another time.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to Canada's commitment to peacekeeping.
Over the years Canada has dedicated itself to the principle of resolving disputes peacefully. Through the process of mediation and compromise Canada has repeatedly avoided armed conflict, not only between our country and others, but also between foreign nations.
More than 91,000 Canadians have served in peacekeeping missions since our first initiative during the India-Pakistan war in 1948. Today, with a population which represents a mere one-half of one per cent of the world's total population, Canada provides 10 per cent of the world's peacekeepers.
In the former Yugoslavia 19 Canadian peacekeepers have been injured and one has been killed. These numbers represent the sacrifices made by others over the last 50 years in the process of keeping the peace.
Nations around the world respect the example Canada has set for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Through their dedication to the ideals of peace and diplomacy, Canadian peacekeepers have brought integrity and honour to themselves, to our country and to the cause of peaceful international relations.
On behalf of all Canadians, I salute them.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, Canada, through its government, will very soon announce its decision on whether or not it is renewing its commitment to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus.
Everyone recognizes the wonderful work done by our service people in the Canadian Armed Forces and I wish to thank the Chief of the Armed Forces, General de Chastelain, most sincerely and ask him kindly to pass these thanks on to his troops.
The troubling thing in this affair is that Canada may now end its participation after 28 years in Cyprus.
Why leave to other countries this obligation that all Canadians support with pride, especially at a time when very important developments are expected next March?
I wonder why they would announce ending our commitments there. Canada should instead renew its efforts with Turkey so that the Turkish authorities withdraw their tens of thousands of soldiers who occupy 40 per cent of the island of Cyprus and the Cypriot authorities negotiate the future status of Cyprus in good faith and understand that in the new world order that is mentioned so often, all United Nations Security Council resolutions must be respected.


INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, Thursday, December 10 marks International Human Rights Day.
Some 10 or 12 years ago, the House of Commons set up a special committee to examine the status of disabled persons in Canada. That committee produced Obstacles report. It contained some 130 recommendations that all levels of governments could undertake to alleviate some of the crises that many disabled Canadians found themselves in.
Some 12 or 13 years later, the same committee has found that while governments seldom say the wrong thing, very often and more often than not, governments seldom do the right thing.
Therefore, disabled Canadians not only in Canada but internationally as well will find themselves continually at the low end of the income scale and with deprived access to services that most other Canadians and able-bodied persons have a right to.
December 8, 1992

It is time this came to an end. The way to do it is to celebrate International Human Rights Day with action.


THE BOYS OF ST. VINCENT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to ban the CBC's mini-series on sex abuse, The Boys of St. Vincent, was astonishingly stupid and a dangerous precedent toward censorship.
Moreover, the ban in Ontario and Montreal was ludicrous in this age of satellite technology. Anyone who saw it from British Columbia to Newfoundland has told those they know who wanted to see it what this fictionalized series was all about. My mother said from Vancouver:	"You did not miss much". Newfoundland
commentators in St. John's claimed reactions were supportive and positive.
I am speaking as a former and I hope soon to be born-again broadcast journalist. There is a very serious constitutional issue involved here. We are trying to balance free speech and freedom of the press on the one hand and the very sensitive legal aspects of this most sensitive case on the other.
I hope the matter is appealed to the Supreme Court and that the mini-series is aired everywhere.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex-Kent on a revised statement.


HON. MEMBER FOR SKEENA
Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, last week I was made aware of a visit to my riding by the hon. member for Skeena.
At that time, he left unfounded and inaccurate information about my activities representing my constituents. These accusations were quite unethical and unlair.
In the past 12 months, I have undergone quadruple bypass surgery and recuperation. Since the end of June, the government has limited debate in this House. My recovery is now complete. I am proud to serve the residents of Essex-Kent here and everywhere at national, regional and local levels.
I appreciate literally the thousands of times I have had the opportunity to represent the people of my riding. I
feel that I was attacked unfairly in my riding last week by the statements that I do not come to the House and speak enough. That was very unfair and very unfounded.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, next Monday, December 14, I am invited to attend, as the member of Parliament for Laval-Centre, a function at which the pharmaceutical company Marion Merrel Dow of Canada will announce a $9 million investment to expand its plant in Laval. The work is to be completed by May 1993.
In the letter of invitation, the director of the company, Jean-Paul Marsan, mentioned this: "Of course, the positive attitude of the Quebec government toward our company as well as the impending adoption of Bill C-91 by the Parliament of Canada is not unrelated to this decision".
The purpose of this bill, which enjoys unqualified support from the caucus of federal members from Laval-Rive Nord, is to have the Canadian patent protection legislation match that of our trade partners, while allowing better control on the price of both new and existing drugs.
Our government is committed to giving the Canadian pharmaceutical industry a good lead in terms of competitiveness and standards. Bill C-91 is a concrete expression of this commitment and is aimed at improving all sectors of our economy.
X *	*


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House members opposite said that a Liberal government would increase spending and put in place job-creation programs, even if that increased the deficit.
This spend-more course of action is completely at odds with the finance minister's recent economic statement and his valiant attempt to hold federal spending down.

December 8, 1992
Oral Questions
Which is the right approach? My constituents are in the process of returning a detailed survey on economic alternatives and early results are unequivocally clear. Citizens of Halton-Peel are stressing that deficit reduction should be Ottawa's number one priority, and that good jobs which last are not likely to be created until we gel our House in order.
Further, my constituents are overwhelmingly in support of some mechanism to ensure Canada has a balanced budget and not more deficit spending.
In other words, the people I represent are saying clearly and loudly, no to the Liberal strategy of spend, spend, spend, and tax, tax, lax, and yes to the vision of the Minister of Finance of less government, lower taxes, and a less indebted future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
| English ]

Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
This morning I had the occasion to meet Salman Rushdie, an author who is under death sentence because he wrote a book that was not liked by the Government of Iran.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if this government intends to raise this matter at the UN Commission on Human Rights and try to gather some support among countries of the G-7 and the Commonwealth so that this completely unfair situation and threat to freedom of writing around the world be stopped immediately.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for what is a very important question.
At the time of the imposition of the penalty against Mr. Rushdie, Canada condemned it as a direct challenge to freedom of expression. I indicated publicly at the time, on behalf of the government and on behalf of all members of the House, that Canada cannot and will not
back away from principles such as freedom of expression, especially not in the face of such threats.
We have continued to make representations in this case. In November, following the announcement of an increase in the reward for his murder, we raised his case with the Iranians once again. We maintain a very active dialogue with Iran on human rights to encourage a more moderate approach.
Last week we co-sponsored a resolution at the General Assembly expressing our concern on human rights violations in Iran. At each opportunity that is given to us, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or myself, raise this matter vigorously and effectively, we think, on behalf of all members of the House of Commons.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
All political formations represented in the German Parliament have passed a resolution in which they agree to hold the government of Iran accountable for any attempt on Mr. Rushdie's life or that of any of the 12 000 people who have helped publish or distribute his book. Were something to happen to any of them, the German government would impose very severe economic sanctions against Iran.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Canadian Parliament would be willing to adopt such a resolution as soon as possible.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution passed in Germany was initiated by members of Parliament as opposed to the German government.
However, we, as Canadians, fully support several international actions by the United Nations and other international groups and multilateral organizations. It is always possible for members of the Canadian Parliament to initiate the same kind of thing.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
December 8, 1992

This morning I met with Mr. Rushdie and the group of Canadian authors who are extremely preoccupied by this problem. They think Canada could make another gesture and I would like to know if it would not be possible for the Prime Minister to make some time available today to receive these Canadian authors and Mr. Rushdie?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already met on behalf of the government with Mr. Rushdie, who I understand conveyed publicly his gratitude to me on behalf of the government for the actions we have taken in his defence over the years.
The government has facilitated his trip here and is taking every precaution that we can on his behalf. As I say, the secretary of state had an excellent meeting with him this morning and hopefully there will be other occasions in the near future.


PEACEKEEPING
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
During the almost two months that the House will be in recess thousands of Canadian troops will be serving in very risky circumstances in Somalia, Bosnia and other peacekeeping missions around the world.
Given the many unanswered questions and many unanticipated circumstances that these troops will face, I think the minister would agree that Canadians would want Parliament to be in a position to monitor these operations and to make sure there is a clear accountability for any decisions taken.
I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if she would commit to putting into place a regular system of reporting similar to that which was introduced during the gulf war so that reports can be received by a joint committee of the external affairs and defence committees of this House. In this way any decisions, any changes, will be clearly reported to the Canadian people and Parliament will exercise its proper function of being responsible for the troops in these situations.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I find really interesting about this request for a democratic process in this House is that in all the months I have
Oral Questions
been making public statements concerning the situation in Somalia, the first question asked by a member of the opposition was last week. It seems to me that if there was parliamentary interest, there was certainly means of raising this earlier.
Having said that, let me say we have spoken to the military and there will be public briefings on the situation with our troops. There will be briefings on the situation once it is determined when our troops are to be deployed and throughout that process.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister and I remind her that this House was closed most of the time since last June so this is no time for sarcasm.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that a decision is imminent concerning Canada's future peacekeeping role in Cyprus. Today media reports are rife with announcements that Canada will pull out half of our forces by next March and the remaining troops by December 1993.
Is the minister prepared to settle this question of Cyprus with proper debate in the House of Commons or must Canadians consult Newsworld as our forum for foreign policy?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, clearly it is the responsibility of the government to take these decisions on the advice of the military and on where Canada can most effectively deploy its military, whether it is through peacemaking or peacekeeping.
I am sure that the hon. member will be glad to know that his curiosity will be satisfied some time this week. We will say publicly what is our intention in Cyprus.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The hon. minister has opened new territory when she said we will ask for political advice from the military.
It is not for the military to decide whether or not we stay in Cyprus. It is a political decision. We would like to be consulted in that kind of political decision. It is our belief that we should not withdraw at this time.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the advice of the hon. member. It is a government responsibility to take that decision. He is right. It is a political decision which we take after consultation and upon discussion with our military people who advise us

December 8, 1992
Oral Questions
on the most effective use of our peacekeeping force. Then we, as a government, take a political decision.
+ * *


FISHERIES
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, fishers, shore workers, and tenders will suffer hardship this winter because of the lack of fishing and work opportunities. The United Fishers and Allied Workers Union has pleaded for the reinstatement of the variable entrance program so these workers could collect unemployment insurance.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has written to me and said he and the Minister of Employment and Immigration decided not to top up UI for the west coast fishers.
I would like to ask the minister if he could tell this House how he expects these workers to survive this winter.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in the House a week or 10 days ago. The emergency response program is used to respond to catch failures. There have not been, thank heaven, any catch failures on the west coast of Canada this year. Therefore it is not appropriate to bring in the emergency response program.
Unfortunately you have to work for 17 weeks to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It is unfortunate in one sense, but it shows that there is a lower rate of unemployment in that area than in most other areas. That is the problem.
I would remind the hon. member that there was a strike during the summer which had some effect on the situation, as well with respect to time spent in fish processing.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it is important for this minister to understand that when fish fail to appear and those depending upon the availability of those fish can no longer work, that is catch failure.
I would like to know why three years ago we had the variable entrance program for the same industry, that I guess did not have a catch failure then either.
I would like to ask the minister this. As a result of the Pearse-Larkin report yesterday, which clearly spelled out government mismanagement of the west coast fishery, the government still refuses to assist those workers who are victims of that incompetence. Does the minister not believe he has an obligation to those workers displaced by that mismanagement and will he urge the minister of employment to put in a variable entrance program for those workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member could tell where the fishery failure was in British Columbia this year, I would appreciate knowing it. As a matter of fact, at this low year in the salmon cycle, there was the best salmon fishery, the second highest number of salmon return in 80 years at this particular period of the four-year cycle. There has been no fishery failure in British Columbia.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply this particular program because the circumstances for its application are not there.


Joy Langan: People have no jobs.


John Carnell Crosbie: Interjections from the hon. member will not change that situation. The fish came back. The fish were there.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Buikley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. It relates to other questions of mismanagement in his department.
I have obtained a May 1991 memo from legal counsel in the minister's department from the west coast commenting on an RCMP investigation into his department regarding the controversial Kemano project in northern B.C. The memo raises questions about the department, the RCMP inquiry, its purpose and the manner in which it began.
Will the minister tell the House the nature of the RCMP investigation on the Alcan project in his department? When will Parliament have a report on this matter and when will he clean up the mess in his department?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, these are ferocious questions the hon. member is asking.
December 8, 1992

In the first place I can tell the hon. gentleman that I cannot report to him on any investigation that the RCMP may or may not have conducted. That would be within the purview of the Solicitor General and it is not his custom to report to the House of Commons or to the public on what the RCMP reports to him after it has instituted an investigation.
The hon. gentleman has some kind of fetish about the Kemano project. There is no peculiar set of circumstances under way in connection with that project. There was an agreement entered into after very careful consideration of all conservation aspects that related to it, and that agreement is in effect now.
s|c 4-


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who yesterday in announcing that the government was proceeding with terminal redevelopment at Pearson airport said that he wanted assurances "that changing financial realities are addressed fully before any construction begins".
The minister knows that the airline industry is in a state of turmoil. Why did the government not show some progress on the problem of overcapacity in that industry before contributing to the problem by creating additional capacity at Pearson airport?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the hon. member that his party has been asking the government for a number of weeks to invest an unspecified amount of money in unspecified infrastructure work?
We now have two proposers who have accepted to invest their own money in a defined, very useful and very important infrastructure of this country. It seems that this does not satisfy the member on the opposite side.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, what I am not satisfied about is whether this government has any idea-of what to do with the airline industry given its performance over past weeks.
Yesterday the minister in his announcement downgraded his estimate for capacity needs at Pearson by two to three years. We also know that his announcement comes on the heels of the Auditor General talking about
Oral Questions
revenues bleeding at terminal 3. This announcement had more to do with political posturing than with the needs of building the economy.
Air Canada said that the winning bidder would not be given the go-ahead until an agreement was reached on the air carriers' rent. Is that true? Will the minister tell us who is going to make that decision on the appropriate rent?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and other so-called experts were predicting when we issued the RFP that nobody would present proposals for this undertaking. Now we have two very serious proposals from very serious firms.
We did not hide anything. When we issued the request for proposals we said that investment decisions would be complicated by uncertainties in traffic patterns and growth rates, composition of the airline industry, and the air side capacity at the airport. We told the eventual proponents that this would present all kinds of challenges.
These people have responded in kind to this request for proposals. It seems the private sector has more faith in the future of this country than the Liberal Party.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister stated that Paxport Inc. was selected to receive the $750 million contract to renovate and manage terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson based on merit. It had nothing to do with the fact that Paxport founder Don Matthews is a close friend of the party and was co-chairman of the Prime Minister's leadership campaign in 1983.
Will the minister table in this House all the tenders to the contract today?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to repeat outside the House of Commons any allegations of wrongdoing in this.
We have put together an evaluation process that has never been seen anywhere in the world. We have constituted five separate committees to examine the proponents' qualifications, the management and operations, the transfer plan, the development plan and the business plan.

