1992-11-17

[Stage Direction]
41 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, November 17,1992
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Departmental Committee on Official Languages in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.


REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:
That pursuant to section 14 of an act respecting the registration of lobbyists, chapter 44, fourth supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations be the committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the administration and operation of this act and submit a report to the House no later than one year after the review is undertaken.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily in opposition to this request for unanimous consent, but we have not had any consultations on this matter. Therefore I will have to deny the unanimous consent request now. It is
not to be interpreted as being in opposition, but further consultation is necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I see that there is no unanimous consent.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of constituents.
They point out that Bill C-91, which is before the House at the moment, will allow brand name drug companies to market their drugs without any competition from the generic drug companies for up to 20 years. They say that this will increase the prices that provincial and private drug plans have to pay.
The petitioners are asking that we not proceed with Bill C-91. As well they suggest we repeal Bill C-22 which was passed in 1987. This would enable Canadians to have full benefit from lower priced generic drugs, allowing substantial savings to occur to provincial drug plans.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis, asking for changes to the Young Offenders Act.
I have received many petitions and it is unfortunate that a tragedy such as this one and many others that have occurred recently are what is driving us all to demand changes to the Young Offenders Act. We hope we can see these changes very quickly.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from the Abitibi-Temiscamingue CEGEP in Val-d'Or. The petitioners declare that vio-

November 17, 1992
Routine Proceedings
lent movies on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable, because they incite more violence; that all toys that incite violent games are unacceptable and should not be made.
Information on violent acts that is repeated too often on all television stations and on radio can incite others to commit the same acts of violence.
Therefore the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to legislate on the above-mentioned points to eliminate violence in our society and thus better protect our children and give all our fellow citizens a better quality of life.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from thousands of health care providers, nurses who live on the Sunshine Coast in Powell River, British Columbia.
They ask the government to incorporate the principles of health care into the Canadian Constitution, to reaffirm the shared responsibility for financing the health care system between the provincial and federal governments, to establish a national arm's length monitoring system to ensure the implementation of interprovincial agreements and enforce those agreements where necessary under federal legislation.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present to this hon. House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition from Canadians concerning Haitians who for more than 50 years have been forced to take part in an illegal trade in Haitian workers between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Human beings are sold like cattle, confined in bateys and made to cut sugar cane in conditions that violate human rights.
I think this petition is very appropriate today.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition from several hundred constituents drawing the House's attention to the fact that the United States has unfairly imposed a duty on our softwood lumber exports to that country and has engaged in numerous other trade practices which amount to harassment to Canadian producers.
They also note that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has resulted in lost jobs and the devastation of the Canadian economy while not providing the promised benefits.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to request that the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for international trade take any action necessary to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry against unfair duties and also to request that Parliament act immediately to effect the cancellation of the Cana-da-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to Parliament petitions signed by hundreds of constituents. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children.
They want to encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or abuse, provide assistance and support for women reporting assault or abuse, and provide relief and support to women as mothers to protect their children.
We need legislation to emphasize the need for abuser rehabilitation and we must concentrate a special effort on training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become knowledgeable about women and child abuse and to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition, duly authorized under Standing Order 36, from many of my constituents in Saskatoon. They point out that the Mulroney govern-
November 17, 1992

ment, through Bill C-91, seeks to end the licensing of further generic drugs in Canada. Bill C-91 has the potential of eliminating the possibility of generic drug manufacture for up to 20 years.
They point out that with the change from seven years to 10 years in Bill C-22, prices rose inordinately in comparison to the cost of inflation and the cost of manufacture and was a heavy burden on the drug plans of the provinces, of private drug plans, and of private people as well.
They ask the government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting two petitions this morning.
The first one points out that family class and assisted relative immigrants have historically been an important part of Canadian immigration. It also points out that family class and assisted relatives have relatives in Canada that will assist them in finding employment, housing, and learning Canadian languages and customs, thus speeding their integration into Canadian society.
It also points out that the present proposals by this government are going to make it more difficult for family class and assisted relatives to obtain immigration to Canada. It calls upon the government to change its attitude and give first priority to family class and assisted relatives in looking at immigration.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my second petition points out that 75 per cent of all business in the New Delhi office in India on both immigration and visitors' visas comes from the Punjab. It is very difficult for people to travel from the Punjab to New Delhi, and that the New Delhi office is grossly overworked.
It asks that a new consular office be opened in the Punjab immediately to provide both visitor visa service and immigration services for the people of the Punjab.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions this morning.
Routine Proceedings
I am pleased today to present petitions relating to the northern tax allowance signed by residents of Pierceland, Goodsoil, and the regional municipality of Beaver River, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners note that earlier this summer the Thx Court of Canada ruled that Revenue Canada erred in its interpretation of a section of the northern tax rules, but Revenue Canada polity does not allow all the residents of the area to benefit from that tax court ruling.
The petitioners ask that the Minister of National Revenue take note of this tax court ruling and review all cases where people in northwest Saskatchewan may be eligible for the northern tax benefit but are currently denied that benefit because of existing Revenue Canada policy.
I would like to add that I have already sent a copy of these petitions to the Minister of National Revenue.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the opposition to Bill C-91, being debated in Parliament these days, is growing.
Today I have the duty and honour to present petitions signed by hundreds of residents of northwest Saskatchewan. They ask the federal government to withdraw Bill C-91, the act of Parliament that will allow brand name prescription drug companies to market their drugs without competition from generic drugs for up to 20 years.
By withdrawing this damaging piece of legislation, the petitioners claim that Canadians will be able to continue to enjoy the benefits of lower priced generic drugs and the provincial drug plans can better serve Canadians without charging higher fees or providing less coverage.
There are 438 signatures on these petitions and others that I will table in the days ahead will contain more than 1,200 signatures from my constituency.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens from the province of Quebec who deplore the illegal traffic of Haitian workers in the Dominican Republic.

Government Orders
They call upon Parliament to encourage the government and the United Nations to do something about the situation, even to the extent of imposing sanctions upon the Dominican Republic because of its treatment of these workers as they cross these borders.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to rise to present a petition that is truly a national petition, from Vancouver Island through to Newfoundland and from every province in the Confederation.
These people are concerned about the present bill before the House of Commons, Bill C-91, which seeks to end the licensing of further no-name generic drugs in Canada.
This petitions is signed by all age groups in Canada as well, from seniors to young people who are concerned with the increased cost of drugs as a result of this particular bill. They are asking the government to not proceed with the bill and to repeal Bill C-22 so that in fact we can continue in Canada with our low-cost drugs for all age groups for all regions of the country.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of my constituents in Coquitlam, B.C., Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and Bel-carra.
It is on the drug legislation, Bill C-91. The petitioners say that Bill C-91 will allow brand name drug companies to market their drugs without competition from generic drugs for periods of up to 20 years. They point out that generics are no-name drugs which are cheaper than brand name drugs.
They are objecting to the government extending this period in which the brand name drugs will have a monopoly and which will mean higher drug costs for my constituents. Both myself and my constituents are dead set against that.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That, in relation to Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the allotted day to the second reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 of the motion 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.
And more than five members having risen:


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 16 consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate, the hon. member for North Island-Powell River had nine minutes remaining in the debate.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the debate continues on Bill C-91, which is legislation the Conservative government proposes to change the Patent Act, to permit international drug companies to maintain patents over their products for up to 20 years.