December 8, 1992
Oral Questions
Each of these committees worked in isolation and then reported its findings to the proposal evaluation committee. This was supervised by Price Waterhouse and then a process auditor from the private sector examined all of this. There were almost 80 persons involved in this evaluation process. Two-thirds were senior officers in the government and one-third was from the private sector.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, for the people who are watching at home, from the minister's own press release it says:
The evaluation was carried out by -private sector financial,
technical and business authorities.
What authorities? It continues:
The method and criteria of evaluation were themselves audited by
an outside, independent expert.
Who is the expert? If we listen carefully we can hear the election clock ticking on this one.
With the minister's unwillingness to let the facts speak for themselves, will he now admit that the $750 million contract is intended as a job creation program as he states, or is this a last ditch effort to repay supporters of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I am astonished that my hon. friend would talk that way about Don Matthews who is the father-in-law of former Liberal Premier David Peterson.


SALMAN RUSHDIE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today British author Salman Rushdie, in Ottawa with representatives of International Pen, called upon Canada and other nations to end their silence on the terrorism of the Government of Iran and urged Canada to call for the lifting of the fatwah on his life. Salman Rushdie also asked to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada.
Why will the Prime Minister not agree to meet with Salman Rushdie, as the premier of Ontario did last night, in an act of solidarity and support for this courageous
author and to stand up for the fundamental principle of freedom of expression for all authors? Why is the Prime Minister refusing to meet with Salman Rushdie?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, whereas there were some preliminary inquiries made about various visits, the important point about this is twofold.
First, Salman Rushdie was welcomed to Canada by myself. He said this morning that there were very few foreign ministers in the world who have chosen to meet with him. He also expressed his thanks to myself, to the Prime Minister and to the government for that.


Mr. McLean:: And to the committee.


Barbara Jean McDougall: And to the committee as well. To put the question that way is unfortunate, given our willingness and the forthcoming nature of our response to his situation right from the time it first developed in 1989.
We will continue to speak publicly about the human rights violations in Iran, about the importance of Salman Rushdie and his position as a symbol for the freedom of expression in the world. We will pursue it in any number of forums in which we find ourselves in the future as we have up until now.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister. I think Canadians are asking why a Prime Minister who has time to meet with Chief Buthelezi will not meet with Rigober-ta Menchu or Salman Rushdie? I think that is a fair question to ask the Prime Minister.
My supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The secretary of state indicated that Canada will speak out at any opportunity.
When we had an opportunity last week at the United Nations during the speech on human rights in Iran by Canadian Ambassador Louise Frechette, why did the Canadian Ambassador not say one word about the lifting of the fatwah on Salman Rushdie?
Why is our government continuing to offer a $1 billion line of credit to Iran, to a terrorist government which allows a fatwah on a British author? Why will this government not break the silence at the United Nations and suspend that line of credit?
December 8, 1992


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is way out of line. This government in terms of its support for Mr. Rushdie and for human rights in Iran has been in the forefront. I am really sorry the hon. member is not prepared to commend the government for the kind of work it has been doing in this area.
Let me say as well that in terms of the line of credit our sales to Iran are very limited. Our sales to Iran consist largely of wheat and other agricultural products. We always very carefully monitor the kinds of sales we make to countries where there are human rights violations, particularly in the arms area and particularly in areas that are sensitive and important for Canadians.


SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
The majority of the so-called voluntary quitters, according to UIC's own statistics, are low income, nonunionized women who are the most vulnerable to sexual harassment. Will the minister at the very least admit this and establish today clear guidelines for his government on sexual harassment?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance program is not for people who choose unemployment for no just cause.
Those who have a just cause have the full protection of section 28 of the Immigration Act. It would be unfair to the hard working Canadians who paid premiums into the UI fund if it paid benefits to a person who chose to leave his or her job without just cause. Canadians support this.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, what is unfair and what is scandalous is that this minister does not understand the extent of the sexual harassment problem. There is no effective policy on sexual harassment in his department or in any other government department.
Why will this minister not establish with clarity, with consistency and with some time sensitivity, a workable, rationale sexual harassment policy? It is time.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the gall to stand and try to teach this government about giving protection to sexually harassed women.
Oral Questions
This is the government that introduced in section 28 protection for sexually harassed women. Bill C-21 was opposed by the Liberal Party.


WESTRAY MINE
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of state for small businesses who told the House two weeks after the Westray disaster: "The federal government's role was a very limited one".
Now we know that the federal government was into this one up to its ears. Within two days of that terrible tragedy, the government had set up a task force and has since spent $300,000 to put its spin on the issue.
Why the need for the spin doctors? Why the stonewalling on this one?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, if this government had not assembled all the documents, produced all the information as the hon. member's party asked us to do, he would be criticizing us.
We did that. It cost us something less than $300,000 because we used a number of public servants who would have been paid anyway to do it, in order to get full disclosure to this- House and to the hon. member.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister who will know that contrary to what the minister just implied, the government has budgeted $400,000 to the end of this fiscal year to deal with the Westray fallout.
Contracts have been let, including one to find loopholes in the Access to Information Act. I ask the Prime Minister: Will he now agree that only a federal inquiry can get to the bottom of this sorry mess? Why does he not admit that while 26 grieving families have been groping for the truth on this one, the government has been spending, blowing taxpayers' money to see that they never get that truth?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, just the opposite is the case. In fact, this government has responded to countless questions already. We have produced thousands of pages of documents and responded fully to the access to information requests as well as to the provisions under the Secrecy Act.

December 8, 1992
Oral Questions
What happened is that the government set aside $398,000 for the expense of doing this and it turned out that we did not have to spend that much.


THE ECONOMY
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been asking for ideas on how to help restore health to Canada's economy and get people back to work. The Liberal leader has stated publicly and in this House that the government should spend billions of dollars on job creation programs even if it inflates the deficit.
Can the minister tell my constituents why he has chosen to ignore that option and pursue the kind of policies that were in his economic statement last Wednesday?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me an opportunity to advise him and other members of the House of the broad based support which the economic plan is generating from Labrador to the Yukon territory.
I think all members would be encouraged by a further reduction in interest rates today.


An hon. member:: That is a bit of a comical act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A 51 basis point reduction in interest rates is not an act of comedy, nor the act of a comedian. It is real.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would say that is a reflection of sound policy.
The hon. member refers to the infrastructure program that is advanced by my friend opposite. The Leader of the Opposition talks about spending $15 billion on infrastructure but he does not tell Canadians how he would fund it.
He says: "We will put up $5 billion, the provinces will put up $5 billion and the municipalities will put up $5 billion''. They have deficit and fiscal problems as well, just like the federal government. It is almost being
irresponsible to suggest something or to recommend something without saying how you are going to pay for it.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In last week's financial statement, he referred to a cut of $73 million to transportation expenditures. Since this is 10 per cent of last year's budgeted Crow benefit of $729 million, will he affirm clearly that this is where the cut will come. Will it come from that so-called Crow benefit?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the economic plan put forward by the Minister of Finance last week is a plan to protect Canadians from the difficult times that we have and to protect agriculture.
It is difficult when you enter into reductions. Yes, I can confirm that the reductions that the hon. member talked about on WGTA, those payments that go forward and have from the past the same as the other subsidies and the other grants and contributions in agriculture and throughout government, will be reduced by 10 per cent.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since this will have the effect of reducing incomes of farmers, does this mean that the minister will be looking at these actions as triggering a third line of defence, since the policies have now changed and farm incomes will be reduced by a similar amount?
Is he content to continue with the current policies which permit a declining coverage under GRIP and NISA each year?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member concluded his question by referring to GRIP and NISA. The income safety nets that have been established jointly with the producers, with the provincial governments and the federal government remain. The hon. member talks about declining income. I would like the hon. member to take note that for 1992 the total program payments in the province of Saskatchewan are expected to be from $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion. I want the hon. member to understand that over 70 per cent of that comes from federal programs.
December 8. 1992


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I feel too many people with criminal records enter Canada before we discover their sordid past. Robert Blackwood, an alleged drug gang leader who was thrown out of the U.S. and Great Britain, is one example. He was finally ordered deported from Canada for criminal activities. His expensive two-year appeal process cost Canadian taxpayers well over $100,000.
What measures will the minister take to ensure that criminals who enter Canada illegally are deported quickly to protect society and to minimize costs to taxpayers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important question that concerns many Canadians. That is why the measures in Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act, go a long way toward protecting Canadian society against individuals whose admission would be contrary to the best interests of Canada or any community in Canada.
The amendments to the act will go a long way to deal with the problem of admissibility. Those provisions have been expanded to better protect Canadians. Thanks to his caucus colleagues and to the other place, that should become law in the next two days, I hope-unfortunately without the support of the Liberal Party.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Western farmers felt betrayed by the minister when he slashed the Western Grain Transportation Act by some $73 million for next year alone. This will increase their shipping costs by over 20 per cent.
Why is the government slashing this statutory program which has a direct impact on farm income? Why is he doing this at a lime when many farmers have had poor crops and are already facing a bleak cold winter? Why?
Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was here when the Minister of Finance presented his economic plan. That economic plan called for reductions in expenditures of the Government of Canada over the period of that plan of some $8-plus billions. Agriculture and other sectors of Canadian society are making a contribution to the stability of this country. The hon. member knows that when you look at the debt held by agriculture of over $20 billion, at least when you reduce the interest costs to agriculture you save producers over $100 million. Every 1 per cent reduction in the interest rate saves $100 million.
Yes, it was difficult. Grants and contributions, not only from the Department of Agriculture, but other departments have been reduced by 10 per cent, in a deficit reduction of some $8 billion.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, western farmers feel not only betrayed but devastated. Charlie Swanson, the president of the Manitoba Wheat Pool, described the cuts as "devastating news for prairie grain farmers".
In view of the terrible impact that this is going to have on these producers-this is a statutory program, the minister cannot change it without changing the legislation-will he rescind this decision right now and show some consideration for the desperate situation that many producers are facing this fall and coming winter?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I think in my reply to my colleague's first question I outlined the necessity.
No. The Department of Agriculture is making a contribution to the stability of this country for the benefit of every citizen, including farmers. The hon. member will know that the safety nets of GRIP and NISA, the cash How enhancement, cash advance, all have been maintained for the benefit of agriculture.
The hon. member also recognizes that interest costs for the producers are very high. By lowering interest rates by the action taken by the Minister of Finance and this government, we are benefiting producers in their day-to-day operations and their interest costs. It is a benefit for farmers as it is a benefit to all Canadians to have a sound, stable, economic plan in place.
Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: We must move on.

December 8, 1992


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It is a question I had hoped never to have to put in this House. The Prime Minister will be aware that in the last few days another 800 men and women have been laid off from General Motors in St. Catharines and the area. This is a total of over 5,000 people who have been laid off.
I was wondering what specific action his government is prepared to take to alleviate the circumstances for our men and women who, after all, live in the heartland of industrial Canada.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indeed points to a situation that is tough for the people in that community. That is why under the current programming of employment and immigration, officials of the department have been in touch with the company in question, the union and the workers in order to put in place the adjustment measures that are contained in the programming of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
Every effort will be devoted by the department to work in co-operation with the owner, the union and the workers in order to try to have in place these adjustment measures in order to help those people.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the information.
A statement was made by the premier of Ontario that he will do everything that he can. I was wondering if the minister would give his undertaking today that his officials will be working with the provincial officials as well as the union members in order to try to rectify the situation as soon as we possibly can.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatsoever in extending the full co-operation of my department to the ministry of labour of Ontario.
It is important indeed that all stakeholders work together in trying to address the problem caused by that decision. Again I can assure the hon. member of our co-operation in that regard.


NEW BRUNSWICK YOUTH STRATEGY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Youth.
There has been a very successful program called the New Brunswick Youth Strategy in place for five years now on an experimental basis. That program has had a federal-provincial contribution of $120 million.
I would like to ask the minister if a comprehensive and definitive report has yet been prepared on the results of that pilot program and whether or not the program will be continued in New Brunswick in the coming year and extended to other provinces.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member, as he probably already knows, that a definite report has not been submitted yet. There is an interim report that is being looked at right now. Decisions will be made accordingly in the near future.


PUBLIC WORKS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. , Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.
In view of the controversy and dubious value of the P.E.I. fixed link and the Lester Pearson International Airport upgrade, both announced yesterday, will the minister advise the House if these projects are merely political pump-priming or if they fulfil a national need.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, obviously they fulfil a national need.
December 8, 1992


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary.
I thank the minister for his short answer but at this time of frugality, freeze, and financial cut and slice, does the minister believe these projects send the proper signal to a hard-pressed and sceptical public and can he guarantee that the taxpayer will not pick up any part of the tab in any way?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member opposite, who is an experienced member of this House., does not realize that this is not only an investment in Canada's future, but it is largely private money.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The minister will know that he has promised up to $40.5 million a year in annual subsidies for the private operator of the fixed link.
Could he explain to the taxpayers of Canada how that equates to the current $22 million a year subsidy that provides 600 permanent jobs for ferry workers between P.E.I. and the mainland? Can he explain his mathematics to taxpayers?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague opposite is conveniently ignoring is that there are many expenses other than just the subsidy to Marine Atlantic such as for example the replacement of these very expensive vessels which will have to be done in the next few years.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The minister is aware that residents of Saint-Clement de Rimouski have barricaded themselves, taking over their post office, which could be closed as of December 14, 1992.
Privilege
Is the minister prepared to announce today that he is giving up any attempt to close the post office in Saint-Clement de Rimouski?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, when Canada Post was made a Crown corporation in 1981 there was unanimous agreement on all sides of the House that it should operate at arm's length without political interference. We have been operating in that fashion with great success for the last six years.
With respect to the conversion of post office run outlets to private sector outlets, post-change surveys show that the customers are pleased to the tune of 90 per cent. I think with that kind of approval reading even the hon. member would agree it is a good policy.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


PRIVILEGE
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 48(2), I wish to raise a question of privilege arising from an incident which occurred during the October 26, 1992 referendum.
Failing to resolve the issue with Canada Post, I feel I have no recourse but to raise the matter in the House of Commons, since my duties to serve my constituents as a member of Parliament have been seriously hampered.
This is the first opportunity that I have had to raise this question in the House.
I issued a special flyer on the referendum which was delivered to Canada Post, L/C Depot No. 3, 772 Dover-court Road, Toronto, Ontario, on October 20, 1992.
Of the 20,837 flyers delivered to the above depot, 9,072 were delivered and 11,765 were held back. Someone at Canada Post made the decision that these flyers should not be delivered. This was confirmed by Mr. McBean, LIC supervisor.
My constituents still had six days in which to obtain information about the referendum prior to polling day.
I sent to you, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the flyer and pertinent information which I will not repeat here.