November 17, 1992
Government Orders
The New York Times in a recent article indicated that this was a tremendous coup for the drug companies which managed to insert in the North American trade agreement a provision that required Mexico and Canada to change the laws in those countries to prohibit the development of generic drugs in a timely manner. The provision now permits a 20 year patent on a product. In The New York Times article it estimated that by the end of the century it will cost $1 billion out of the pockets of Canadians for international drug companies.
It is ironic that a Conservative government, in its dying days, would produce for its friends a $1 billion gift in the next eight years. That $1 billion gift is going to come out of provincial pharmacare plans, plans which provide reasonably priced pharmaceuticals to senior citizens and low income Canadians. This Conservative government, in the dying days of its mandate, is going to take that $1 billion from Canadians and give it to Americans.
However, this is not the last movement of the international drug companies. The Canadian government health officials who recognize that they have been sold out or stabbed in the back by this Conservative government are going to attempt to set up a national formulary system which provides information on the cheapest possible alternatives on existing generics that can replace these high-priced brand name drugs. At the same time, the next target of the friends of this Conservative government-and I am sure we will see the bill before the House-is to stop the set-up and functioning of a national drug formulary to try and protect senior citizens until this outrageous piece of legislation can be abolished.
The paper quotes Gerald Mossinghoff, president of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association in Washington, who states: "Members would like to eliminate Canada's government price controls. The American drug-makers also oppose drug formularies which are increasingly cutting into their profits in the United States as well as Canada". While there certainly is an obligation to move very quickly to set up those formularies to in turn protect Canadian citizens over this short period of time, there is also a critical obligation to get rid of this Conservative government, a government that would steal $1 billion from Canadians in the lowest income
brackets and turn it over to the international drug companies.
It is an absolute embarrassment in Canada to watch the former Liberal cabinet minister strut back and forth across the country, Canada's chief dope pedlar if you will, putting in full-page ads selling the international brand name drugs. Thke the last Post which was given to every member of Parliament and every physician across Canada. We get an idea of the current situation and how the companies are selling drugs. There is no information provided, just straight promotion and advertising to try to get physicians to prescribe and sell these high-priced products.
We ought to be moving in this House to immediately stop this kind of crap from being put in full-page articles in things like The Medical Post. It is an ironic thing that Maclean Hunter, a very honourable and long-time publishing company in Canada, can send around a rag like this, a rag that would make Lord Thomson smile in disbelief that somebody could exceed him in providing news that is simply there to separate the propaganda and advertising.
We should, through legislation, be abandoning the kind of advertising activity that the drug companies are doing in Canada. This is absolutely outrageous. In the current edition of The Medical Post there are 16 full pages of b.s. in that issue. Every physician in Canada gets it. It does not provide information about new drugs. It creates a dangerous situation where physicians are turned into individuals who simply convey these prescriptions through to people, often dangerous prescriptions. There has been mention of the research done by these drug companies in Canada. A good percentage of that research is simply undertaking testing that is required for marketing in the country. We would be getting that whether or not we passed this outrageous piece of legislation. They are required by law to do most of it.
The suggestion is that we should prohibit any promotional advertising by drug companies in newspapers or medical journals that does not provide absolute, clear, approved information. We are prepared to stop alcohol advertising. We are prepared to stop tobacco advertising. This is as dangerous to our health and it is as important to stop this as it is to stop those other products.

The government has imposed closure on this legislation today. This legislation is part of the North American trade agreement, an outrageous piece of sellout of Canadian people by the Mulroney government, locking us into an agreement, compromising sovereignty and putting us into a situation that is going to gut the Canadian economy.
One provision in there is to steal a billion dollars from senior citizens and low income Canadians through this outrageous piece of legislation that removes generic drugs. It allows these international drug company bandits to steal for 20 years from Canadians and to provide false information. We should be abolishing the right of those individuals to give away free samples to physicians to increase the production and distribution of these drugs, especially when there are cheaper ones available. We should be supporting a program for a national formulary to reduce the number of drugs we are putting on the Canadian market.
There is an excellent book by Michael Rachlis and Carol Kushner entitled Second Opinion. I recommend it to anyone. It basically states that most of the drug company research is not into new drug development that helps Canadians. It is into how to duplicate the effect with a different chemical that can be promoted in Canada. I sincerely recommend that book to everyone in the House and in the country. Second Opinion really gives an extremely good outline on how we are being totally hoodwinked by both the Mulroney government and the international drug companies on this important issue.
I see that time is drawing nigh. In summary, let us abolish the right of these dope pedlars to advertise and promote. Let us get rid of the ability to give away free samples and get rid of the ability to put this outrageous literature in the pseudo-newspapers and professional newspapers that are coming out. Let us get rid of Judy Erola, Canada's top dope pedlar, while we are at it.
Another thing that is absolutely critical is that we should be setting up a national formulary to help Canadians at least prevent some of the haemorrhaging away of the billion of dollars the Mulroney government has given to the international drug companies.
Government Orders
The last thing on the list is to have the Liberals clearly stand up and say they are going to abolish this legislation, along with the NDP. It is an outrageous piece of work.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and a short comment. The member mentioned the Conservative government. He also mentioned the North American free trade deal and tied the drug bill into that potential agreement.
Why does he think the government is persisting in policies rejected by a vast majority of Canadians, both in the drug deal and now with NAFTA?
I want to give him an example. On September 9, the Conservative government flatly rejected, as he knows, the New Democrats demand that the government ask the people of Canada whether or not they supported the new North American free trade deal.
I took the initiative, I will tell the member in the House, and I held a referendum in my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam. I asked my constituents: "Do you support Canada's participation in the North American free trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico?" The response was overwhelming. In all my years as a member of Parliament, now going into my 14th year, I have never seen such a display of outrage. Within two weeks I had received 1,289 replies; 1,163 of my constituents said no to NAFTA while a mere 123 said yes, and 3 constituents wanted more information. That means 90.2 per cent of my constituents oppose Canada's participation in NAFTA and only 9.5 per cent support it.
In this survey my constituents clearly spoke out against NAFTA which is supported by the Conservative government and by the Liberal Party.
Why are the government and the Liberal Party not listening to the views of a vast majority of Canadians?


Mr. Milliken:: That is a very silly question.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague down the way says that is a silly question. The important thing is that we have some documentary evidence before the House on how much Canadian people hate this government. The referendum went into the gutter as much as anything else because of absolute hatred. The proportions were outrageous.

Government Orders
When Canadians find out that this particular item, this business of the pharmaceutical deal between the international drug bandits and the Mulroney government, is in the North American trade agreement they are going to go crazy.
The other day we had the member for Winnipeg South standing up in this House and saying: "They are crying fire in the theatre and terrorizing pensioners". Crap, absolute crap.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Watch your language.


Raymond John Skelly: Watch my language. I cannot speak strongly enough to describe this heinous deal in the House.
Mr. Dick ought to be standing up here and apologizing to people in Canada. Outrageous.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Watch your blood pressure.


Raymond John Skelly: Watch my blood pressure. As a matter of fact in the 24 pages of full-page ads on this garbage in the last Post we certainly see the national drug pedlars, Judy Erola, Canada's chief drug pedlar, out selling stuff, straight advertising promotion, nothing to do with the health of Canadians.
The key thing in this is that as part of the North American trade agreement people the of Canada are going to go crazy when they find out Mr. Mulroney has sold them out to the tune of a billion dollars.
It is acknowledged by health care economists on both sides that the drug companies have scored enormously. I do not know what Mr. Mulroney did with Bush out in the boat, but it certainly has a very serious impact for Canadians.
I want to finish by saying this is outrageous crap. The last Post and other documents that show this kind of propaganda should be got rid of right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would appreciate it if the hon. member would respect the rules of this House.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, that outrageous outburst by the member opposite just goes to show they are not particularly serious about the details of this bill, which is a very good bill for Canada, but instead are trying to score partisan points because they are looking
forward to an election. I think the bill is too important for that.
Members of the NDP are always talking about the need for more jobs. They sound a bit like a broken record: jobs, jobs, jobs. This bill will create the kind of investment opportunity that will ensure there are jobs for Canadians.
The member opposite talked a lot about increases in a story in The New York Times. He surprises me because on the one hand he is telling us what a bunch of evil people, what an evil empire we have to the south of us in the United States, and on the other hand he quotes an American journal as if it were the gospel and as if it had all the answers Canadians do not have.
The facts are simple and perhaps the member would like to comment on them. The increase in the cost of purchases by pharmacies and hospitals of all prescription and behind the counter drugs due to the removal of compulsory licensing is predicted to be less than 0 per cent in the first year. This will gradually increase to 2 per cent by the year 2000. Those are the simple facts. Perhaps the hon. member would like to explain why he believes an American journal over what the federal government has to say.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is simple. It is either absolute stupidity or an attempt to carry on the lie that we have any kind of benefit from this. These people would have done it anyway.
Why did they allow this to go into the North American trade agreement? The Americans and the Canadian economists say we are going to lose a billion dollars in the next eight years. When she goes back to Winnipeg South she is going to be politically stoned for this. I think she was stoned when she came in and tried to argue the point of view.


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My friend who just sat down has done a number of things during his speech that I think he should be checked up on. First, he referred to "the Mulroney deal", knowing that he is not supposed to refer to the Prime Minister other than as the Prime Minister. Second, he referred to Paul Dick as Mr. Dick, and he knows he is not supposed to do that. Also he just accused an hon. member from this side of the House of being stoned.
November 17, 1992

Government Orders
I think that he should be taken to task for this kind of activity. It is not appropriate for this House of Commons and it is not appropriate for that gentleman, because I know he does not mean to be that kind of person in this House of Commons. I would ask that he respond and apologize to the House.


Raymond John Skelly: I realize there was a slight amount of exuberance in the anger of what happened here and if anyone has taken offence over there-


Mr. Harvard:: Hyperbole.


Raymond John Skelly: Hyperbole, as the hon. member says.
If they would be prepared to remove this legislation, I would be prepared to recant some of the things I have said.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: That is not good enough.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman to be an honourable man. I have known him for a number of years. I would just ask that he withdraw the remarks he has made about an hon. member on this side of the House. I think it is only courteous that he do that.