J4862 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 8, 1992
Point of Order
My question of privilege is: What right did a Canada Post employee have to make the decision as to whether or not my flyers should have been delivered? As indicated. I have been unable to obtain a satisfactory response from Canada Post regarding who made this erroneous decision, why it was made and what action has been taken to ensure that such an incident does not recur since this action did seriously hamper my ability to service my constituents properly.
If you deem that I do have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I will make the appropriate motion.
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, first I have to indicate that I have not had any prior information from the hon. member with respect to this matter. Therefore. I cannot respond in detail and I would certainly welcome the opportunity to look into the matter before giving that response.
I should indicate a couple of things. The Board of Internal Economy, in co-operation with the post office, with respect to the referendum campaign did indicate to all members that there were certain time constraints. Any brochures to be delivered had to be in the hands of the post office so many days in advance of expected delivery because of the fact that under the labour contracts there is a limit as to how much each letter carrier can take with him or her at any particular time and it takes time to put them out.
Bear in mind there are possible rational explanations that do not, as the hon. member suggests, deal with the notion that somebody at the post office deliberately tried to obstruct the hon. member. That is an accusation I find hard to believe. I certainly want to have an opportunity to look into it before accepting the facts the hon. member alleges.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I use the same question of privilege raised by my colleague from Parkdale-High Park who mentioned to me at the close of Question Period his intention to rise on a question of privilege.
I am not sure about the circumstances in my riding. I wish to simply let the House leader and the Chair know that when looking into that matter I also had approximately 5,000 flyers that were not delivered during the referendum campaign.
It may have been a case of the system being overwhelmed or a situation perhaps where something was
overlooked. One would hope so but I simply wish to provide that information to the Chair. We looked into the situation and we are not sure what the answer was. There were 5,000 flyers which were not delivered to a number of public forums held in the riding.
I also believe that that service is a very important one to our citizens. Perhaps it should be looked into so that we can avoid these mishaps in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park and the hon. member for York West have advised the House of a certain situation in Canada Post.
The hon. government House leader has indicated he would like a chance to consider the matter further. For now I am going to leave it at that and I am sure the hon. government House leader will get back to the Chair if that is appropriate. I do not think I should make any further comment until I hear a little more.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, earlier this day I asked guidance of the Chair with regard to the statutory order, consideration of a motion made pursuant to subsection 7(2) of the Special Economic Measures Act.
At that time, the parliamentary secretary made an intervention to the effect that he believed it to be ultra vires. We did have some discussions thereafter but there was no clear understanding of his viewpoint from my perspective or vice versa.
I wish to seek the guidance of the Chair as to the procedural acceptability of the statutory order. The parliamentary secretary was not arguing procedure. In my view he was arguing a position in law concerning the constitutionality of the issue at question.
I suggest and respectfully submit to the Chair it is not the role of the Chair to decide on the constitutionality or the substance of the particular matter. All that the Chair must do pursuant to the Standing Orders is to look at the procedural aspects.
Very briefly section 7 of the act in question provides that when regulations are tabled 50 MPs may sign a notice calling for revocation or of amendment to the regulations and for the timely debate and disposal of such a motion.
December 8. 1992

I suggest that all the Speaker may rule on is whether such notice has been properly prepared and received and therefore must be disposed of by the House according to the law.
In terms of the procedural aspects I think the Chair would have to take into consideration whether the regulations were properly tabled, whether the notice was properly given and how the House must proceed for lawful disposal of the matter.
If in fact the procedure is correct I do not believe the Chair is in a position in accordance with my understanding of the Standing Orders to rule on the substance of the motion in question.
What the parliamentary secretary has alluded to is that the motion itself is ultra vires, meaning unconstitutional. I suggest that very argument goes to the substance and not to the procedural acceptance. I would hope the Chair could make a quick ruling on this as time is running out as Parliament is to close on December 11.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter was raised earlier today and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has pul his position clearly. It may or may not be the wish of the parliamentary secretary to follow the matter further but I will certainly hear him.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I did have a discussion with the hon. opposition House leader after he raised this point earlier today and there was no meeting of the minds.
As I pointed out in my comments this morning, the Liberal amendment to the regulations tabled on September 18 of this year under the provision of the Special Economic Measures Act is clearly beyond the scope intended by the bill.
The Liberal amendment deals with section 4 of the act which authorizes the government to make very specific regulations dealing with relations between Canada and a sanctioned state. It docs not give the government authority to commit Canada to a particular position on matters of foreign policy concerning third party states.
The Liberal amendment is not within the scope of this authorizing power and is ultra vires of the bill.
Point of Order
The wording of the Liberal amendment has no relevance to the regulations that were tabled. Instead, the opposition has used this provision in the act. I submit to you Sir with respect, as a vehicle for partisan, not legitimate, purposes.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that it is not your role to decide on legal matters. However, I would submit that by allowing the debate on the Liberal amendment to proceed, you are implicitly giving a legal opinion that the amendment falls within the scope of the act. This is a patently obvious dilatory tactic which has put you in an untenable position.
I would ask the opposition to do the responsible thing and remove the Chair from this legal quandary by withdrawing this illegal amendment.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I thank both the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I am going to remove the Chair from the position in which the Chair finds itself by reminding hon. members that the Speaker has traditionally never been granted the authority to rule on whether or not a bill introduced into the House of Commons or an amendment introduced into the House of Commons is ultra vires. That is a matter for the courts. As a consequence, I must stay with that position.
I listened carefully to the hon. parliamentary secretary who I think with some ingenuity was suggesting that if I ruled otherwise I was implicitly supporting an amendment which might or might not be ultra vires. I certainly respect the hon. parliamentary' secretary's ingenuity in putting it that way.
However, I think I must remain with the long tradition which has been supported by many rulings that it is not the place of the Chair to rule on whether or not a bill or as I said earlier, an amendment to a bill, is ultra vires or otherwise.
I would point out that if I were to rule otherwise we could be in the position where any bill that the government introduces could be challenged by the opposition or by members of the government as to whether or not it is ultra vires and that would put the Speaker really in the position of the court and beyond the jurisdiction that was ever envisaged for the Speaker.

December 8, 1992
Special Debate
The consequence of that is that we are in a position where a motion has been filed. We are bound by a statute which says: "Where a motion for the consideration of a House of Parliament is filed in accordance with subsection 2, that House''-in this case that is this House- "shall not later than the sixth sitting day of that House following the filing of the motion lake up and consider the motion unless a motion of the like effect has earlier been taken up and is being considered in the other House", which is not the case.
That is the position we are in. It is up to the House to decide what it is going to do between now and the expiry of the six days which is mentioned in the bill. We are, of course, bound by that.
I think that is the best I can do to assist the House at this lime on this matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to draw this to the attention of my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, but in his commentary on the appropriateness of this action I think his remarks will show that he very clearly was impugning motive by my hon. friend in terms of what was motivating his initiative.
I wonder if it would not be the appropriate thing for him to withdraw those remarks in the good order that he normally conducts himself.


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary might want to rise and assist the House. It is a pretty fine line, but I will hear the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the Official Opposition taking umbrage at this, but I know that my friend from Kamloops is totally vigilant about the decorum, the manners and the proprieties of this place to a point of punctiliousness.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: If my hon. friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond fell that I impugned any motive, I certainly want to withdraw any such stigma and any such shadow from the House. I think that I will leave it at that and let the rest of my remarks stand on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Just for the record, I want to point out that under the circumstances, the use of the word punctilious by the parliamentary secretary is of course from a point of view of literacy. It is astonishing but it is in order.


SPECIAL DEBATE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from December 7, 1992, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall (St. Paul's) (p. 14771), and on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) (p. 14778).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 3 p.m., in connection with item No. 14 under Government Business on today's order paper and pursuant to order adopted Monday, December 7, 1992, the House will now proceed with the deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre). The question on the main motion, standing in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will be put immediately afterward.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next vote is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
[English)

Hon. Pierre Blais (for Minister of State for Finance and Privatization) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Criminal Code and a related act, laid upon the table Thursday, December 3, 1992, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
December 8, 1992
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 amendment by a legislative committee, and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the debate was suspended at two o'clock, we were considering Motions Nos. 1 and 2. The hon. member for Gatineau- La Lievre had the floor and he has up to three minutes left.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted before the vote, I had asked for permission to table briefs from the Quebec federation of golden age clubs in the House. Do I have unanimous consent to table them?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree to let the hon. member present his motion for tabling?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is not unanimous consent. I again give the floor to the hon. member.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, they were simply statements from the Quebec federation of golden age clubs on Bill C-91. There was nothing radical in them. They just summarized the situation. Anyway, this shows the government's completely negative attitude.
With the little time remaining to me, I would ask organizations like the Quebec consumers' association and the Quebec association of golden age clubs to be vigilant in the coming months.
Alter the testimonies heard in committee, we are convinced that Canadians will have to pay very high prices for pharmaceutical products. Therefore, it is in the interest of the various associations to check the increases, because in a few months, as you know, there will be an uproar when they find out about the jump in prices. It is important that they keep track of these
increases. They will have confirmation that the testimonies heard in committee were true and very justified.
In concluding, I hope that these organizations, throughout Quebec and Canada, will be very vigilant. In a little while, the situation could be very different in this House and we will then have an opportunity to correct the flaws contained in Bill C-91.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the member for Ontario who chaired the legislative committee on Bill C-91 stated that he was approached by some members who wanted to appear before the committee. I was one of the members who wanted to appear. However, because of the extended gridlock discussions by the opposition members of Parliament and other witnesses we were precluded from the opportunity to appear.
One of the main points I want to make today is that although I agree with the main thrust of Bill C-91, I do believe we have been too harsh on the generic drug firms, particularly in so far as the retroactivity conditions are concerned.
As I said, I agree with the thrust of Bill C-91. We are doing it for a number of reasons such as more investments, more jobs, more research and we do have to get on with it now. There is some $500 million at stake for new investment opportunities. I do want to say that the track record of the international companies has been favourable. We can look back to Bill C-22 with some great success, particularly on price controls where the average increase was 2.9 per cent a year, well below the CPI of 4.4 per cent.
Next, the cost issue must be kept in perspective. Of drugs consumed in Canada, 80 per cent are not affected by Bill C-91. Bill C-91 affects three per cent of the total health care costs in Canada.
Another aspect of this is how some seniors have been concerned about this through some of the information they have received. I want to state that seniors are covered by drug plans in all provinces. Under current provincial plans at least 71 per cent of seniors will not pay one penny more as a result of Bill C-91. Of the remaining 29 per cent, three quarters or more of their drug bill is covered by the provincial plans. More
December 8. 1992

research will bring better medicine, enabling Canadians to live healthier and longer lives.
Another issue of concern, and again I think there has been some misinformation out there, is Mexico and the NAFTA. The claims made by the opposition that in NAFTA Mexico gets an eight-year delay in having to comply with drug patent protection requirements are completely erroneous. The NAFTA contains the same provisions and time frame as the GATT-Dunkel text and applies to all three NAFTA parties on the same basis.
I would like to briefly outline some of the amendments I have put forth and they concern the exception regarding regulatory approval of exports. On clause 4, the purpose of that amendment of mine is to ensure that patent monopolies are not extended beyond 20 years from the time a patent is filed as a result of regulatory approval and production delays.
In clause 6, concerning offences, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the limitation period to two years from the time the subject matter of proceedings becomes known to ensure that multinational corporate secrecy does not prevent the effective enforcement of pharmaceutical price controls in Canada.
The next one concerns excessive prices in clause 7, where the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that introductory pharmaceutical prices in Canada are competitive rather than monopolistic.
The next one, concerning excessive price hearings, dealt with in the amendment in clause 7, means that the above amendment will ensure that pharmaceutical costs are effectively controlled by competitive prices and that Canada's universal health care system is preserved.
Another amendment concerns licences being continued.


Mrs. Catterall:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I appreciate what the member is trying to do. He is trying to speak to amendments which he intends to put but which have not yet been put to the House, and he is aware that there will be a limit on the debate in this House and that he may not have the opportunity to speak to his amendments. There are others in this House who are in the same position.
I wonder if it is in order for him to speak to amendments that have not been put to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must simply remind hon. members that, following the intervention of
Government Orders
the hon. member for Ottawa West, the debate is on Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
As the hon. member knows very well, the rule of relevance is one of the most difficult to interpret. Since the Chair has been rather tolerant so far, because the debate is just beginning-members even talked about what went on in a parliamentary committee-I am still ready to show tolerance toward the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
Once again, I recognize the hon. member.


Bill Attewell: Under clause 12, just to continue, this amendment in conjunction with the amendments to section 15 will ensure that Bill C-91 is not applied retroactively.
In clause 13, if notwithstanding the position of the CDMA and the provinces, the federal government proceeds retroactively, this amendment will permit CDMA companies to be compensated for the expenditures they made in reliance on existing Canadian law.
Last, concerning clause 15, this amendment in conjunction with the amendment to section 12 will ensure that Bill C-91 is not applied retroactively. That is an issue that I discussed with my colleagues as much as six months ago.
In closing, I want to thank the Speaker for letting me continue getting on record my points about these amendments and also my support of the main thrust of Bill C-91.
The bottom line is that I want to be able to try to see if we can get a little more fairness and pass these amendments so that we can minimize this issue of retroactivity for the CDMA members.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to stand up and speak against this piece of legislation.
I want to begin by quoting from a journalist who I think most members around here would respect as having a fairly good insight as to what happens when policy or legislation comes before this House. It is from Carol Goar's article in The Toronto Star December 1, 1992. In this article she basically talked about the history of the drug policy in this country and talked about the fact that Canadians enjoyed the lowest prescription drug prices in the industrialized world. Now that we have this bill this policy is basically gone because we are handing a free rein over to the multinationals.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
She talked about some of the promises the pharmaceutical companies made coming true. She states: "They increased their Canadian-based research, but most of it was clinical testing, checking the side effects of drugs developed elsewhere as opposed to pure research, finding a cure for AIDS, for example. They created close to 1,300 jobs but most were in sales and marketing and not in research".
This is one of the things that has been bothering me about this legislation and I mentioned it to a couple of members on the opposite side over the last two weeks. I had seen so many situations in this city over the last few years in which companies will come in to lobby members of Parliament for their legislation and they will make all these commitments in terms of job creation. Often we are lured into supporting this legislation because we are determined to grab on to anything that is going to create jobs, especially when they talk about creating jobs that are more skilled, high-tech or extra sensitive to research.
The thing that bothers me about this particular piece of legislation, and it has been stated by many members on this side of the House before, is the fact that there is no real strict accountability as to whether these jobs are going to be taking place. We know of so many instances not just in relation to this particular sector of our economy but in the manufacturing sector in which foreign multinationals will come here and negotiate support on the commitment of jobs and so often the commitment of fulfilling that particular assignment does not get done.
I have known situations in the past in which we would actually go to particular regions of this country to inspect where these so-called high-tech or high level, highly skilled manufacturing jobs take place and they are not taking place. Often we just create warehouses and when we look at the track record in the last little while in this particular instance with the pharmaceutical manufacturers, we know that they did not live up to all the commitments in terms of those superior jobs.
As stated in this article today, many of these jobs were in sales and marketing and that really is not what we
have been looking for. That was one of the reasons we have been so supportive on this side of the House for the generic industry. These people have been creating a different quality of job, a higher skilled job, creating a whole new sector within our economy.
When there is any kind of retraction in the economy or corporations cutback, with the new global system right now, and the head office decides with the flick of a pen to close a plant in a particular part of the world, we have absolutely no say or protection. There is no guarantee that these jobs are going to stay in Canada.
We have given up something that has been very unique and very precious and I know the government is making a mistake. It is once again an example in which the lobby system that has surrounded this entire piece of legislation is one of the reasons we have to review the whole system of lobbying in this city, in this country. It is practically making members of Parliament redundant. It is not just in terms of this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-91. It goes for a lot of other pieces of legislation as well.
I urge the government in the short time left to put in some system of guarantees that these jobs that are being committed by these pharmaceutical manufacturers cannot be vague. They have to be guaranteed.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to offer a few comments on the Bill C-91 legislation we are debating today.
I note with interest that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood closed his few remarks talking about lobbyists. In fact I want to address that subject at the end of my remarks on Bill C-91 because he brought up a most interesting facet to what goes on here in Ottawa with respect to legislation, with respect to policy and sometimes contracts. I can tell him that the committee I chair has been charged with that responsibility, so I will mention that a little bit later.
I have some difficulty with Bill C-91. It is no secret in this House because I have made some mention of it in the past and I want to do that again today as thoughtfully and as concisely as I can, bringing a point of view to this House.
December 8. 1992

I certainly am not opposed to intellectual property rights. I think most people in this House have great respect for people and corporations creative enough to produce products not only in Canada but around the world that benefit mankind.
Certainly Canada has had its share of historic developments, some in the drug industry and others such as the great Canadarm on the space shuttle that continues to fly around from time to lime. I do respect intellectual property rights.
The first thrust of my remarks on Bill C-91 is simply this. When Canada entered the free trade agreement, it allowed 10 years for the reduction of tariffs to bring Canada and the United States on the same playing field. This legislation at the date it was signed to make it official, bang, adds three years in one fell swoop to the patent protection of the large drug manufacturing companies.
It has been argued rightly or wrongly in the last while that those three years may even be more than three years. I am not in a position to say whether those who said it would be seven years are correct, or those who said it would be less are correct but clearly there is going to be a tremendous added cost to all Canadians in our haste to pass this legislation.
This represents, as the government has indicated, billions of dollars worth of revenue to those big companies. While we gave 10 years to implement the free trade agreement with a gradual change to tariffs, now for some reason there is an almighty rush to push this through. I object to that. It would have made no difference to those in GATT had we done it on a more gradual basis and it probably would have been fairer to all Canadians. That was my first objection.
I want to say this concerning the retroactivity of this legislation. As was put forward by my colleague, we have very good generic companies in Canada. They have made some great inroads in the production of generic drugs. Going back to retroactivity on this to me is a slap in the face for Canadian companies. There was absolutely no need and would not have stopped the investment of those major drug companies, as is pointed out by even some of the headlines: "Greater patent protection opens drug firms' wallets''.
Government Orders
It opens more than their wallets to come to Canada. It fills their wallets as they come to Canada. The drug business is a very lucrative business. Everybody understands how lucrative it is, so why the need for retroactivity? I believe it would have made no difference had we really studied this legislation and its ramifications to the public and given it three more years, rather than worry about its retroactivity.
Yet I had no indication from this side that it was prepared to revisit that issue right up to today. That is not being flexible and we want to be a flexible nation. I have some real difficulty with that aspect of it. What is the rush? Therefore, my question to the member for Broadview-Greenwood: Who lobbied who and for how much, so that this had to be put through in this fashion. That is a question I will ask when we address this issue in the committee of consumer and corporate affairs when we investigate lobbyists. I hope we come up with some answers because I think this issue is important to everyone in this House.
Let us look at one other part that I am interested in too. Should this investment take place as is indicated by the headlines, that is the drug companies are going to invest in Canada in a major way and they are going to create jobs. I do not think anyone in this Chamber denies that new and more jobs for Canadians everywhere are needed, but my fear is that if you look at this whole drug pie you will see that 10 per cent is research and development. However, I can tell you that 80 per cent of that research and development is going to take place in central Canada only.
I am not suggesting that the manufacturers pull up their factories and move them to Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Prince Edward Island, but at least give those parts of Canada, whether it is Atlantic Canada or western Canada where some of my colleagues come from, a commitment to their fair share of the R and D. Out of the hundreds of millions of dollars, the drug companies should at least give a commitment to put this R and D in different parts of Canada. This is not ripping up a factory or denying the big name companies their investment in Ontario and in Quebec, not at all. It is only saying to give us a fair share of the investment which comes from all Canadians.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
These new charges, because of the retroactivity and because of the three year increase in patent protection creates, no doubt about it, new charges that are paid by all Canadians who use drugs.
Neither my colleagues in Atlantic Canada nor I in western Canada, which represents 28 per cent of the population, have assurances that those R and D bucks would be spent there. There is tokenism by these big companies. We heard Judy Erola say: "We are going to give you a commitment. We want to find ways of investing in your universities."
I can assure you there have been no commitments solid enough for my satisfaction that anywhere near 20 per cent of these new dollars will be spent in western Canada. What about Atlantic Canada?
This is certainly something that I do not think we should be satisfied with and, as I indicated, I do not mind that a new factory would be established in Montreal or somewhere else. I have no problem with that, but please do not disgrace me as a westerner or my Atlantic colleagues by saying we do not have the ability to do some of this work. This is real hard money. The wallets of the large companies will be full. I am asking only that they spend a fair share should this legislation go through.
I see your indication, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. Let me just talk about the lobbyists because the committee that I chair wants to look at that very aspect even on Bill C-91. What lobby took place? What was the pay-off really and to whom? Should the people of Canada not know this? I can assure the House it shall be a most interesting review starting in February and I hope we get participation from everyone in the House.


Peter L. McCreath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know it was certainly not the intention of my hon. friend from Portage-Interlake to mislead the House, but clearly he forgot about the very major multibillion dollar announcement made last week with respect to medical research at Dalhousie University in Halifax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: That is a question of debate.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate this afternoon.
This debate gives an image of the very differing views of the role of government in our society. It is obvious that the current government-the Progressive Conservative Party view of the role of government-is to get out of the way and let competition and the free market take control. What that means is that it does not feel that regulation or the best interests of the citizens of the country should be put first, but the multinational interests should be put first.
I also want to point out very early in my remarks that the motivation of this bill is not a Canadian motivation but it is an American inspired agenda; in fact, a Bush administration agenda. It is fuelled both by the North American free trade agreement and by comments made by President-elect Bill Clinton's campaign promise, to place limits on the prescription drug prices.
As can be understood, that made the multinational drug companies rather twitchy. They have decided that the way to ensure their profits will go up instead of down is to move their operations and make sure that their profits come from Canadian consumers rather than American consumers.
I would like to cite a very interesting article from The New York Times of November 16, 1992. This article says a great deal. It talks about the motivation of the bill and how we will be discussing this. It talks about how the Progressive Conservative government wants to repeal the drug patent legislation from 7 to 10 years and to bring Canadian patent protection in line with that of the United States and other industrialized countries.
It points out that Canada's success at delivering drugs at lower cost, as opposed to the United States, is an important feature of our medical system.
As you know, much of the focus of the recent presidential campaign in the United States was on the very inadequate, sorry state of the health care system. It is generous to call it a health care system in the United States. It is a non-system.
December 8. 1992

We in Canada know how important our health care system is. That is what we are here to protect. My colleague, the hon. member for Surrey North has worked diligently in committee. He has worked tirelessly to oppose this legislation, and I urge all thinking members of this House to vote against Bill C-91. It is bad legislation. As an opposition party, we have the responsibility to oppose bad legislation. It is not going to bring in the much needed jobs, the much touted jobs that this government says it is going to do.
It is going to cost Canadians more for drugs and that is frightening. That is frightening because we are not talking just statistics here. We are not just talking numbers. We are talking people and people's lives.
I have a very sorry story to tell of a constituent of mine who has suffered from epilepsy. This man had finally had his condition stabilized through a particular drug. This was after years and years of frightening occurrences of epileptic attacks.
All of a sudden, the drug company removed the drug that was able to assist him from the market. His parents came to me and said: "You have no idea how this is going to affect our lives". This is a man in his 20s who for the first time had a job. He was contributing to society. Previous to this drug, he was not able to contribute. He was a dependent on his parents. He was now contributing, paying taxes, contributing to society, having an independent life as a young man. With the removal of this drug, we went to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and asked them to intercede.
As my children say, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board had an attitude problem. Their attitude reflects much of the attitude of this government. It is not our problem. We cannot do anything. It is the multinationals that are running things and we will just get out of the way.
We have a different view of the role of government. When somebody has a problem, it is our problem. We take it on. We tried find a solution and fortunately, we were able to find a solution through the orphan drug program and assure that that young man would get those required drugs.
That is what the role of government is. It is to help the citizens of Canada-not to help the multinationals make
Government Orders
more money. I want to know how a government can give an unrestricted monopoly on pricing for drugs at a time when federal financing for medicare is frozen.
I know that my provincial counterpart, my colleague in riding, the Hon. Elizabeth Cull, minister of health for British Columbia, came before the committee and gave some very telling statistics on what would be the increase in the costs to our provincial system if this bill was introduced.
We hear a lot about federal government off-loading. This is an example. This legislation would increase the costs to the health care system in British Columbia, a health care system that is already under attack.
I think that it is a callous bill, that it has to be opposed. All of the provincial health ministers unanimously disagree with this bill aside from Quebec. There is only one provincial minister who agrees with this bill; 9 of the 10 ministers of health disagree. I think that says a great deal when you are talking about the kind of philosophical approach.
It is we who are on the right side and the government that is on the wrong side. This kind of legislation shows a short-sighted view. As my colleague from Kamloops says: "the tinkle-down, trickle-down economics of the Tory government have to be stopped". We have to defeat Bill C-91. We have to defeat the Tory government. We have to get a new vision for Canada so that we can get on with building the economy of Canada and ensuring health care for Canadians.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the bill before us today, Bill C-91, is to make sure that Canada's, and therefore Quebec's, legislation regarding patents on pharmaceuticals is absolutely identical to that of other developed countries.
This bill is introduced after experimenting for five years with Bill C-22 which had partly corrected the mistakes made by the Liberals by significantly limiting the scope of patents on pharmaceuticals. Obviously, we were asking companies and researchers to invest without getting patent protection in return or the protection afforded being so weak as to make investing pointless.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
What happened? In spite of our history of pharmaceutical research in the Montreal area, activity in that field has decreased dramatically. What happened after Bill C-22 was passed in 1987? Research enjoyed a real boom. Why is that? It is because it is impossible to ask people to invest in research for 10 years or more in order to develop a product without ensuring in advance that the patent will be protected for a reasonable length of time at least.
All other developed countries have legislation that we are now agreeing to align ourselves on. If Canada is looking to innovate, it should be promoting research through tax incentives instead. There would be major things to change there. As far as patents are concerned, how can we ask companies which are in fact multinationals that can set up wherever they please in the world to come and invest here when the protection they get elsewhere is for much longer?
As a matter of fact, all the speeches on the price of pharmaceutical products and the threat to the health system we are hearing now we have heard before, in 1987. I remember them clearly. I was working for the City of Montreal, the Montreal urban community, at the time, and was sitting on the regional consultation committee which in fact was promoting Bill C-22 on pharmaceutical patents.
That bill was delayed for months by a Senate controlled by the Liberal Party. We debated it for months on end and a slew of arguments were put forward by dozens of witnesses and organizations from across the country. All the fears expressed then were later shown to be false.
What do we see now? We see a strange phenomenon concerning the Montreal region. Since this debate began in the House and in committee, I would like to know where the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel was to defend Montreal's interests? Where was the member for Saint-Denis? Where was the member for Saint-Henri- Westmount? Above all, where was the member for LaSalle-Emard, who writes nice articles on Montreal's development in the newspapers? He has a good opportunity to speak now. We have a law that is important for Montreal and no one spoke up, no one appeared in the
committee. They let people from the rest of the country speak against the bill.
An amazing thing this morning was the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell using the letter sent with the Montreal Urban Community's brief to speak against the bill. That is amazing. No Liberal member except one from Ontario spoke. He misused the letter because it begins, "We are for Bill C-91-". The letter does indeed say that to promote real basic and applied research, some restrictions should be made, not in Bill C-91-that is not what it is about-but in the Income Tax Act, on the kinds of expenses that are eligible for R and D tax breaks and in particular spending on commercial research. That is a correction that could have been made. Keep in mind that a partial correction was already made to the previous law, where any management expense was eligible.
What we see is the hypocrisy of a national party. When Montreal's interests are at stake but it bothers Liberals in other parts of Canada, all these people from Montreal say nothing, do not go to the committee and stay out of sight. People from other parts of the country speak against, but none of the members I just named, who claim to defend Montreal's interests, got up. We will see how they vote tomorrow. We see this kind of situation all the time when Montreal's interests are at stake. Those people hide, as they hid in 1987.
Why is it important for Montreal? It is important because we have very broad experience in clinical research. We also have basic research institutions like the biotechnology institute and the new pharmacology research institute. We have faculties of medicine and university research centres that are recognized throughout the world. All those people asked to pass patent legislation similar to what exists in other developed countries so that they could be as competitive and attract investments. In fact, we have had substantial investment projects and this is a rapidly growing sector despite the economic crisis.
I can tell you that I will vote for Bill C-91, as will all Bloc Quebecois members. In future, we can remind all the public of how the Liberal members from the Montreal area voted. If they vote against Bill C-91, they will have shown once again that when Montreal's interests are at stake, they hide behind the curtain or vote against.
December 8, 1992


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find there is unanimous consent in the House to adjourn this debate to accommodate a debate on the Special Economic Measures Act order. If that consent exists, I would then move:
Thai, notwithstanding any Standing Order, upon the calling of the Special Economic Measures Act order, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the order at no later than 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 1992 and that if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 1992;
That, the time provided for Private Members' Business be from 5.30 to 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 1992, after which the Speaker shall adjourn the House until Wednesday, December 9, 1992.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lloyd Axworthy: That, pursuant to subsection 7(2) of the Special Economic Measures Act (Chapter 17, Statutes of Canada, 1992), the Special Economic Measures (Haiti) Ships Regulations, tabled in this House on September 8, 1992, be amended by adding the following new section;
"6. The government of Canada shall urge every member of the Organization of the American States and the United Nations that has adopted measures similar to those set out in the Regulations to implement and enforce those measures.";
That, pursuant to subsection 7(7) of the same Act, the said amendment to the Regulations be effective on the second day following the day of the vote of concurrence by the Senate; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform that House accordingly and to request their concurrence in the same.
Government Orders
He said: The Special Economic Measures Act was passed last year as a way of ensuring that Parliament will have an opportunity from time to time to examine the crucial issue of how economic sanctions programs are affecting the various countries upon which they are being imposed.
An act such as that is only as good as how this Parliament uses it. For that reason, members of our caucus felt it important, especially at this time when there is such major debate in the country concerning our involvement in Somalia and Bosnia, that we use the measures under that act to reopen the question of Haiti and what is happening and, perhaps more important, what is not happening in that poor, desperate country and to ask Canadians and the government to review and re-examine what is happening to the people of Haiti and what Canada might do.