Ron Fisher: Let the Speaker decide.


Raymond John Skelly: As my colleagues say, it was part of the thrust and parry of debate here. Her remarks were as outrageous.


Mr. Richardson:: That is not debate. What do you know about debate, low life?


Raymond John Skelly: I understand some of the members here are a bit exercised, but maybe they can understand how exercised we are about the jackboot approach that is being used by the government and the outrageous nature of this legislation.
I would certainly be guided by Your Honour's remarks and coerced into doing what the Chair feels has to be done, but I do not think those remarks are anything as outrageous as what this government has done to the people of Canada. I am outraged by their attempt to stand in this House and justify this outrageous deal.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Withdraw your remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Immediately after the speech by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River, I said I would appreciate it if he would be more respectful of the Standing Orders, and I was referring to his tossing the advertisement up in the air and mentioning the Prime Minister by name.
I think both sides of the House are prepared to show a certain amount of good will at this point. The hon. member just said that he may have got carried away in the heat of the debate. I therefore consider the incident closed, and I again wish to ask hon. members on both sides of the House for their co-operation in maintaining the level of parliamentary decorum in this debate that is traditional in the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that you have declared the matter closed. I was on my way into the Chamber to intervene in this exchange when you rose to your feet. I apologize if I-


An hon. member:: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: One moment, please. The hon. member has the floor.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate the opportunity to complete my point of order as other members have.
I had the opportunity to observe the recent exchange on the television monitor. I believe that what the hon. member opposite has done and has said is unparliamentary and inexcusable and that it must be unconditionally withdrawn.


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do in fact respect the rules of this House. If I have offended anyone, I certainly would withdraw the remark. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the sanctimonious approach of the member for Powell River, I had to go back to what was going on in my own province.

Government Orders
He quoted Dr. Michael Rachlis in Second Opinion in his speech. I happen to be a strong believer and supporter of his. He is a constituent of mine. The members of the New Democratic Party should know that in the province of Ontario right now, the ministry of health has had many of Rachlis' recommendations before it for many months.
The member comes into this House and pretends to be so sanctimonious when in the province of Ontario his New Democratic partners are doing absolutely nothing. They are delisting medical services, they are delisting drugs to seniors, and they are making a sham of the medical system in the province of Ontario. He should make sure that when he is throwing darts across this House, whether it be our way or across that way, that he examines the performance of his own NDP government in the province of Ontario.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important amendment to the Patent Act.
My colleagues on this side of the House have made a very strong case for the balance of Bill C-91. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his September speech for one has shown how the legislation before us balances the needs of economic development with those of the consumers who require access to reasonably priced drugs.
For a relatively young agency, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has done a great job in keeping price increases for patented drugs below the rate of inflation. As I understand this legislation, the board will be given even tougher powers to better control both existing drug prices and the new drug prices.
I, too, would like to examine the balance of this legislation, but rather than focusing on the needs of producers and consumers, I would like to remind this House that the economic benefits of this legislation have already begun to tip the balance in favour of a broader distribution of research and development activity across our country. One of the first regions to benefit from this new balance will be my province of British Columbia.
The research community in British Columbia is well aware of the importance of this legislation that is before us today. Ever since the government first announced its intention to reform Canada's patent laws, we have
received letters of support and encouragement from across the country and from British Columbia in particular.
Dr. Keith Dawson, for example, of the University of British Columbia maintained that patent protection is an essential feature to maintain Canada at the forefront of medical care, and I strongly endorse the extension of patent protection for pharmaceutical products.
His views were echoed by Dr. F. L. Ervin, of Pitt Meadows, B.C.: "I believe that it is essential to preserve the incentive for entrepreneurial development in this area", said Dr. Ervin. He added: "I believe that drug patent legislation which will give us a level playing field compared to other GATT countries will be the best way of ensuring our further growth and development in the research and development field".
Two doctors from New Westminster added their voices to this course of support for the proposed changes to the patent laws. Dr. R. A. Kuritzky wrote: "I am well aware of the enormous costs and efforts involved in the research and development to produce patented drugs, and I believe that your measure will promote the research and development of these drugs in Canada rather than abroad".
Dr. Kuritzky was joined by Dr. John Lien, also of New Westminster, who wrote: "It is high time for Canada to march in step with the rest of the world and afford patent protection that has some meaning for an industry that is prepared to invest in the immediate and future good of this country. Not only will we benefit directly from such a move, but the spin-offs of increased medical research funding and employment should also be recognized".
These British Columbians recognize the importance of patent protection in fostering an investment climate that will promote research and development. Each of them, I would venture to say, hopes that a good deal of that new investment will find its way into the laboratories and research facilities in British Columbia. This House is always aware that in exchange for improved patent protection in 1987, the Canadian pharmaceutical industry set a goal of increasing its investment in research and development from 4.9 per cent of sales revenue in 1987 to 8 per cent of sales by 1991 and 10 per cent by 1996.
November 17, 1992

When the patent laws were reformed in the last Parliament, the government received commitments from the patented medicine industry to invest $1.4 billion directly in research and development.
We know that the innovative drug companies have not only lived up to their commitments for increased R and D in Canada, but they have exceeded them. This was clear even after just one year. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board reported that the industry research and development to sales ratio had increased to 6.1 per cent in 1988 from its level of 4.9 per cent just one year earlier. Brand name companies reported a total investment of $165.7 million in 1988.
In other words, these companies were living up to their commitments. They had promised that increased patent protection would mean new investment and new jobs, and it was clear right from the time of the first report of the board that this was an accurate assessment. That trend of increased R and D by the innovative drug companies continues. The fourth report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board was tabled last June and covers the period ending December 31, 1991.
The report points out that for the 64 firms with patents filed with the board, the ratio of research and development and expenditures to sales reached 9.6 per cent in 1991. In other words, in 1991, after just four years of improved patent protection, these companies were on the verge of reaching the 10 per cent target originally set for 1996.
Total expenditures on R and D for these companies reached $376.4 million in 1991. That is an increase of over 23 per cent from the year before. These figures present an excellent case for the effectiveness of patent protection in encouraging innovative companies to conduct their research and development in Canada.
It is no secret that the majority of pharmaceutical companies is now located in Ontario and Quebec. For many years R and D investment by drug companies has meant new research money for central Canada. Seldom has it meant new research opportunities for the east and the west. That began to change with the introduction of new patent laws in 1987. The amount of R and D spent by innovative companies in western Canada from 1988 to 1991 amounted to some $84 million.
Let me put that into perspective. That amount is more than twice the amount the generic drug sector invested
Government Orders
in all of Canada over the same period. What can we expect from this new phase of patent reform? Since the government announced its intention to improve patent protection through the legislation before us today, the innovative companies have announced projects amounting to more that $500 million. Those are investments over and above the previous commitments and of those investments, projects totalling $90 million will be located outside central Canada.
What we are witnessing is a decision by the pharmaceutical industry to expand its base beyond Quebec and Ontario. The new investment outside central Canada has not come by accident. The Government of Canada has conscientiously sought to encourage innovative companies to diversify the location of their activities in Canada.
In fact, Industry, Science and Technology Canada is working with a number of provinces to build investment strategies in the pharmaceutical sector. We will find new ways to encourage more R and D and pharmaceutical manufacturing in all regions of Canada.
Already the innovative pharmaceutical companies are acting upon the prospect of new patent protection that will place Canada more in line with the protection granted by other countries. British Columbia will be one of the first provinces to benefit.
Just last July Bristol-Myers Squibb announced it would invest $500,000 in research and development at the University of British Columbia and another $250,000 in R and D at the University of Alberta.
On September 1, Merck Frosst announced the investment of $15 million over five years in research and development activities to be conducted on the west coast.
In early October of this year, Ayerst announced a $60 million investment for a new plant in Brandon, Manitoba, and Glaxo pledged $15 million for the basic R and D at the University of Alberta.
As you can see, it is not only central Canada that will benefit from this patent protection, but all of Canada. By encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to do its research in Canada, we help build an infrastructure that will attract more investments down the road.