We are very concerned about the crisis in Haiti. Even though the government and the Organization of American States were very active at the beginning of the crisis, it seems we have now forgotten all about Haiti. Human rights are still being violated, the embargo is not respected by all members of the OAS and negotiations between the OAS Commission and the puppet government in Haiti are at a standstill. No progress has been made toward the reinstatement of president Aristide's constitutional government.

There were certainly without question a number of statements, declarations and resolutions passed about the importance of recognizing and supporting the restoration of constitutional democracy in Haiti. It has been over a year now and the dictatorship continues. In the meantime, the economic embargo was introduced with great fanfare and strong declarations by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other members of the OAS, saying peace would be the measure that would start the return of democracy. Unfortunately, the end result has been the poor people of Haiti are the ones who suffer and the wealthy, the elite, the establishment prosper. If there is an embargo full of holes it is

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
sanctions without effective enforcement. It has become a charade and a total and complete fabrication.
I do not think it is a wise and proper move for the people of Canada, through their government, to be associated with a measure that continues to enforce the most tragic group of people in the western hemisphere, the people of Haiti, to suffer even more and allow the continuance and maintenance of a dictatorial government.
Last weekend I attended a meeting of Latin American states sponsored by the United Nations in Chile on democracy and development. At that meeting were representatives of the exiled government of Haiti. They made a very important and powerful argument that if we are to allow a military dictatorship to continue to exist in Haiti, Haunting all the best intentions of the OAS, the United Nations and the western countries, then it becomes a signal to other military dictatorships throughout the western hemisphere to do the same because it is a cost-free, risk-free enterprise.
The international community is undertaking very strong interventions in Somalia to ease the human rights violations, famine and hunger of that area. It has even gone into the enormously complex and difficult area of Bosnia, not necessarily with full success, but it has at least made the effort. Yet in our own hemisphere we are allowing the matter to be forgotten.
Once in a while a speech is made. There was a resolution passed at the UN General Assembly just a week or so ago, where countries in a unanimous way said "we cannot tolerate this anymore, we must ensure the restoration of constitutional government". I think we can say honestly words are cheap but action is what counts. It is really a question of whether we are prepared to live up to the commitments made by the Prime Minister who said "we are prepared to use any means to ensure the restoration of democracy"
Where is the initiative? Where is the effort being made to hold members of the OAS to account? Where are we making the case to our European allies, who daily break the embargo and send in oil and goods to wealthy entrepreneurs in Haiti in total contradiction of the embargo, and no one says anything?

As a matter of fact, our own country's attitude toward the level, the standards and the measures of the embargo is unacceptable. For example, during the last week of November, this government reduced the budget of Radio-Canada International and in doing so, cancelled the broadcasts aimed at Haitians; which were very important to them, and brought a message of hope.
Is this an act of a government prepared to use every means to keep freedom alive to cancel one of the few opportunities for the Haitian people to get unbiased news and uncensored information?
At the same time, on the question of aid and development, we have a very murky policy as to whether the aid going through the NGOs for humanitarian purposes is in fact being channelled to the military dictatorship government in Haiti.
We have not made very clear or improved our assistance, in fact we have cut it back, to try to alleviate some of the suffering our own sanctions are causing.
We are faced with a very serious difficult dilemma as a country. We are presently endorsing and accepting a program of economic sanctions which is being laughed at by the military rulers of Haiti. It does virtually nothing to apply pressure for the restoration of the Aristide government. At the same time we are doing very little to try to develop new initiatives to the OAS which are meaningful, real and consequential.
It is important to raise these questions at this time because I think there are opportunities for change. The election of a new administration in the United States has publicly taken quite a different stance in relation to Haiti and may provide some opportunity for a new dialogue and a new set of policy formulations for that country. They are now prepared for the first time to say refugees from Haiti will at least be treated according to the norms of international law.
To my mind nothing bothered me more than the transgressions by the Bush administration of the fundamental precepts of the international convention of refugees by what it called defouling people or sending them back illegally, even though the administration was one of the causes of the problems. It was an American
December 8, 1992

government which supported the Duvalier regime for years.
Now there is a beacon of light. There is an opportunity-
[Translation}
Maybe Mr. Clinton and his new administration would hold a gala in Washington. The Canadian government certainly has the opportunity to propose solutions, to make recommendations and to present some new initiatives for Western countries.

I think we must undertake a far more significant and serious effort first as our resolution puts forward. If the embargo is going to be taken seriously we must ask others to enforce it. We cannot allow Europe and other countries of Latin America to cast a blind eye toward their responsibilities as members of the international community. We cannot continue to allow a double standard to exist.
I think it is almost immoral to initiate one set of actions for a devastated country in one part of the world and not at least show an equal initiative or effort in the other.
It goes back to the point I was trying to make in the debate last evening when we were talking about the government's actions in Somalia. If we are proposing to become involved as part of a multinational force in Somalia based on the violation of human rights, extreme suffering and a breakdown of government, does not the same criteria not apply to Haiti?
Why do we choose one and not the other? What is the difference? That is one of the reasons why these issues must become part of our parliamentary debate. It is one reason why we are using the measures under the special economic act to open this debate and ask the government what is the difference?
We want an explanation. We want to fully understand why it is taking multilateral, military action in one area where there is violation of human rights, deep human suffering and the overthrow of constitutional government and not in the other.
I think it is fair to ask what judgment is being applied to make a difference. There may be perfectly reasonable propositions, but we have not had them explained. I have gone through the statements the Secretary of State made at the Bahamas meeting. I read carefully the
Government Orders
statement of our ambassador to the United Nations last week at the debate of the UN resolution and nothing was said.
Our ambassador at the United Nations addressed the Haitian resolution at the very same moment the debate was going on in Somalia, and yet it was as if there were two different worlds. It was not even mentioned. There was no attempt to even pose the problem that if the UN is going to be initiating a set of standards for one country, it should at least be considering one for the other.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said she thinks this matter should be considered by the Security Council. I accept that at full value. Certainly, it should be accepted at full value, but the issue really is, what are we proposing to the Security Council? Are we undertaking diplomatic initiatives among other countries of the western hemisphere to build some kind of consensus as to what action should be taken? Should embargoes be strengthened? Should there be more aid? Should we be talking to the Americans to get them on side or are we prepared to discuss in realistic terms whether some form of military action might be required?
The US landed in Panama to get rid of Noriega, a drug smuggling ruler of that country. There is pretty good evidence the rulers of Haiti are also engaged in the drug business. I think it is up to Canada to raise these questions. There is no reason why we should not. There is no reason why we should not act to try to bring these very difficult matters into perspective.
I think it is also incumbent upon members of Parliament to raise these issues because in some ways they go to the very heart of what we are as a country. If we are going to be asked to assume and accept a new definition of international security, which requires and accepts the involvement and intervention of various countries of the international community and various countries which have broken down for reasons of enormous human rights violations, then surely it is a responsibility of this Parliament to come to grips with those issues.
It should not do it in an ad hoc responsive way and should not be subject to the vagaries of the U.S. presidential elections or whatever. Surely it is time we had some degree of consistency or coherence in those measures we think are important. I would say the kind of opportunity the special economic act offers for this kind of debate should be part and parcel of a standard procedure used when we are initiating major international commitments, whether through the UN, the OAS,

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
CSCE or whatever. It should be an attempt to try to get this forum to broaden its view about Canada's roles and responsibilities internationally. If we do not do that and we allow these matters simply to happen in an unexamined, unthoughtful way, we are going to be meandering down a road full of treacherous turns and curves and heading for trouble. If we are prepared to accept the real responsibility of this Parliament to work through seriously what this new world looks like, what is expected of Canada and how we see the multilateral international groups we belong to acting in these cases, we will be properly earning our keep as legislators on behalf of the Canadian people.
I address a plea to this House to begin to focus on the issue of Haiti. It is a poor, desperate country, tragic in its deprivation and even more tragic in the denial of rights and the imposition of dictatorship. They made a valiant effort to change that by voting in a constitutional presidency. We must now keep the faith with those people. We must show that we have not forgotten their commitment. We must do everything possible in our own powers as a country, as a member of the OAS and as a member of the United Nations to reignite world interest in the plight of the Haitians and to say to them that they are not forgotten. We must continue to do our best to bring about the restoration of a democratic regime and fair and just development in that fellow country of the western hemisphere.


PATENT ACT
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to report stage and third reading 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.
Therefore, under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours
for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to say how disappointed we are to hear the hon. minister give this notice. We have concerns about the incredible haste at which Bill C-91 is being forced through the parliamentary system.
I want to use this as an opportunity to give notice as well-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. The minister is only giving notice. You will have to wait for the matter to be brought to the House, if the government decides to follow through with it. Only then will the hon. government leader or any other member be able to voice their opinion. Right now, we only have a notice before the House, notice that might or might not be followed through by the government, according to its good pleasure.


SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) (p. 14873).
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on this motion I might express my sense of disappointment that not one member of the government, of the Conservative caucus, is prepared to participate in this profoundly important debate about the tragic situation in Haiti.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member is making an assumption which is groundless. He is also dangerously trespassing on the rule of pointing out who or who is not in the Chamber.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want to presume upon the integrity of the parliamentary secretary, but I think it would be in order to ask if there is any intention by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or her
December 8, 1992

parliamentary secretary to be in the Chamber while this debate is going on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Once more, I must remind members on both sides that in the House one does not mention who is absent and who is present.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we will soon find out if the Conservatives will participate in this important debate, important not only for the Haitian community in Canada, but also for all Canadians who are deeply concerned about the tragic situation in Haiti.
[English ]
It will be two years ago next week, December 16, 1990, that the first democratically elected president, Jean-Ber-trand Aristide, was elected in the country of Haiti with a vote of 67 per cent.
That historic victory brought not only a great sense of hope and optimism to a country that was desperately poor, in fact the poorest country in the Caribbean and Latin America, but a sense that the terrible abuses of human rights, the tragic legacy of Duvalier, both father and son, had finally come to an end. There was a hope for economic justice, a new beginning for the people of Haiti.
Today, two years later, Haiti once again is gripped by fear, poverty, brutal denial of fundamental human rights and murder. The tontons macoutes and their allies in the army, the thugs that are imposing their will through iron fists, are in fact running that country today.
It is important to ask: Where is the OAS? Where is the European Community at this time of need, at this time of such brutal violation of human rights of the people of Haiti?
Government Orders

Of course, the UN passed several resolutions. The OAS also passed resolutions to the effect that Mr. Aristide, the democratically elected president, had to be reinstated.
Since February, a mere four or five months after the violent coup, the United States has dropped all effective form of sanctions against Haiti. The United States said on February 4 of last year that it was going to relax its economic sanctions. Why did it do that? It is very clear; it is because it had too many desperate Haitian refugees trying to escape violence and sure death in that country. They were turned back. They broke international law; and every humanitarian law there is regarding refugees.
At the same time, to justify this inhumane policy, the U.S. claimed that the situation was improving in Haiti.
[English ]
We saw very early in February of last year the United States easing the trade embargo against Haiti. In November, a couple of months after the brutal coup in Haiti, we heard the fine words of the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs when she said in the House on November 4 of last year: "Canada's goal is simple and through these actions our determination must be clear to everyone". She went on to say: "With the measures I have just announced we have gone as far as any country in the hemisphere in responding to the OAS call for a strong signal to the regime in Port-au-Prince that we will not tolerate, that the will of the Haitian people will be thwarted. Together with our OAS partners we are determined to restore democracy in Haiti".
Here we are one year later and the murder continues, the violence continues, and the poverty is even more grinding for the people of Haiti.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
The United States abandoned any serious commitment to the embargo in February of this year. Even the Secretary-General of the OAS, Jose Baena Soares, expressed his concern at that time about the decision that was made when he said: "To change the multilateral recommendation in my view we should have some real progress in the implementation of the resolutions, imposing the embargo and calling for Aristide's restoration".
There has been no progress. Just last week another supporter of Jean-Bertrand Aristide was brutally murdered in Haiti. While the eyes of the world are focused on Somalia, on the unfolding tragedies in Bosnia, in the Sudan, in Liberia and elsewhere, perhaps it is difficult to remind the world of the importance of not abandoning the people of Haiti. The purpose of the motion today before the House is to do precisely that.

Its purpose is to give both Haitians and Canadians the assurance that we have not forgotten their struggle, the struggle of the Haitian people for democracy and economic and social justice. That is why this motion is before the House. Canada should play a leading role by asking the OAS, the UN and all European countries to enforce sanctions and do everything they can to restore democracy.