Government Orders
We help attract, train and retain researchers, technologists and technicians who will begin to provide a critical mass of expertise in science and technology.
Merck Frosst has contributed substantially to making the Montreal area a world-class centre of excellence. Now the company would like to do the same thing for British Columbia.
In acknowledging the important role that Merck Frosst will assume in helping to develop a healthy R and D sector in B.C., I would also like to pay tribute to a man whose vision has been instrumental in encouraging the company to invest on the west coast.
David Strangway, president of the University of British Columbia, has been untiring in his efforts to solicit R and D investment for his university.
Last January when the Government of Canada announced its intention to reform patent protection in order to attract new investment, Mr. Strangway contacted virtually every pharmaceutical company in Canada to seek research commitments.
Merck Frosst responded with a commitment of $15 million over five years. This represents about a quarter of Merck Frosst spending in support of research outside the company. The R and D contracted outside the company is in addition to an in-house research budget of between $35 million and $40 million a year.
The investment will be directed primarily to research and development in genetic disorders and will build upon Vancouver's acknowledged strength as a research centre in this field.
Researchers at the University of British Columbia in the biomedical research centre of Vancouver are among the 23 principal investigators working in 12 different universities in research facilities across the country as part of the Canadian genetic disease network.
This is one of the research networks sponsored under the Government of Canada's $240 million network of centres of excellence program. It has already announced remarkable breakthroughs in isolating the genetic defects responsible for cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and myotonic dystrophy.
The work of the generic diseases network has advanced the search for cures for these crippling diseases, and scientists in Vancouver, such as Dr. Michael Hayden, will continue to explore new trails in genetic research.
By the way, Dr. Hayden's name has been brought forward as the eminent researcher who will operate the proposed new facility that will grow from the Merck Frosst investment. The facility will likely create 10 new faculty positions at UBC.
These faculty positions represent a tremendous opportunity for researchers in Canada who want to become involved in leading-edge R and D in one of the most exciting areas of science and technology. British Columbia, well-known for its forest and mineral wealth, is well on the way to becoming a world-renowned centre for genetics research.
What will it take for Merck Frosst to go through with its proposal to invest $15 million in genetics research in British Columbia? Most important, Merck Frosst requires the added patent protection that is contained in this bill before us today if it is to go ahead with its investment proposal.
I know that hon. members from both sides of this House support the principle of increased R and D. I know that hon. members from every region of the country will applaud a decision that will help add the University of British Columbia to the growing list of Canadian centres of excellence in pharmaceuticals research and development.
I would ask all of hon. members to help make sure that this project goes through. How can they help?
By providing adequate patent protection so that the company that is willing to make these costly investments in R and D will be able to reap the benefits through patent protection that lasts for a full 20-year term.
The legislation before us means new opportunities for researchers across Canada. It means the beginning of a new world class research facility at the University of British Columbia. It means more research investment that will help create balance among the regions of Canada in the effort of all provinces to retool their economies for the demands of the information age.

I urge members of all parties to support its speedy passage.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is fairly knowledgeable on this subject and has spent some time discussing it with people of the faculty of the University of British Columbia.
I want to tell him that in a visit to UBC a week and a half ago I did the same thing. I had a discussion with Dr. Bernard Bressler, who is knowledgeable in this field. It explained part of the reason why he and the members of the faculty of UBC sought passage of this bill. He mentioned the same $15 million grant that was available for research purposes at UBC as part of the reason for his support of this legislation.
What I would like to ask the hon. member to do is take the House into his confidence. He must have approached the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and perhaps his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to see how much Canadians are going to pay for this research.
I think this is a fair question, and I would like to hear his answer to it. How much are the Canadian taxpayers going to pay in order to get this research in Canada? He is asking Canadian taxpayers to fork over another $800 million during the next six years in order to fund a few million in research.
I would like to know how many dollars are going to be spent. Perhaps he can also tell us how much more is going into the obscene profits already being made by the international drug companies-


An hon. member:: The biggest profits in the world.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says they have the biggest profits in the world. Friends of mine who are unbiased observers of this call these profits obscene.
How much of the additional $800 million that is going to be taken out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer is going to that source?
I agree that research and development is very important. I concede that point, but Canadian taxpayers are really the ones who are going to fund this research if we change the law to allow this.
Government Orders
The hon. member knows the government has already changed the law once in a way that is very favourable to these drug companies. Now it is proposing to change the law again and hand over a few hundred million dollars more to these drug companies.
I want to to know how much Canadian taxpayers are going to pay for this research. How many dollars of taxes are going to be collected from every taxpayer in Canada for every dollar of research spent? Can the hon. member give us that figure?


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable question and certainly I considered it myself.
First of all, I do not really agree with his number of $800 million. There has never been any basic research as to where that would actually come from. Like so many statistical studies, you can prove whatever you really want to from this type of thing. We can pick a number out of the air. We can neglect to include other factors such as what would the actual cost be without inflation, with inflation and what are the actual drug costs going to be even if this research is not done.
We cannot say that all the money is going to be put into research and will be taken directly off. In drug prices, as the hon. member probably knows, there is very little relationship between actual cost and what is charged. This is one of the facts of the industry. There are many different factors that are involved in drug prices.
For example, just the other day on the news there was a report where a criminal in the United States had sued the makers of halcion for approximately $1.5 million because he committed a horrendous crime after taking a halcion tablet. The drug company was expected to pay this penalty because somebody had abused its product. All over this continent people are suing the drug houses for exorbitant amounts. Also, the drug approval system we require is fantastically expensive.
I believe it is unrealistic to say that because we give three extra years of patent it is going to cost $800 million. We already have 17 years. As I have said, those figures may be used, but someone else on this side of the House may come up with an entirely different set of figures they can justify in the same way.

November 17, 1992
Government Orders
Certainly there is going to be some cost. I do not think anybody denies that. This $15 million being spent at UBC does not take into account all the other hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be spent, the jobs that are going to be provided or the research that will stay at home. If this research is not going to be done in Canada, it is still has to be done somewhere. My feeling is that we should do it in Canada rather than in the United States or elsewhere.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I disagree with what the hon. member for Delta is saying. I remember when drug prices were reasonable and accessible to individuals. I do not know whether the member still practises or not, but if he goes to a drug store now and compares the prices with what they were just after we passed the last bill on pharmaceuticals in 1987, he will see that it allowed prices to skyrocket.
This bill is going to cost Canadian taxpayers maybe $400 million or $800 million. Perhaps if that money went into research and development in Canada we could accept that. But it will not stay here. It will go to international drug companies. It will not stay in Canada. We might get 5 per cent of it. His university in British Columbia might get a little bit of money but millions and millions of dollars will go to international drug companies in Switzerland, France, Britain and all over the world. That money is not going to stay here.
I ask him as a physician, did he notice that since we passed the last pharmaceutical act in 1987 that prices have increased tremendously? I wonder if he agrees with me on that?


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, this is again a very critical thing. My hon. colleague will recognize that the increase in the cost of the medication which he buys across the counter, cold remedies or antihistamines or antacids or anything like that has gone up far more in that period than the cost of prescription drugs. He will also find that the cost of drugs which were on the market in 1987 have not gone up more than 2.6 per cent a year. It is the new medications coming on to the market where there is a large increase.
As I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of causes. The drug approval system takes a lot longer and is a lot tighter. It requires far more studies than in the past and a lot of duplication. We could do a lot in this area to assist in reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals to the
companies. I think statistics will show that the cost of patent medications have not increased as much as other medications available on the market.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to wade into this debate on this very important legislation. It is important because at this time in Canadian history we may be giving up the one single intellectual property mechanism that makes sense. We do it one way in Canada, the world does it another way. They have demanded that we give it up and this government has said yes, we will.
Today this country is in a recession that is bleeding us with unemployment, bleeding us with bankruptcies, bleeding up with red ink, shrinkage, no growth. I find it strange that at this particular point in this year the government has chosen this time to push, even using time allocation in this House, this legislation that gives increased patent protection to those who have already got it. We are not talking here about little guys; we are talking about international drug companies. I find the timing is curious. It is unfortunate.
This bill proposes that Canada give up its system of what is called compulsory licensing. That system provides patent protection for the inventor of a drug for a period of seven to ten years, depending on how you measure the start date, when the drug is first marketed in Canada.
The rest of the law on intellectual property and patents in Canada, outside of the pharmaceutical area, runs on a 17-year rule, 17 years of protection.
We found reason in this country 25 years ago to depart from that intellectual property regime. We found a good socially beneficial reason to depart from 17 years of protection, and that reason involved the public interest and the need of individual Canadians to access pharmaceuticals at reasonable prices within a reasonable period. We found that generic drug manufacturers which were able to take compulsory licences were able to produce drugs at lower prices. I could say much lower; it will vary from drug to drug. In any event, we took that step and now this government is proposing that we walk away from it.
That compulsory licensing regime gave those pharmaceutical companies, the inventors, seven years of exclusivity and seven years without competition, seven years of monopoly, seven years of setting the price for their drug at whatever they wanted to set it at.
November 17, 1992

We figured that was fair because they invented the drug, they spent the money to research it, they spent the money to market and develop it, and they needed a return on their product.
Canada's system, made in Canada, not like anywhere else in the world, decided that instead of 17 years of monopoly and exclusivity, they should have seven. Now we want to walk away from that.
That price competition benefited all Canadians. I will refer to other things later in my remarks that would corroborate that.
Another thing that the compulsory licensing system did was foster the growth of an indigenous Canadian pharmaceutical industry. We have in this country examples of companies, indigenously Canadian, which have prospered using compulsory licences.
The other thing that compulsory licensing did was that indirectly it actually rode shotgun on price increases in the industry. For those who had a patent, the fact that there was a compulsory licence taken out by what we call the generic manufacturer had the direct effect of limiting the price increase on the patented drug. Because the company that held the patent knew that if they increased the price, as was their right because they had a monopoly, beyond a certain level the generic manufacturer would jump in with the compulsory licence and manufacture the drug at a lower cost. That was an indirect result of our compulsory licensing that benefited all Canadians. It was the Canadian approach but the world did it differently.
Based on a world-wide system, actually a mix and match, some countries in the western world subscribed to the 17 years of protection, the same kind of protection that the inventor of a new steel process or a new automobile engine would have. Other countries said to heck with it, they will not give anybody protection. They will simply take that steel process or that pharmaceutical and make it and will not give any royalties. They will not protect the patent. It was a bit of a mess.
However, since the last war the world has been consolidating in its rules in international trade and under
Government Orders
the Uruguay round of GATT there was a commitment made I think by all of the member countries of GATT to provide uniform patent protection.
Canada then began to embark on this road of making our laws and the laws of all the other countries uniform.
I simply ask the question now of whose system was better, Canada's or the 17 years of protection in the rest of the world, the 17 years of monopoly for pharmaceuticals? I do not have an answer to that, but I suspect that the Canadian system in comparison was really quite good. It served Canadians well for almost 25 years. We are going to walk away from it because the rest of the world, the big players, the multinationals, including the U.S., Swiss, French, English and German pharmaceutical companies, have all decided that Canada must join the club and use their rules, the 17 years of protection. I simply leave that question out there. Canadians know that they have benefited from the Canadian system.
Why does the rest of the world not change its rules to reflect some of the benefits and positive aspects of the Canadian system? The reason is that there are things called power and money. Those at the helm who hold the patent protection and who influence governments around the world a great deal, and we all recognize that, and who influence this government and past governments in Canada and all the others they influence have said that they want the 17 years and they are not prepared to let Canada or any other country outside the club continue in that approach.
We are now at a point at which we are going to give up all that we built in Canada in relation to pharmaceutical patents.
Last December, our Minister for International Hade met in Europe with the GAIT countries and, as I understand it, without any authority from this House agreed that Canada would change its patent law, the stuff I have been talking about, effective December 20,
1991.	That would be the day that Canada would give up its system. Our minister apparently agreed to that date without, as I say, any authority from this House and without checking with Canadians. That is the date that has been inserted in this bill. Retroactively, that is the date that our minister, the minister of this government, decided without authority that he would impose on

Government Orders
Canadians and on the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. That is wrong.
I accept that there is a challenge here for Canada. Canada has to find a way to weave through the whole of the western world and a lot of the developing world that has adopted the 17 year rule. There is a challenge for us to make the world system right because I do not think it necessarily is right. I think it has flaws.
Should our Canadian law give an unrestricted monopoly to pharmaceutical patent holders for 17 years, recognizing that pharmaceuticals are a major and growing component of our health care system?
Our health care system is not a private sector driven commodity. We have recognized that in Canada. In relation to pharmaceuticals, we are about to walk away from our window here in Canada.
One of the suggestions to date which has been used in Canada, I do not know about other countries, is what is called a formulary. The government or the health care system generates a list of drugs that provide the most benefit at the lowest cost and it is out of the formulary that health care systems should see that drugs are prescribed. That is one mechanism to counter the monopoly of the pharmaceutical industries in which they do have a patent. If there is time I can address that later.
I have six separate concerns about what this bill does not do. The first is that it may pretend to but it does not address the issue of fairer drug prices from the perspective of both the producer and the consumer. It simply does not do that.
From the producer/manufacturer side, any student of business will know there are a certain number of concerns. The manufacturer wants to manufacture at the lowest cost he possibly can, but what incentive is there for the manufacturer to manufacture at a low cost if he has a monopoly? There is no downward price pressure. There is no competition.
The pharmaceutical company is simply going to pick the best price it can get. It will look for volume. If it prices it too high perhaps people will not buy it.
If there is a health care system paying for it, a health care system that you and I have to pay for, then maybe it will raise the price a bit higher because it is not coming directly out of the consumer's pocket.
The companies have to market their drug. Perhaps they have to research it continually, modify it over time, then they want their profit. They want a return that is fair, legitimate and a necessary part of our business environment. Keep in mind it is a monopoly marketplace when you have a patent on a pharmaceutical.
What about the consumer in all of this? We have had a lot of information put to the House over the last while I recall yesterday and today the member for Winnipeg South saying that the price increase in the first year would be less than zero per cent. I think she probably meant zero per cent and in the second year it would be 2 per cent.
We have to be honest about this. Even 2 per cent is a lot of money because we are dealing with a multibillion dollar industry here. That particular member suggests there is only a modest increase in price. Yesterday's article in The New York Times, which has been referred to, says clearly that the change is expected to cost Canadians about $400 million annually, a 12 per cent increase in spending on drugs.
The added cost would go to about $800 million by the late 1990s. That is a lot of money and that is coming out of the pockets of Canadians either directly or through their taxes to fund the health care system.
If 2 per cent means $200 million or $300 million then let us admit it. That is what it is going to cost in increased pricing. What do we get for the increased pricing? It is a windfall for these companies. They are saying that when the additional money comes in it will be reinvested in research and in marketing and in all of the other things. It will also be siphoned off into profit as perhaps it should be. Profit is not a bad word. What is the Canadian taxpayer getting in return for his $200 million or $300 million per year?
I think I read, and I stand corrected if I am wrong, that by the late 1990s, officials of the government admitted yesterday, it would be in the vicinity of $500 million in increased drug cost. That is half a billion dollars. That is a lot of toast no matter how you measure it.
On this issue of fair drug prices it is also recognized that Canada has one of the lowest cost structures for pharmaceuticals in the world. This article which I have already quoted says Canada's success with delivering drugs that cost lower than those in the United States is
November 17, 1992

an important feature of its medical system which has been a model for many health policy experts seeking to contain soaring costs in the United States.
It also says the shorter period of patent protection has helped keep prices of drugs 32 per cent lower in Canada on average than in the United States.
We are talking about the same companies, the same manufacturers subject to the generic indigenous industry in Canada and yet our drug prices are 32 per cent lower. How did that ever happen? It was not the good will of the drug manufacturers that made that happen, it was the compulsory licensing system.


An hon. member:: It was not because of the Tories either.


Derek Vincent Lee: Let us take a look at the U.S. experience in this recession in drug prices. Our pharmaceutical price monitoring board attempts to monitor prices in drugs. Look at the U.S. experience in this previous year of recession. You would think that drug prices would be moderated, that all prices would be moderated. That did not happen, even in the United States.
Drug prices in the United States at the retail and the wholesale levels rose at double the rate of inflation in both cases: in the retail side, in the 12 months ending October, a 6.3 per cent increase in retail drug prices in the U.S. compared with a 3.2 per cent increase in the Consumer Price Index. That is a doubling.
In the wholesale area they went up 5.4 per cent compared with 1.7 per cent in the general producer price index. There is something happening out there that the consumer does not have any control over because if the recession did not keep the price down then the marketplace sure as heck did not and the consumer is helpless in the face of that kind of increase. That was in a year of recession.
What happens when we have a good year, when there is a monopoly, when there is no restriction on the price of the drug, either the old drug that is still patented or the new drug that enters the market?
Away from price competition there are still several other areas I wanted to mention. One of them, pharmaceuticals, as I have already said, is an integral part of the medical system in Canada. This bill fails to recognize that. A compulsory licensing system in Canada has permitted a generic indigenous Canadian pharmaceuti-
Govemment Orders
cal industry to develop and begin to prosper. This bill does not recognize that.
Currently in Canada there is no control over entry level drug pricing. This bill does not recognize that. I have already mentioned the retroactivity in this bill going back to the Dunkel agreement of December 20, 1991. That is unacceptable.
I want to wrap up by saying that the drug manufacturing companies are not evil villains. They produce a product that is integral to our health care system. We can do with drugs today what in some cases used to take two or three days in a hospital and that saves us a lot of money. There is a big future for the world, for the evolution of the human species, all involved in this pharmaceutical area. We have to treat the players in the industry with respect and they have to treat the consumers with respect and I think they have to hold out some mechanism for us to monitor those prices.
In Scarborough there are large generic manufacturers, large international drug companies. All of them are ready to go with more investment. If this bill passes some of them say they are ready to invest, but the money that will be used for that reinvestment will come out of the price increases that Canadians will be allowing if this bill goes through.
At this point I have to stay opposed to this bill. [Translation]


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 I took part in the debate on Bill C-22. Back then, of course, I agreed with the government. I was on the government side at the time, and we realized that the policy of the Liberals-the Liberal member made a reference just now-had been more or less to deregulate drug patents by granting them only seven years of protection. We found that in the Montreal area, for instance, tens of thousands of jobs in medical research had been lost. Whole buildings had became vacant in the western part of Montreal It was clear that the Liberals' policy was entirely unacceptable.
As far as medical research is concerned, we in the north need special vaccines and drugs, and we need people who can do the research we need to deal with health problems that are specific to the north. For investment in research to be worth while, companies must have enough time to make good on their investment.