One of the most important issues at this time is support for the NGOs who are working, many of them very bravely, for a restoration of democracy and hope for the people of Haiti. Instead of increasing support for NGOs working in the field of development, the government in its economic statement just last week slashed funding to these same NGOs, to Oxfam, to I'AQOCl dans la province de Quebec and to other NGOs working desperately to try to help the people of Haiti respond in this time of crisis.
We condemn the priorities of a government which is prepared to slash over $600 million from foreign aid at the same time as it budgets over $4 billion for helicopters. This is a shameful decision.
I also want to raise my concern about the decision of Radio Canada International to stop its broadcasts to the people of Haiti.

Since the coup in September 1991, the people of Haiti have had a very difficult time. Restoration of the military regime resulted in severe repression of all the media. Broadcasts by Radio-Canada International were one of
the sole sources of international news available to the people of Haiti. The broadcasts opened a window to the outside world and gave Haitians at least some hope that the international community had not turned its back on their plight.
Why did Radio-Canada International stop these broadcasts which were so important to the people of Haiti? Today I want to ask the parliamentary secretary to help us provide the necessary resources to reinstate these broadcasts and get in touch with Canadian and Quebec NGOs who are active in Haiti and urge them to do what they can to help restore democracy.
I ask the government to resume the Radio-Canada International broadcasts beamed to Haiti. Unfortunately, terminating these broadcasts has merely reinforced the wall of silence that the de facto regime has raised around the people of Haiti to maintain repression and stifle the resistance movement.

It is essential that Canada play a leadership role within the United Nations, within the OAS and elsewhere to bring the strongest possible pressure to bear on the illegitimate and criminal regime of Haiti and to demand the restoration of the democratically elected president of Haiti.
The European Community has failed miserably to respond to the crisis of the Haitian people. The embargo is full of holes and the thugs and the Tonton Macoutes and the Haitian army, working together with the economic elite in that poorest of poor countries in the Caribbean and Latin America, are receiving a subtle message of encouragement by the failure of the government of the United States, the European Community and elsewhere to show their seriousness.
The people of Haiti have demonstrated tremendous courage in their struggle for democracy. I believe that the United States and the OAS, which has proven to be completely ineffective in this struggle, owe it to the people of Haiti, not only to ensure that those who are fleeing from this tragic situation have a safe haven but that we take strong collective measures in consultation with the democratically elected president and government of Haiti to put pressure on the regime that is now in power.
It is also very important that Canada consult closely with the constitutionally elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide with respect to humanitarian aid. A number of NGOs here in Canada have voiced their concern that the de facto government appears to be co-opting some well meaning humanitarian aid providers in Haiti. It is essential that all of those working in this
December 8. 1992

field work closely with the government in exile to determine the most effective priorities.
The government in exile, while it continues to receive recognition, needs more than recognition. It needs resources and assistance to operate outside Haiti, to keep the flame of hope burning brightly for people within Haiti who are being gunned down and murdered by the thugs in power now.
We as Canadians can help to provide those resources just as we have done to the government in exile of Burma and provided resources to keep that hope alive; the hope of Aung San Suu Kyi and others that that illegitimate government as well will finally be overthrown.
In conclusion, I welcome this opportunity to again reinforce in this House the concern of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I believe of many people in Canada.

The Haitian community and especially the people of Quebec have been strong supporters of the Haitian struggle for democracy.
We support this motion and we want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do a lot more at the United Nations and the OAS to tighten up the embargo and put an end to this attack on democracy. After restoration of the government that was democratically elected in Haiti two years ago next week, our first challenge will be to restore economic and social justice. This is exactly what President Jean-Bertrand Aristide had tried to do, and that is exactly why the elite, the tontons macoutes and the army got rid of this government. For the sake of justice and democracy, we are asking this government to do far more for the people of Haiti.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion. I find it a little strange that we should be called at this hour of the day, this ho.ur of the week and this hour of the year to speak on this motion and to speak to an amendment that was brought forward by the opposition to legislation to which it agreed when we passed it earlier this year. Now we are debating the implementation of this measure.
Government Orders
I recall that when we debated this legislation in the House it was a very short debate because all members on all sides agreed that the legislation regarding embargoes that Canada could impose needed to be strengthened. We realized that during the gulf war even though Canada, under the legislation that had been there heretofore, would impose embargoes, they were not effective ones. Therefore, the government took the initiative to draft legislation that would make them more effective so we could deal with situations like the gulf.
The opposition parties agreed to that legislation. As I recall, there were about two or three speakers in that debate from each party and that was it. Then when it went to committee, it was a short meeting, we heard several witnesses and it was a non-contentious bill. It was passed easily in the House. As I remember, it was not even with a recorded division, it was with a voice vote.
Today, the last week that the House is sitting, when there is so much important legislation that the opposition also agrees is very important, we are called upon to debate an amendment to legislation to which it has already agreed. I find that passing strange.
On July 7, 1992 His Excellency the Governor General in Council approved the above named regulations which we are purportedly debating today. The purpose was to reinforce the economic and commercial isolation of the Republic of Haiti. It would be too bad, it would be a tragedy if because of this debate the public watching the proceedings here today were to assume that nothing had happened by way of Canadian activity in Haiti since the time we passed that legislation. There has been a lot of work going on and I think members opposite would agree on that.
The intent of the Governor General's decision was to complete a series of previous administrative measures enabling the Government of Canada to apply Resolutions 191 and 392 of the Organization of American States, adopted October 3, 1991 and May 17, 1992.
The resolutions were unanimously adopted by the 34 member countries of the Organization of American States in reaction to the coup d'etat of September 30, 1991 that forcibly ejected Haiti's first ever democratically elected government. As an institution, the Organization of American States, with Canada making a notable contribution, played a key part in the process of Haiti's transition from a military dictatorship to the free elections of December 16, 1990, two years ago.

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
The members of the OAS and Canada in particular had high hopes of seeing renewal in Haiti and we are still determined to enable it to again become part of the community of democratic nations. The measures of economic and commercial isolation that we are referring to today were part of the international community's strategy to force the perpetrators of the coup to negotiate in good faith with the democratic forces of Haiti.
It must be borne in mind that the United Nations Security Council is the only body with the power under international law to compel its members to implement measures ranging from political and economic isolation to blockading and the use of force. As a regional body, the OAS does not have this power. Its resolutions do have a moral and therefore political force but they are, nonetheless, no more than recommendations.
As I have already explained, the measures recommended by the OAS are recommendations only and engage only its 34 member countries. From the outset it was fully understood by us that they would not have a universal application. It should be added that most of the economic and trade relations between Haiti and the countries of our hemisphere were still going on. The embargo, although only partial, had a real effect on the Haitian economy and on the usupers' ability to manage the country.
As soon as resolution 191 was adopted by the OAS, it was brought before the UN. On October 11, 1991 the Secretary of State for External Affairs delivered a lengthy speech to the United Nations, denouncing the coup in Haiti. She rightly appealed to the international community, pointing out that whenever a democracy fell by reason of a coup d'etat it was the duty of the United Nations to intervene to protect its cherished principles. She urged all countries to join with the OAS in its efforts to restore constitutional stability in the region.
Let me now bring to mind the speech delivered to the United Nations on November 24, 1992 by our ambassador, Mrs. Louise Frechette, in support of General Assembly agenda point 22, entitled The Democracy and Human Rights Situation in Haiti.
After calling to mind the new resolution on Haiti adopted by the UN on November 10 by the OAS, Mrs. Frechette expressed her satisfaction with a productive co-operation underway between the United Nations and the OAS concerning Haiti in both the political and humanitarian aid sectors.
Calling for an intensification of this co-operative activity, Mrs. Frechette affirmed that the new resolution, asked Secretary General Soares to seek the assistance of the United Nations and its Secretary General in order that special attention might be brought to bear on strengthening the trade embargo on Haiti, especially with regard to petroleum products and arms. I can hardly emphasize enough the importance that the Government of Canada attaches to this question.
I strongly encourage all the member states of the United Nations to join us to strengthen the international measures likely to assist democracy and restore legitimacy in Haiti. As far as Canada is concerned, we think that the Security Council should not hesitate to seize itself of the issue of Haiti.
Bringing Haiti back among the democratic nations is an act of justice and one whereby democracy will be strengthened in the western hemisphere. Canada attaches so much attention to the subject of democracy because it lies at the heart of the concepts of progress and the security in the region.
Not only is the proposed amendment unnecessary, as I have already pointed out, but the Special Economic Measures Act provides no authority to adopt it.
An amendment to the Special Economic Measures (Haiti) Ships Regulations must be based on the authority conferred by section 4 of the act. That section authorizes the adoption of regulations and orders related to the restriction or prohibition of activities that involve a direct relationship between Canada or Canadians on the one hand, and the state subject to sanctions on the other.
The relationship between Canada and states other than the one subject to sanctions is not a proper matter for orders and regulations under section 4. In brief, the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the regulation making power conferred by the act.


December 8, 1992

When the Special Economic Measures Act was introduced as Bill C-53, it envisaged motions to revoke sanctions orders and regulations tabled in Parliament.
In committee, the member for Winnipeg South Centre proposed changes to the bill to allow motions to amend orders and regulations. He spoke eloquently of the "constructive" role that his proposal would give to Parliament in developing broad-based support for sanctions orders and regulations. His appeal to high-minded principles carried the day in committee. The motion we debate today is a flagrant abuse of the fruit of appeal to the principle by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. All evidence suggests that this-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order the member for Surrey-White Rock-Delta is now arguing that the motion before the House is effectively out of order and that it is beyond the scope of the Special Economic Measures Act. He states that the motion in question is not made pursuant to section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act.
I have a copy of the background statement with respect to this particular regulation. It states that the Canadian government approves the special economic measures Haiti ships regulations pursuant to subsections 4(1) and (3) of the Special Economic Measures Act.
Earlier today a colleague of the member for Surrey-White Rock-Delta attempted to argue that this motion was out of order. The Speaker stated it was in order. I suggest this is just another attempt to do an end run around the Speaker's earlier ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think it is a matter of debate. I give the Boor again to the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Benno Friesen: I would point out that the riding is Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. The member is a few years out of date and maybe that is indicative of his point of order too.
I would agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that it was a point of debate and not a point of order. I will conclude with the following remarks and I point out to the member for Burnaby that I have just said that the motion
Government Orders
deals in effect with urging other countries to adopt the orders that we have and that goes beyond the scope of the legislation.
I conclude by saying that the member from Winnipeg and his appeal to high-minded principles carried the day in the committee. The motion we debate today is a flagrant abuse of the fruit of the appeal to the principle by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. All evidence suggests that this motion is nothing more than a dilatory exercise far removed from anything to do with Haiti.
I move that we bring this debate to a close. [Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate and to support the motion presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I am glad to see that the parliamentary secretary at the very least had the courage to come to this House. If his minister does not have the same respect for Haiti, at least the parliamentary secretary is here to remind us of the speeches the minister has already made and also the speeches of the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations.
He seems surprised that my colleague presented this motion that is supported not only by all members of the Liberal Party but also, I think, by members of the New Democratic Party.
As my colleague said very clearly, the reason we are presenting this motion is that we think the government spares no effort to make fine speeches, but when the time comes to really take radical, tough measures to restore democracy in Haiti, it seems that the Canadian government has no more energy and forgets the minister's or the ambassador's fine words.
The purpose of our amendment is to urge the government to go beyond rhetoric and to shake things up so that democracy is restored to this country that has suffered so much for too long.
Let me remind you of what the minister said last May to the Organization of American States:

December 8, 1992
Government Orders
[English|
Canada is determined that the impasse in Haiti not continue indefinitely. The illegitimate regime in Haiti has strangled every attempt to restore democracy to the Haitian people. Canada will continue to enforce sanctions as we all agreed last October.

The minister tells us that he does not want this impasse to continue indefinitely, but that is what is happening. This is not the first time that representatives of the government in this House make fine speeches in an attempt to encourage and pacify the Haitian community in Canada. What has the Government of Canada done concretely and specifically to restore democracy in Haiti? Nothing. Absolutely nothing concrete, except fine speeches at the United Nations or to the Organization of American States.
The purpose of my colleague's proposal is to get the government to do something, to put pressure on other member countries of the Organization of American States and on the United Nations to take concrete action. It would put the military regime, which has ruled that country for too long, in its place and prevent it from governing Haiti as it has governed there for too long, so that the voice of the people, expressed in free elections, can prevail and a duly elected president can govern unhindered, not as it is now and has been for too long.
If the president of Haiti is not in league with the military, he is overthrown and replaced. He is a puppet who apparently leads but in fact the military rule the Haitian state. Democracy in that country is violated in the worst way, and the minister's few nice speeches to the United Nations or the Organization of American States will not change anything.
The parliamentary secretary seems to be surprised that we are coming back to it now with an amendment to the resolution we supported before. Of course, all hon. members supported the government's motion to put an embargo on Haiti and ensure that special economic measures were taken against those who usurped power in Haiti and to put those unlawful rulers in their place so that democracy could be restored. At that time, we thought that the government was serious in its efforts and that this embargo would force those who had usurped power in Haiti to give up and make way for
democracy. Several months later, we find that the situation has not changed. The military still control the country from behind the scenes and impose a military dictatorship on that nation, which is one of the poorest and most disadvantaged on earth.
In the name of human solidarity, I ask the government to have more conviction than merely to utter fine words.
I am particularly serious about this since I have the pleasure of knowing many Haitians who live in the Montreal area and who often talk to me or my colleagues, either the hon. member for Saint-Denis or the hon. member for Saint-Leonard or the hon. member for Saint-Laurent, who all have constituents of Haitian origin. We talk to these people, and we are constantly told they feel the government has treated them unfairly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order adopted earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion lost, on division.
Motion negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
December 8, 1992