Government Orders
That is why I agree with Bill C-91 before the House today. I disagree with the Liberal member who just said that generic drugs were cheaper because even at the time we saw that prices of all pharmaceutical products increased at about the same rate.
As for manufacturing inside or outside the country, I would like to see the medical drugs that are specific to our needs manufactured inside Canada.
From these comments it should be clear that I will vote in favour of the bill. I disagree with the Liberal member who just spoke because the legislation his party adopted at the time scared off investors in the pharmaceutical industry and as a result, our university-trained researchers and experts had to go and do their research in the United States or elsewhere. We spend a lot of money training our young people to do research, but we do not give them a chance to do research in this country.
Mr. Speaker, these are all reasons why I intend to vote
in favour of Bill C-91.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I accept the suggestion that if more money is ploughed into the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical industry will use a portion of that money for research. No one would question that, but there is a ton of more money going into the industry and not every dollar of it is being used for research.
I said in my remarks that generic drugs were cheaper. I stand by that. I have also cited the statistic that under the Canadian system the prices of drugs are 32 per cent cheaper in Canada than in the United States. I did not say that drug prices did not increase. Of course prices will increase from time to time, whether it is a generic drug or a drug manufactured by a multinational or a PMAC company.
I do not think the hon. member has caught the drift of my remarks. I accept that there will be more research, but at what cost? How much more research are we going to get and at what cost? Is he suggesting that all of the additional half billion dollars that is to be spent by Canadian consumers as a direct result of this bill will go back into research? I do not think he is saying that.
I am pleased to see more research. I want to do whatever I can, as I am sure all Canadians do, to encourage increased research in Canada at all levels, not just with regard to pharmaceuticals. The real issue is at what cost and so far there is no tag, no string, nothing put on the additional money Canadian consumers will pay as a result of this patent bill.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some of the points made by my hon. friend across the way.
First I will correct what he quoted me as saying. Yesterday I said that the first year the price increases would be zero and would gradually increase to less than 2 per cent by the year 2000.
Let me remind my hon. friend what was actually said in the report he was quoting from the newspaper with regard to the price differential between U.S. and Canadian drugs. It says:
The major source of U.S.-Canadian differences in drug prices is not variations in manufacturers' cost. This holds true regardless of whether cost differences relate to research and development, marketing, production or distribution.
Instead, government regulations and reimbursement practices contribute to lower average drug prices in Canada. In setting prices, manufacturers of patented drugs must conform to Canadian federal regulations that review prices for newly released drugs and restrain price increases from existing drugs.
Furthermore, drug benefit plans run by provincial governments act to constrain manufacturers' discretion in price setting. Through the plans' reimbursement and their enrollees' drug purchases, the provinces exercise concentrated buying power to obtain low prices.
In addition, provincial officials can remove drugs from their list of reimbursable drugs if the manufacturers' proposed price increases are considered to be too high.
When my hon. friend talks about price increases, he clearly overlooks the fact that we have the prices review board in place. We have had it in place since 1987, and it continues to be in place with the enactment of Bill C-91.
Its powers will be enhanced under this legislation. It will have the same authority as would a court. It can roll back prices. It can impose fines. It can even send people to jail if they price the drugs higher than the agreed upon system that will regulate those prices.

The fear that is being raised by some members of the opposition, not by my hon. friend particularly, that somehow there will be a huge price increase and the report in The New York Times are issues based upon less than factual information. They do not take into consideration the fact that we will have the PMPRB with enhanced authorities and enhanced abilities to ensure that drug prices are kept in line.
The information that the government has put forward is based on the understanding that the PMPRB will have these authorities and that we will have the ability to continue to regulate drug prices in the same way as we have in the past.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, if I let the hon. member have it her way, she would say that the price increases are to be so modest as to be negligible and let us not worry about it. Then I would ask her: Where are the millions and millions of dollars that the pharmaceutical companies have promised, and in fact are blackmailing us with, for new investment and research and development going to come from?
They are not going to come from the goodwill of the companies. They are going to come from the price increases. There is only one source; it is from price increases. If we have $500 million going back out in reinvestment, which we are not going to have, then we need to have $500 million coming in the front end.
There is only one place that supplies money for the front end, and that is the Canadian consumer or the drug plans. It is all coming out of our pockets. If it is $500 million in, it is going to be some hundred million dollars out, but a chunk of that is going to go to profit. It is going to go to marketing. We are simply adding more gasoline to the engine. That is what we are doing.
Maybe some people think that is great, but when we are paying for the gas we have to question its efficiency and we have to question its appropriateness. In this case the government is simply not measuring accurately.
I do not know who has the right figures. All I know is that there are a whole lot of promises from a whole lot of companies made contingent on the passage of this bill and they are only going to happen because the prices go up. We know who is going to pay the prices and I leave at that.
Government Orders


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of intent to the previous speaker. I guess I am left a little puzzled. I cannot tell whether he supports the bill or opposes it. I do not know why I should be puzzled because that is the position of the Liberal Party.
I would like him to comment on two matters. This bill was a direct result of NAFTA. Does he and the Liberal Party oppose NAFTA? Does he and the Liberal Party agree that they have to cancel the North American free trade deal which is the result of Bill C-22?
How does he justify or reconcile his position with that of the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, the Liberal critic on science and technology, who supports the extension of patent protection to the multinational drug companies?


Derek Vincent Lee: I will be clear for the hon. member. I am not supporting this bill, but I know what would make me support it. I would support a PMPRB, a prices review board that had some teeth and could deal with entry level pricing as well as price increases of existing drugs. I would support it if it did not have retroactivity agreed to by a minister who did not have authority to agree to it-that is another thing-and if there were commitments or monitoring mechanisms within the bill to ensure that additional money put into the system was invested back into Canada for research and development and marketing. I would support it if those things were there, but they are not there.
Taking away compulsory licensing with nothing in return leaves Canadians with zero and in the hole. I do not support this bill.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: You support the principle then. [Translation]


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and to Minister of Multi-culturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I too was in favour of Bill C-22 and I must rise in this House to speak for Bill C-91. After all I have heard here, especially when I see my Liberal colleague opposite give figures, I really wonder whether he even knows where he lives, with all the figures he just gave that are completely wrong.

November 17, 1992
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-91 is designed to encourage science and technology, to promote greater experience on the markets and to help our researchers meet the challenges which arise-


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, this borders on privilege. Lest we get off on the wrong foot here, I know the member has laid the groundwork for his speech but I would not want him to leave the impression that I had given false figures, false information, to the House. If he is saying I did that then I want him to withdraw it. If he is saying he takes issue and differs with the figures I have used, that is one thing; but the way he has said it may leave the impression-and I hope he will clarify it-that I have delivered false information to the House.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will not take from me the time that the member spoke, but I must say that my hon. Liberal colleague has the wrong figures.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, our researchers must meet the challenges that arise in the international markets. Better patent protection will help us reach our objectives sooner and more effectively.
In our country, we have all it takes to be a leader in pharmaceutical research. Our medical profession is known for its excellence. Names like Banting, Penfield, Pinel and Selye have made us world famous. Our health care system is also the envy of the whole world.
Being from Laval, I personally knew Armand Frapp-ier, who invented the first penicillin vaccine.
We also have a skilled labour force. Our tax credits are among the most generous in the world. But we lack something essential, namely protection for intellectual property to match the protection offered by other industrialized countries, patent legislation that would let us be competitive in R and D investments.
Since 1984, the government has attached high priority to reforming Canada's intellectual property legislation. It is part of our efforts for economic renewal.
Nevertheless, the government has continually had to fight to update, simplify and, I would even say, standardize these laws. The complaints expressed by the hon. members of the opposition do not surprise me at all. I remember that we had many difficulties with Bill C-22 that were often due to partisan politics. Through all these years, they have done all they could to compromise the progress we wanted to achieve.
I heard opposition members say that the government was rushing through second reading. They seem to forget that we are talking about an investment of some $500 million. Innovative drug companies have said that they would invest such amounts after they heard the government say last January that it would strengthen patent protection for pharmaceutical products.
The investments that I am talking about here are of prime importance at a time when the pharmaceutical industry is restructuring world-wide. Make no mistake: many other countries would want to benefit from such investments. If Canada does not act quickly enough, the door that is open to us may close again, forever.
I represent Laval-Est, a riding in the city of Laval, and this bill will help us do wonderful things, which have already begun thanks to Bill C-22. You no doubt know that in our riding we have companies like Bio-Mega, Marion-Merrell, which has been bought by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Nordic Laboratories Inc. We also have Biochem Pharma Inc. I recently heard its president, Mr. Bellini, a wonderful man, not because he has an Italian name but because he has made quite substantial investments in Biochem in Laval. By the way, Biochem has the rights for a drug to treat AIDS called 3TC, which was developed by a Quebec researcher, Dr. Bernard Belleau of McGill University in Montreal. This vaccine will be a Quebec product and the research and manufacturing will be done in our riding, in Laval, Quebec.
If these laws can help these people to invest but, as my opposition colleague just said, prices rose, I would not agree. When prices did not rise, they said it was due to the recession. If prices had risen, it would have been someone else's fault. It is always someone's fault. For now, the price has not gone up-it must be due to the

recession. Personally, I think that even without the recession, prices would have stayed in line.
Bill C-91 also encourages companies to make drugs here in Canada for a North American and international market. It is very interesting to see how fast the investments are made.
I remember the debate on Bill C-22. We had demonstrations here on the Hill where unions, businessmen and all investors were on our side. Rarely is the government seen outside and photographed protesting with union people, but it happened with Bill C-22.
It happened. I would like to remind this House that the opposition has the very unenviable reputation of having delayed the patent reform beyond any reasonable deadline. In the last session, the opposition used every obstruction tactic imaginable in an effort to prevent or postpone the passage of this bill.
Remember that this bill passed first reading in the House on November 7, 1986. The Liberals and New Democrats, our colleagues opposite, obstructed the bill so much that it did not reach the other place until May 6, 1987, a delay of almost seven months. Then the ping-pong game began, as you may recall, the most incredible in all of Canada's parliamentary history. It acquainted us government members with the Senate because every evening we spent a few hours there watching the ping-pong game, the shouting matches, the vulgar language being used by those debating Bill C-22.
A month before they received the legislation, the senators created a special committee with a mandate to examine the prices of pharmaceutical products. The Liberal majority in the committee and the Senate managed to get amendments to Bill C-22 adopted by the Senate, and the bill was sent back to the House of Commons.
On September 1, 1987, we adopted a motion rejecting most of the amendments proposed by the Senate. Tvo days later, the Senate referred our motion to the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. On October 21, the committee tabled its report. Again, the Liberal majority favoured amendments that were likely to upset the balance of the legislation and jeopardize its strong points.
Government Orders
Again, we rejected the proposals, and the bill came back to us a third time. This was November 19, 1987. Today is November 17. Tvo days from now it will again be November 19.
One year and 12 days after being tabled in the other place, Bill C-22 was passed and finally received Royal Assent. I remember the mood in Quebec at the time. I remember people who had investments which had to be postponed because of the bill. Postponing investments means people have to wait that much longer for a job or to invest for their company.
My point is that we can no longer afford this kind of foolishness. It is imperative to adopt this bill as soon as possible.
What bothers me is that some of the arguments I heard today are similar to what was said in the Senate when that body tried to jeopardize the government's legislation. Nothing has changed. They are using figures to scare the public. We hear all kinds of arguments. Anything goes, and the people listening wonder who is right.
As in 1987, the Liberals maintain that amendments to the Patent Act will raise the price of drugs. We have heard this argument before, and we will hear it again. At this point, I would like to quote Liberal Senator Norbert Theriault. Listen to what he had to say. It is really extraordinary. "By removing the competitive element provided by generic drugs in the industry, Bill C-22 will undoubtedly result in a huge price increase." Debates of the Senate, June 25, 1987, at page 1403. Another Liberal, Senator Lome Bonnell, stated that we were encouraging research by the multinationals-we heard this again today-at the expense of Canadians, who would have to pay more for their drugs. Tb quote Mr. Bonnell: "For goodness sake, don't take it off the backs of the sick, the hospitalized, the infirm, and the aged by increasing drug prices". Debates of the Senate, August 13,1987, page 1744.
He also said that the Canadian industry would suffer the negative impact of this bill, in terms that would have made my grandmother tremble. We heard this again today. I do not know whether anyone mentioned his grandmother, but mine is still alive. She is 98, and Bill C-91 certainly does not bother her at all.

Government Orders
He said: "When they pass Bill C-22,1 ask them not to forget that they are hurting not only the sick, the aged, the crippled and the poor, and provincial governments". That is really too bad because the provincial governments asked us to pass this bill as soon as possible. "They are also hurting the agriculture and fisheries industries because of the cost of drugs in chemicals."
Similarly, Liberal Senator Buckwold raised the spectre of fear-which they are doing again today-by claiming that the legislation would hurt Canadians because it would increase the price of drugs. This is what he said.
"In my opinion, if we pass this bill we will be doing a great disservice to the people of Canada. We will be adding to the problem of health costs. We will be denying drugs to people who otherwise would have bought them, and who desperately need them." Debates of the Senate, June 23, 1987, at page 1347.
That is what the Liberals had to say. Today, we know they were wrong because the reality is light years away from these gloomy predictions. In fact, between January 1987 and December 1991, prices of patented drugs increased by an average of only 2.9 per cent per year, well below the average inflation rate for the same period. The people who kept raising the spectre of fear for political reasons were wrong, and I named a few just now.
As for the promised investment in R and D, the industry reached its objectives five years before the 1996 deadline. I have a note here which I could give you, Mr. Speaker. They promised to double their ratio of R and D to sales and reach 10 per cent in 1996, in 10 years. Believe it or not, by 1991 those objectives had already been met. Even more important, they showed they were committed to reaching those objectives and they met their commitments. And they did that in five years, instead of ten. We have to trust people a little. As for investment in R and D, the industry met its objectives well in advance.
Bill C-91 also gives new powers to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board created in 1987. It was said earlier today that prices might go up-the hon. member referred to this-but I think the review board can even put people in jail for excessive pricing, beyond what is normal in a competitive market.
The objective is above all for the review board to ensure that the prices of both new and existing patent drugs are not excessive. I am confident that the review board will be able to do so, thanks to the new powers it has under this bill.
These new powers will also enable the review board to examine initial prices for new patented drugs. This is not just about price increases. I think consumers can also get a new deal when a new product is launched at at an excessively high price, even if there are no further increases. That is something the review board must consider very seriously.
The board will also be able to order price reductions or impose fines retroactively and thus discourage the practice of charging excessive prices. As we said earlier, this could even mean a jail sentence. These new powers will give the board's rulings the same clout as a ruling by the Federal Court. As we said earlier, since it was created, the board has ensured that any increase in the price of patented drugs remained below the rate of inflation.
The hon. member said earlier that the reason prices did not go up was the recession. Of course, somebody always takes the credit for good news, while bad news is always the government's fault. In this case, inflation was down, no thanks to the board. It is too bad he forgot to mention that the board probably did something right. I agree that in the past we have had boards that were supposed to look after the consumer and were not always a success. In fact they were often a disaster, and I had to deal with a number of these boards, especially here in Ottawa. However, when the results are good, I think the board deserves some credit, although my Liberal colleague on the other side preferred to thinks it was due to the recession.
In its fourth report, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board said that the ratio of R and D to sales by patent-holding companies since 1991 has been around
9.7	per cent. Last year, these companies spent $376.4 million on R&D, an increase of 23 per cent over 1990.
I must admit that we notice these increases in my riding. I must say how proud I was again this morning. Knowing that we would be discussing this bill, as I drove along the highway in Laval, I saw something big being built and when I saw the name I was very glad because once again the drug company Bio-Mega has decided to expand and invest in Laval. It is putting up a big building. It is not Esso, I must admit, but Bio-Mega, which makes
November 17, 1992