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
[English}

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Svend .1. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a non-partisan, independent Commission to review all salaries, pensions and benefits of Members of Parliament and particularly, to identify inequities in the pension plan by holding public hearings and examining other jurisdictions within and outside Canada and such Commission to report within six months of its establishment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to once again rise in this House and speak to an issue which is of deep concern not only to many of my constituents in Burnaby-Kingsway, but I know to the constituents of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party and indeed the constituents of members from coast to coast to coast.
I want to underline the fact that I am speaking today on behalf of a number of my colleagues who are not able to be here in the House at this time because of other important business. The following members have asked me in particular to underline their support for this motion: the member for Kamloops who has been working very hard on this issue; the member for Vancouver East who is in the House at this time; and a number of other colleagues want their support for this motion clearly on the record.
The motion is straightforward. It calls upon the government to establish a non-partisan, independent commission to review all salaries, pensions and benefits of members of Parliament and particularly to identify inequities in the pension plan by holding public hearings and examining other jurisdictions within and outside Canada and such commission to report within six months of its establishment.
I tabled this motion in the House over one year ago. It was a couple of months later, in February of this year, that a debate took place, really a historic debate took place on legislation that was before this House on pensions. I say that was an historic debate because for the first time in the history of this House, a national
Private Members' Business
party leader entered that debate to say on behalf of Canadians that it is time to review the members of Parliament pension plan.
I am speaking, of course, of the courageous leadership that the member for Yukon, the federal Leader of the New Democratic Party, has shown on this important issue. As the member for Yukon said at that time: "We are accountable for the public trust, we are accountable to those who elected us to make sure that what we support is fair, not less but fair, and that each and every one of us can stand before the electorate of Canada and say that we have put in place a fair system".
At that time the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party called for an independent review, a review ol particularly a couple of key aspects of the members of Parliament pension plan; the element of double-dipping or triple-dipping as well as the element of eligibility age for members of Parliament to receive this pension.
At that time the Leader of the New Democratic Party was vigorously and bitterly attacked not only by Conservative members of Parliament but by Liberal members of Parliament as well. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the member for Broadview-Greenwood and many other members of the Liberal and Conservative caucuses attacked her at that time just as they are attacking me in the House now for speaking out on this issue of the public trust and public accountability.
When I came to the House a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to speak with a messenger from the House of Commons and she said to me: "Mr. Robinson, I have worked on the Hill for 14 years and when I retire I will have a pension of $212 a month".
I am proud of the historic role of the New Democratic Party in promoting strong and progressive pension plans for public sector workers. In particular I want to underline the historic contribution of Stanley Knowles, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre who did so much, who devoted so much of his life and career to the cause of public pensions and a dignified retirement for all Canadians.
I think it is time that we as parliamentarians recognized that in fact we have to clean up our own House. We have an obligation to ensure that the public trust that we hold as elected representatives is in fact one that is respected in all aspects.
[Stage Direction]
December 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
That is why I have tabled this motion. The motion calls for an independent non-partisan commission to review all salaries, pensions and benefits of members of Parliament; not a commission of members of Parliament, not a commission of former members of Parliament as we have after every election, a well-paid commission that reports and then nothing is done on it, but an opportunity for members of the public from coast to coast to coast, from constituencies in Regina, Toronto, British Columbia, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and elsewhere to tell their elected representatives and to tell an independent commission what they think.
I want to single out two particular areas that I think do constitute inequities that should be examined by this commission. First of all there is the question of the eligibility age, the fact that after six years of service, no matter what the age of the either retired or defeated member of Parliament is, they become eligible for a life time pension indexed at the age of 60.1 think Canadians can legitimately ask whether that is fair.
As well Canadians can legitimately ask whether the opportunity to receive a very generous federal pension in addition to another federal salary, whether it be as a member of the judiciary, as a federal appointee or in another capacity, any of those very lucrative positions, should be supplemented by a federal pension as well.
Canadians are asking whether that is fair. I think it is important that there be an independent tribunal, an independent commission, that would give Canadians the opportunity to speak to that and to voice their concerns at this particular time in our country's history.
I want to note that on June 12 I spoke in the House on this issue. I pointed out that the President of the Treasury Board responded to a letter that was sent by the hon. member for Yukon, the leader of the New Democratic Party, and said at that time that he was prepared to put together an independent and ad hoc review of the pension scheme.
This is what the President of the Treasury Board said in a letter to the member for Yukon. He said: "At this time I am developing final proposals on the terms of
reference for and composition of the ad hoc group which will undertake this review". That was on June 12.
Today, some six months later, where is the review? Where is the leadership of the President of the Treasury Board? Where is the leadership or the call of the Liberal Party for action on these inequities? Silence.
I am proud of the leadership that my colleagues and particularly the leader of the federal New Democratic Party have shown on this issue of equity and fairness. It is for that reason that I hope and assume that members on all sides of the House will join in supporting this motion. What it does is say that we are prepared to listen to the Canadian people. We are prepared to have an independent commission to give the Canadian people an opportunity to be heard on the question of MPs' pensions.
I challenge the member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell from the Liberal Party, I challenge the Conservative members in this House to say to the people of Canada and to their constituents that they are not prepared to even listen to them, that they are not prepared to allow an independent commission to hold public hearings with respect to the fairness of the MPs' pension plan. Let them stand up in the House and take that position.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that a number of members are looking for-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry but on a point of order, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member just asked me to stand up and that is exactly what I am doing. I wonder if he is yielding the floor at this moment so that I can make my speech.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of my colleagues who are in the House today are anxious to participate in this debate. We certainly await with interest the position of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who was so vigorously attacking the member for Yukon when she called for a review of pension plans. We will await with interest his position on this motion and the position of Conservative members.
December 8, 1992

In conclusion, once again I welcome this opportunity to ask the President of Treasury Board through his parliamentary secretary: When is this government finally going to move? When will it live up to the commitment that was made on June 12 to the leader of the New Democratic Party and indeed to Canadians for an independent review of the pension plans for members of Parliament? Canadians have waited for too long. It is time that there finally was an independent review.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State
(Finance)): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on the subject of salaries and pensions for members of Parliament.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway moved that the government should consider the advisability of establishing a non-partisan, independent commission that would review the various elements of MPs' compensation and conduct public hearings in this matter.
Since the Minister of Finance last week announced that the salaries of members of Parliament would be frozen for two years, I will confine my remarks to the pension plan.
All hon. members must be aware of the criticism that has been levelled at the pension plan in recent years. Sometimes the criticism has been accompanied by an unattractive newspaper advertising campaign. I suspect that the hon. member's motion was in large part in response to that.
What exactly is the criticism? The criticism is that our pensions are too generous and that they should not be payable after only six years as a member of Parliament. What this criticism overlooks, however, is the underlying reason for the terms of the pension plan.
While there are certain norms which pension plans generally observe, allowances are often made for occupations and career patterns which differ from the main stream.
I am informed that the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was designed just for that purpose. That is to recognize the unique circumstances under which members of Parliament serve and to take account of the fact that most hon. members have left a successful
Private Members' Business
career in private life to enter the public arena. Many of them have made considerable financial sacrifices.
We are all aware of the uncertain nature of our tenure and that we serve at the will of the electorate. I might add that MPs are not alone in having pension arrangements that exceed the norm. While meeting the income tax rules for registered pension plans they sponsor, the government and private sector employees frequently provide benefits outside the registered pension plans for certain groups of employees.
The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act attempts in part to compensate for the disruption of career and the lack of controlled retirement planning for elected officials. In return, it demands a high rate of contribution from the plan members.
I am not sure whether those people or groups that are so vociferous in their criticism of MPs pension arrangements are aware that the contribution rate is some 11 per cent and that far exceeds the level of contributions required for most pension plans in Canada.
Earlier this year, this House debated Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pensions Division Act. On September 29, Bill C-55 received Royal Assent.
One of the main purposes of this legislation was to bring the federal pension statutes, including the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, into line with the requirements of the Income Tax Act rules and regulations for registered pension plans.
During the course of the debate on Bill C-55 and its study at committee, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that the legislation represented the first step only in Public Service pension reform. That first step was a very important step because in addition to addressing the question of the Income Tax Act compliance for federal pension plans, it introduced some long promised changes having to do with fairness and flexibility of pension arrangements for plan members and their families.
The President of the Treasury Board has stated on numerous occasions that the second step in the reform process will involve a review of the fundamental elements of the Public Service plan and a separate review of the members of Parliament pension plan.

December 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
The President of the Treasury Board indicated that these reviews would be undertaken in consultation with all the stakeholders and that the review of MPs and senators pension arrangements would involve an independent third party.
I understand that the Public Service Superannuation Act advisory committee has been chosen as the most appropriate vehicle for the Public Service review because its members comprise representatives of both the active and retired plan members as well as employer representatives.
The member will agree that it would be inequitable if the government were to treat members of Parliament differently from the members of other federal pension plans by denying them input on the review of their pension arrangements. He will also agree that pensions are an important element in the remuneration package which enables individuals to seek public life.
At the same time, I agree with the President of the Treasury Board when he said on second reading of Bill C-55 that to be credible, a review of parliamentary pension arrangements must also provide for specific input from the public and the views of those who are independent of Parliament would be actively solicited.
The government understandably felt that Bill C-55 should be passed before embarking on the review of MPs pension arrangements. It is now able to direct its attention toward the developing proposals on the composition of the ad hoc group that will undertake the review and drawing up the terms of reference.
I understand the President of the Treasury Board is close to finalizing these proposals which I believe should be acceptable to most members of this House because they provide a balanced input by plan members and by independent third parties. Therefore, I cannot support the motion put forward by the hon. member. The government is already acting on this. The motion put forward by the member is redundant as far as I am concerned.
f Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate
today. I will be curious to hear what the hon. members for Kootenay West, Nickel Belt and Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca have to say on this issue when I am through with my remarks. I am anxious to hear the remarks of these three hon. members.


An hon. member:: What party are they from?


Don Boudria: From the New Democratic Party, of course.
On March 5, 1991, the Liberal member for Saint-Bo-niface had made the same request to this House.

Let me read from Hansard of March 5, 1991. This is in the name of the hon. Liberal member for St. Boniface.
Let us consider an independent third party to address the question
of salaries, pensions, allowances and other remuneration.
I say to my friends to the left who pretend that they invented virtue, or at least they pretend to have perfected it, that they did not invent anything in this particular case.
When I heard the comments of the member for Yukon last June, empty rhetoric of the kind I heard a little earlier today, I asked her questions because I believe I had a right to do so. I will continue to ask questions of members of all political parties on any issue for which the Standing Orders of the House provide.
There are two issues here today. One is the salary of MPs and second, the benefits, namely the pension. Let us take them one at a time. First of all, as my colleague from the government has just indicated, the salary of MPs is frozen and will probably be for some time to come.
I did a quick survey of various occupations to see how they compare with the one we have. I recognize that as MPs we are vulnerable. It is easy for organizations, be they the National Citizens' Coalition or any other to criticize all of us individually or collectively, to say that we are paid too much. Of course anyone else's salary is always too much and one's own salary never seems to be enough. That is easy to do and is fair game. Maybe we should expect to be criticized by others. That is okay. What purpose does it serve for some of us to start saying that we are overpaid?
December 8. 1992

Private Members' Business
I did not say that the member's motion said that. I do not want to be unfair. The member asked for an independent review. There is nothing wrong with having that. Actually the government has agreed to it and as I said, it was asked for originally by the member for St. Boniface in any case a year and a half ago.
The only thing I say to the government is that the motion might be redundant. If it is redundant because it is already being done, then surely there is no harm in adopting this motion because it is going to be done anyway. Notwithstanding the hon. member's criticism and my own of the member who proposed this today, we would proceed with it anyway because I do believe that it is going to be done. It was asked for by all three parties and it should be under way.
My only criticism of the government, and here I will join with the member from the New Democrats who proposed the motion, is to say that six months after something was proposed it should at least be under way. The other parties should have been told what the government is planning to do. It should not have been left in abeyance for this amount of time.
Perhaps the government is proceeding with it. At the very least it should have indicated its willingness to proceed to other members so that we would all know and, perhaps, that motion would not have been on the Order Paper today. I trust that would have been the case. However, I do not know.
[Translation)
Let me compare a few wages. I phoned the school board in my riding today to find out how much a teacher makes, out of sheer curiosity. This beautiful profession needs to be well paid. The work this profession entails is very important: taking care of our children, educating them, and so on. The maximum rate of pay for a teacher in my riding is $63,973. That is pretty close to the $65,000 we make as members of Parliament. A director general earns approximately $125,000, but not necessarily in my riding in that case, while a school superintendent earns $93,000 a year. A full professor in a typical university anywhere in this country-I am told-can earn up to $95,712.1 do not deny that their job is important, but we must take into consideration that some of the members of this House do have this background.

Let me mention a few other professions. I have 1986 salaries. I am using Statistics Canada information which I obtained earlier today. In 1986 an MPs salary was $56,100. At that time the average veterinarian was making $59,796; an air traffic controller, $57,375 and an airline pilot, $56,622. There is at least one member who is an optometrist, a member across the way. I have the pleasure of sitting on various committees with him. An optometrist made $71,893; a pharmacist, $50,260; a civil engineer, $60,393. I could go on with a variety of other professions in Canada. So much for the salary part.
I am sure that the commission examining salaries will examine those examples as well. We will bring them up to date. The 1991 statistics will be available shortly.
Let us turn to the issue of pensions.

At present, parliamentarians have a pension system that does not work like the others with regard to benefits. That is true, but I can assure you it is also very different when it comes to premiums too.

How many people do you know who contribute 10 per cent of their salaries toward premiums? How many people do you know who contribute an extra 1 per cent on top of the 10 per cent in order to have indexation starting at age 60? We pay 11 per cent of our salaries so we can have that benefit. Of course, it is quite a high premium.
Maybe it does not make much difference to a person my age. Maybe it makes even less to a person who is a little bit older, but I say to members of this House that if we are going to attract a 31-year old or a 32-year old woman with children to come here from the other end of the country, we might as well ensure that we make the package in such a way that it does not discriminate against her and prevent her from running.
If we abolished the pensions today and my premiums were all given back with interest, I could work just fine. I do not want to over dramatize. I could probably retire and I would get along. Would that make it right? Would that make it such that it would be attractive for my daughter to run, or for someone else's daughter to run or someone else's son to run? Probably not. This is what we must bear in mind when we do all of this.
Here are a few more examples.

December 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
There is a third issue, and it has been addressed by the member. That is the issue of double, triple and in one case of an hon. member, quadruple dipping. There is one person and we all know who he is, who is a quadruple dipper, if that is a word. He is not a former Liberal member and he is not a former Conservative member. I will let you guess which party he used to belong to, having eliminated the previous two.
I do not say that to denigrate the person. I did not bring up this topic today to start with. We must keep in mind what we are doing. What if we decide that someone cannot receive a government pension and a salary at the same time-


An hon. member:: Erik Nielsen.


Mr. Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Let me think a bit more to see if we can figure out who is-


Don Boudria: I can answer that question, Mr. Speaker, Erik Nielsen is definitely not a New Democrat.
I want to conclude .my remarks by saying to members that I do not object to this motion, but the sanctimonious platitudes we heard at the beginning of this debate do not do much to advance the debate.
Let us be proud of our occupation. I am very proud to be an MP. I come, as members will know, from very humble beginnings. I started here on Parliament Hill, and I have said before, as a bus boy 26 years ago. I am very proud of what I have managed to achieve with, of course, the consent of my electors in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I want to continue to represent them.
More than anything, I want other Canadians to be able to climb that ladder as well and to get here in the future. I am already here, but that is not the case for many other Canadians. They too should have the right to aspire to come to this place, to what Mr. Diefenbaker called the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada. It is the place, if I can conclude, where there is no greater honour for a Canadian than to represent his or her fellow citizens than in this Chamber.
I believe that. Let us ensure that when we talk about this issue or anything else like it, we keep that in mind.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, in fact honoured, to contribute to this debate tonight in support of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
I agree that the issue of pensions of members of Parliament is a very hot topic. The telephones ring in constituency offices whenever there is a newspaper article or an ad about this issue.
I think what has to be said is that the urgency of this issue is very real. We have heard so much about the cynicism that is directed toward politicians. Believe me, this issue feeds that cynicism.
As an aspiring member of Parliament, I did not know about the provisions of the pension plan when I was running for office. I did not know that it was a very generous pension plan. I do not take issue that there should be a generous benefit package for members of Parliament. In supporting this motion that was put forward by my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway and addressed in the House by my leader on February 24 of this year, has ignited the debate on this issue.
When my leader broke the unwritten vow of silence on February 24 it really did ignite the issue. It signalled that it was not going to be business as usual in this place under her leadership. We mean to do things differently. We are an alternative.
It is not that we are sanctimonious as some would suggest. It means we believe that if there is cynicism in the electorate, it is there for a reason, that we have to take some responsibility in addressing that cynicism.
That is why an independent, non-partisan commission to deal with the issues of MPs' pensions and salaries would be an non-contentious issue. Why not? It seems so sensible. It would take away the vision of MPs sitting behind closed doors making nice little deals for themselves so that they can secure a nice future for themselves and their families.
I know the sacrifices we make in this place, in this job. We all know it. We volunteered for these jobs. Nobody twisted your arm. If you do not like it, get out of the way and make room for those 32-year old women who were referred to in the previous speech because then there would be a real change in the way things are done.
December 8, 1992

There has to be a new way of doing things. The electorate is tired of closed door, behind the scenes, backroom dealing, making sure that our wallets are thick and our bellies are full while the rest of the country is asking for the justice that we are supposed to be providing. We as members of Parliament are supposed to be providing the justice.
I know we contribute generously to this pension plan. We make an 11 per cent contribution from our salary. Not many people know that. What is the contentious issue here? I ask my colleagues: Why are you opposed to an independent, non-partisan commission to review MPs' pensions and salaries? Why?
I know my daughter's principal earns much more than I do. Not many people know that. Would an independent commission not be able to demonstrate that? I feel embarrassed in saying I am hard done by; he is making more than I do. An independent commission would probably say it with a little more credibility than my saying it myself. What is the problem?
I urge support of this motion because it is not just a matter of money. It is a matter of confidence in the political system and, boy, do we need something to re-energize confidence in the political system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am afraid I was a little too quick off the mark. I was anxious to give all sides a chance to express their views, and normally, I should have looked toward the government side. If the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle is willing to co-operate with the Chair, I will recognize the spokespersons on the government side, the Liberal side and then get back to him afterwards.
[English ]


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to be brief.
I would like to point out that this subject is not new. I do not believe this subject was first brought to the House for debate by the Leader of the NDP. I can recall participating in discussions previously.
One that comes to mind is the debate on March 12 of this year with respect to Bill C-263 when I spoke and recommended a comprehensive, in-depth, professional,
Private Members' Business
independent analysis of all aspects of compensation programs for members of Parliament. It is a recommendation that I have, long previous to that, conveyed to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.
Without breaking any caucus confidences, it is safe for me to say as well that it is a recommendation to which he has replied on several occasions with interest and with an expression of intent in this House to have such an examination of not only pension plans but hopefully an examination of all aspects of members' compensation provisions.
As other speakers have said, there is inherent and growing scepticism and cynicism of the political process in Canada, of politicians, of Parliament and of parliamentarians. There is no question that the perception of a pension plan that has grown too generous over the years fuels and feeds that cynicism.
As we reinforce the respect and confidence of Canadians in this Parliament and in the parliamentarians who serve here, it is important that we be prepared to re-examine and review not just the pension plan but, as I say, all aspects of compensation to try to correct what I perceive to be a patchwork of compensation provisions over the years: changes to salary conditions on the one hand at one time; then when it is timely, changes to the expense provisions at another time; and then when it seems that it is timely again, changes to the pension plan. There is no cohesive, comprehensive overview or design as far as I can tell to the compensation program that does exist here.
As other speakers have said-I think it is true of almost every member who sits in this House-the last thing we thought about when we considered coming to Ottawa to serve in this Parliament was what the salary would be, whether the expenses would be adequate or what the pension plan would be.
I am not complaining. I am proud to be here and privileged to serve. I have been proud to sit in the provincial legislature of New Brunswick, in the city council chambers of Fredericton and in the mayor's office for a total of about 15 years. I do not have a pension from any one of those experiences. Nor do I complain about it. Nor did I expect one.

December 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
The way the polls look right now, I will have to win another election to contemplate a pension plan in Parliament and I would not want to bet on that for a number of reasons. I do not make that statement in any sense of distress or pessimism; I just state it as a fact of life. It obviates the contingency of the pension plan. The pension plan of this House is generous if we live long enough to get it.
I have been a proponent for a long time in our own self-interest in generating respect for this House and those who serve here of the view that a comprehensive, independent professional view of all aspects of the compensation program is now due. It should start with an examination of the qualifications that Canadians want, expect and need from their parliamentarians; a comparison with the professions that are represented here; an analysis of the careers forestalled, of the opportunities passed, of the businesses that did not prosper in absentee ownership.
Again I do not say that in any sense of complaining, but I think it is a fair and objective foundation on which to start any analysis of compensation. It should then be followed by a study of salary provisions based, as I say, on the qualifications that Canadians feel should be in this Chamber and on the legitimate career costs involved herein.
It should involve an examination of expense provisions, an examination of the fact that in terms of charitable donations the member of Parliament is the first target in almost every campaign. I speak for everyone in this House that a large part of the so-called tax-free allowance goes in direct donations to charitable causes in our ridings.
In the area of legitimate expenses, I am not sure that Canadians appreciate fully and in detail what I consider to be the inadequacy of expense provisions for the contingencies of two homes; one in the constituency and one in Ottawa. Fortunately for me and my wife our children are all gone. There are just the two of us so we travel here every week. We travel home every weekend. We keep two homes. It is expensive. Again, I am not complaining. If I get to stay here long enough to get a good full pension, perhaps it would be compensatory and
the arithmetic would all work out. I would say on the surface of it that the expenses for members of Parliament and what is expected of them is inadequate to the requirements of the job.
On balance I would say today I would be very surprised if a professional assessment of all aspects of our compensation program would not reveal that on balance salaries, expenses, and pensions, it is perhaps not an unreasonable situation. I say that again the likelihood of me getting a pension at that stage is a big gamble.
I hope it would be possible to conduct such a comprehensive study before the next election. That is probably unlikely in the circumstances, but it is certainly something I know that the minister has been examining.
The President of the Treasury Board has conveyed to me on previous occasions that one of the big problems here is to find the terms of reference and the methodology to conduct such a study because it does involve intensely personal feelings of all members of Parliament and longstanding inherent vested interests by members who came here knowing what they were getting into and deserving what they receive. You cannot change the pension plans in the middle of the game, in the middle of the career, anymore than you can change the rules of any other compensation gain.
If it could be started at the beginning of a term, if we could run an election knowing in advance what the new pension provisions, new salary provisions and expense provisions would be, then everybody from that point forward would be in a position to make the choice whether to run or not to run and there would be no cause for complaint. The vested interests in existing pension plans I would submit should be preserved.
This is a subject that has already been seized by the President of the Treasury Board, the cabinet, the government, again without revealing any caucus confidentiality. I can tell you that it has been widely discussed. It is a subject whose time has come for all of the reasons I have stated. I would hope that the plans of the President of the Treasury Board will reveal themselves in the fullness of time. I think they will take us in the direction that we all feel we should go in this respect.
December 8, 1992


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to stand in the House today to address this particular motion.
First let me be very, very clear. I support the motion and I will tell you why I do. I spoke about this topic and I made this proposal on March 5, 1991; 21 months ago. It took the leader of the NDP 15 months to wake up and find out that proposal had been made and it took her members six more months to find out that she had made it. That is why we are debating here tonight, I guess.
This is what I said. I want to make sure the record is very clear. On March 5, 1991, over 21 months ago, I said: "Let us consider an independent third party to address questions of salary, pensions, allowances and other remuneration". That is fairly clear. It is in fact exactly what wc are debating tonight. For the NDP to suggest that all of sudden they have come up with this great new idea that has electrified Canada, sorry it simply does not wash, it is a crock.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I am sure he would want to acknowledge that indeed a number of members of this House, including myself, over the past years have made a proposal for an independent commission. The point that I have made is not one member of his caucus, including the member himself, proposed either a bill or a motion to that effect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is a matter of
debate.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the hon. member and his colleagues are very very difficult to take. For example, one colleague said we want those who do not want to be here to step aside so no people can come in, so we can do things differently: the suggestion then being the NDP do things differently.
We had one of their people, one of their elected MPs, roughly a week ago going to a riding of one of my colleagues who has undergone a quadruple bypass and denigrate what he had contributed to this House. Is this doing things differently? Is this the way we want to do things?
I am sorry, that is not the way I want to do things. This is what I said on March 5, 1991: "We should be asking questions such as the following. Why does it take 10 years only to accumulate 50 per cent of salary as a pension for MPs while in many other instances it takes 25
Private Members' Business
years to accumulate the 50 per cent?" I also asked if it is appropriate for an MP to have a cap of 75 per cent of salary? In a number of other instances although not always, it is capped at 70 per cent of salary.
I also indicated on that particular date MPs could retire at any age after six years of service with no penalty. They could collect their pensions then, while others, if they retired before 60, sometimes suffered up to 2 per cent to 3 per cent penalty per year.
I wonder if there is adequate explanation for those kinds of discrepancies.
I also mentioned double-dipping, but since that time I have become familiar with the terms triple-dipping and quadruple-dipping. I want to be fair. I mentioned Mr. Nielsen at that time who was collecting a fully indexed pension and earning a salary of over $130,000 a year. I am told Mr. Broadbent is collecting a full pension as well. He is one of the New Democrats I truly, truly appreciate who has a job in the neighbourhood of $100,000 a year I am told. I also used the example that day of the Minister of Communications and indicated he had been elected at a very early age. If he were to live to be 75, and I said he probably will because as cranky as he is he is no doubt assured of that, he would collect over $5 million of pension.
I also asked on that particular date if it was fair for people to receive a pension after six years of service. I also indicated I did not want to cast any judgments. I wanted an independent third party to look at our new remuneration package fully, in relation to what is offered in colleges, universities, the private sector, the Public Service and what have you. It could then recommend some specific guidelines for remuneration of MPs including their pension package.
It is not appropriate for us to set the rules. We set the rules on our own salaries and benefits. I think that is really questioned by Canadians all over. What is important

We should not claim today that this is a brand new idea, that it was proposed by the leader of the New Democratic Party, and that this is the first time we actually realize there are pensions that are quite high and are vastly different from what is available in other sectors.

December 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
I think the most important thing is to look at this commission, this independent, non-partisan agency that will review the salaries, pensions and benefits of members of Parliament, and also those of provincial and municipal representatives. Then, let us compare all that with the private sector and other Canadian institutions, to make sure it is fair. If it is too generous, let us suggest ways to change that.

All I want out of this is an independent, objective review of what is happening with appropriate adjustments if they are deemed necessary. I suspect in some cases they will be deemed necessary.
I want to be honourable in spite of the fact I am tempted to be less than that as a result of some of the comments I have heard from the left. I did say I would split my time and I shall do so, but I warn my colleagues to the left if I hear any more silly nonsense as I just heard a few minutes ago, then I shall seize the first opportunity to correct them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would like to thank the hon. members for Regina-Qu'Appelle and St. Boniface for their co-operation and sense of fairness.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to speak for just a few moments before the adjournment of the House this evening to put some of my thoughts on the record.
Certainly no subject reaches this House that creates the type of emotion and response the subject of MPs' salaries and benefits does. Even though we have heard various comments this evening on the subject, in the end we all agree with the intent of this motion. Even the official spokesperson of the government basically agrees but says it is not necessary because we are going to do it anyway.
That is to have an external review by non-members of Parliament to look at our wages, benefits and our pensions and make recommendations. The only difference between the official government position and the motion by my friend and colleague for Burnaby-Kings-way is that the government member is saying: "We are doing it already".
The fact is that although this commitment was made some six months ago, the government has not acted on it.
I would suggest and I would plead with the member of the government to allow this private member's motion to go through.
The motion certainly is not contradicting what the government is intending to do or is in the process of doing. If anything, it would strengthen the government's intent. Therefore we should support the private member's motion and allow it to go through.
I have never been comfortable with the fact that I have to vote on my wages, benefits and pension. When I was first elected and was confronted with this situation, I did not like it. It is a no-win situation. Politically it is crazy for us in the House to vote on our own wages, pensions and benefits.
I have always thought we should study the various benefits people receive in professions somewhat similar to ours in terms of responsibility, hours of work, et cetera to determine an average wage and benefit package. Our benefits and wages should be tied to that. As the average goes up or down, ours will also go up and down automatically. In that way we are never called upon to vote on our own wages.
As I mentioned before I think it is crazy politically. It is a no-win situation. Even if from an outside perspective we were worth that much, if we tried to vote ourselves that amount the electors would take it out on us. That is why I do not think it is a great idea for us to vote on our own wages and benefits. Let an outside group determine that in a fair way.
I support the motion that is being presented to us. I think it is a good motion. I think it would have the support of the Canadian public and the support of all members of this House. Therefore I urge that this motion be carried and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if we could just get clarification from the Speaker. If there are no further speakers within the hour, it was my understanding that the question would then be put. I believe that is the correct procedure.
December 8, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must remind the hon. member that the motion was not votable. If the hon. member wanted a vote, he should have asked the unanimous consent of the Elouse to vote on this question. Since no one raised the matter and there were no more speakers on the motion, the Chair had no choice but to close the debate pursuant to Standing Order 96. [English]


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in light of that ruling, I would then seek the unanimous consent of the House to put this to a question at this point.
Private Members' Business


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.
It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 9, 1992