me very pleased, and it is now called Boehringer Ingel-heim.
Bill C-91 will be studied by the committee and I am sure that all members of this House will have constructive suggestions. Let us act promptly and send this bill to the committee for consideration. I must tell everyone here to stop frightening people. Investors want to have some return. No one in business invests without getting a return. With the laws and the board, I am sure that consumers will be well protected and I hope that the board will be very strict.
My colleagues in the opposition are against it. They are against everything. They will not help us build. It is not thanks to them that we have had investments in our riding; it is thanks to Bill C-22, and I hope that we will have more with Bill C-91.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the House to continue sitting between one and two o'clock this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to continue sitting over lunch hour, from one to two o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I did not hear anyone say no, so it is agreed and accepted.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest. I want to ask three specific questions.
I would like to point out something about this whole issue of pricing and research and development. First of all, looking at British Columbia, we have been promised $15 million over five years. However, it has already been documented that it is going to cost our provincial pharmacy program $40 million each and every year. On one drug alone that is caught in the pipeline, as they call it, that has been given a licence, it will be taken back because after December 1991 it will cost $146 million over the next 15 years.
Nobody in Canada believes the documentation of the Prices Review Board. It is simply because every other independent organization, like Green Shield, has docu-
Govemment Orders
mented that the average price increase of drugs already in existence was 6.4 per cent.
They did a study in B.C. which showed that the cost of drugs to the pharmacy program has increased 72 per cent. Out of that 17 per cent was because of additional usage, -47 per cent because of a reduction in dispensing fees-actually dispensing fee costs went down-and 133 per cent in average ingredient costs, in other words, the cost of the drugs to the pharmacy.
They talk about all of the wonderful research and development that has gone up to 10 per cent of sales. Compared to the rest of the world, the United States has a minimum mandatory 16 per cent, Germany has 16 per cent, the United Kingdom has 20.9 per cent and Sweden has 21.8 per cent. This is going back a couple of years. They have not even begun to catch up to the rate of research and development that takes place in other countries.
In addition, more than 50 per cent of our research is only clinical trials. It is not basic research.
Third, the Prices Review Board. The American drug companies made it very clear when the president of the pharmaceutical association, Gerald Mossinghoff, stated that the the members of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association in Washington would like to eliminate the Canadian government's price controls.
They want an extension of patent protection. Then they will eliminate the prices control. Lo and behold, what do you find? James MacPherson, the dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, said that there is no doubt that this legislation could be struck down on a constitutional challenge as it relates to price control.
What the Tories are saying is: "We will pretend we are hiding behind this prices control knowing full well it is going to get struck down by the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association which will challenge it in our courts".
My three questions are: How can you justify it knowing that the legislation as it pertains to price control is probably unconstitutional? How do you justify a rate of research and development which is more than 50 per cent clinical trial, has nothing to do with basic research and is not anywhere near any industrial country? How do

Government Orders
you justify to Canadian taxpayers and Canadian patients a dramatic increase in drug costs over the last few years?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it was a question or a speech, but let me answer my hon. colleague. I wish all the numbers he gave were dollar bills in my bank account. I would be a millionaire. If I start to go into these numbers, I will need a preparation of at least five minutes to make sure that the numbers he gave were the correct numbers.
What I can say to my hon. colleague is when we control the prices, we control the patent drugs. We do not control the whole world with this bill. When we speak about the increase and rising, we are speaking of zero this year and 2 per cent by the year 2000.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Baloney. Mulroney or baloney, it's about the same.


Vincent Della Noce: Well, if it is baloney I usually do not eat baloney. My hon. colleague says it is baloney. His numbers must be mortadella .When my hon. colleague asks questions, I wonder if he is not making a political speech to mix up people.
To answer regarding such big numbers is a little bit out of my context. People listening to us wonder if all these numbers can be retained in the memoiy. If they are really interested in these numbers, what is important is to protect the consumer. We have somebody there. We have a board and we have a control which did a good job this year. If they did a good job, we should not say it is because of the recession or inflation. If they did a good job, let us give them credit. If they did not do a good job, we will there to remind them.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Well, get rid of them.


Vincent Della Noce: We will get rid of them when they are no good. We do not get rid of them if they are successful. My hon. colleague said: "Get rid of them".
We do not get rid of people who produce. There are enough people who do not produce. When we have a good formation, we must keep it. I do not agree with either of my hon. colleagues who said it is because of the recession if the prices stayed low. It is because we have a board. We have some control and the job was well done.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I asked three specific questions and my hon. friend declined to answer any of them.
What does he say when the dean of law at Osgoode Hall says the whole of the Prices Review Board is probably unconstitutional? We are passing legislation that they know they can throw out. The member has not dealt with the whole issue. The price increase since patent protection has been brought in has been documented time and time again by independent organizations to be at 6.4 per cent or much higher. That is for existing patent drugs. This is not all of the other things.
Even their own government document showed that 40 per cent of the drugs came on the market over the guidelines of the Prices Review Board. They had no power to roll them back and he calls that effective.
I wish he would also answer the question about when Canada is going to catch up with the rate of research that is standard in every other country. Why did they not look at what happened before they brought in patent protection? We actually had faster increases in research and development before than we have since.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I love to answer my hon. colleague because sometimes I think it is more than funny when he asks me to decide when the judge did not even decide. Let us wait until the judge decides and then see if he has got a problem with lawyers. I must tell my hon. colleague that I asked for advice from seven different lawyers and they came with seven different answers. Maybe he should do like me, change lawyers and wait until the judges of the Supreme Court decide.
I must admit this is the first time I have seen a Prices Review Board which, having been established for only a few years, already has achieved some positive results. Some say it is not the board, it is because of the recession. Some say it is inflation. Until new things happen, I must say I would like to see the Prices Review Board stay and I will wait to see what the court will say.
I suggest to my hon. colleague that if he has problems with lawyers that he should do like I did, change all of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North is lucky because the period of the first five hours of debate ends in one minute and he is the last speaker to benefit from a 20-minute speech and questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has 20 minutes maximum.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed sad that the time left for this debate is only 20 minutes. I know that a number of MPs are still wanting to debate this issue because the government has made a terrible mistake once more.
I should like to start with what prompted this government to introduce this bill. To put it on the record, it is part of its economic agenda that was started in 1984. The then Minister of Finance, the present Minister for International Trade, said when he appeared before the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada last October, and I quote: "Since 1984 when the federal government brought in its agenda for economic renewal, this is precisely what we have been doing and will continue to do so in the future".
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in introducing this bill last September 17 said: "As far as economic benefits are concerned, Bill C-91 is another step in the government's program to modernize and rationalize Canadian patent legislation".
This is part of the government's economic agenda. However, Canadians know that its economic agenda has been a failure. We have a recession. We have 1.6 millions Canadians unemployed. We have the longest food bank line in the world and this government is trying to tell us that we should believe and that we should have trust and have faith in its economic agenda and therefore accept this new bill, Bill C-91.
I ask: Is it fair to ask of Canadians to trust this government? Canadians have spoken loudly. They do not trust this government and so they cannot trust as well the intent behind this bill as a tool for an economic agenda.
I should also indicate that this raises a fundamental issue. The same Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in opening debate on this bill last September 17 indicated as well: "Under Bill C-91 pharmaceutical products will be allowed the same 20-year protection as tools and communication systems". In other words, this
Government Orders
minister is speaking for his government and cannot distinguish the fundamental difference between machine tools and drugs and medicines. Drugs and medicines are needed by patients because of illness, not because they would like to create something new. It is a desire for something, a necessity, without which human life is in danger and this minister equates medicines and drugs with tools by giving them the same life span of patent protection.
It raises the question then as to whether we will use the debate on this bill as an economic issue, or is it really a social issue? I submit that Bill C-91 is very much a social issue. I am sure there will be winners and losers and I speak for those on the losing end of this legislation. I am most concerned with them. They are my constituents in Winnipeg North, in the province of Manitoba, and in all of Canada. They are the men and women on the street who pay for prescription drugs, items that have become key to our health and continued well-being.
I submit that health consumers, especially seniors, will be the first casualties of Bill C-91 if enacted into law. I come to their defence because this government has failed to do so, siding instead with multinationals that develop their products elsewhere, refine their chemicals offshore, and tend to be evasive about the types and amount of research and development they actually do in this country.
We have heard from the Coalition for Biomedical and Health Research that the amount of research spent by the pharmaceutical industries in basic research is abysmal, really very small. Yet it is also known that the advances in basic research have contributed greatly to the introduction of new drugs and innovations into the pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry must be helped but we also have our health care system which is struggling for sustainability and this bill comes at the expense of medicare and the government cannot deny it.
Either the minister of health has been under a gag order or has been swayed by the politics of his peers, turning deaf ears to the provinces. The provinces have been left to squirm like bugs on a pin. They have been forced to endure freezes in federal transfer payments for health care.

Government Orders
Then there has been the effect of the GST on drugs and hospital services. More and more people have been pushed on to welfare by federal fiscal and unemployment insurance policies, culminating in greater numbers of people on provincial drug plans. As I indicated earlier an aging population means more seniors on drug plans.
The net result is a lack of fiscal elasticity for the provinces. Their budgets are stretched to the limit for health care. Any increase in the price of drugs is too much and this government has not denied that. In fact, it appears it has accepted it with pride, that $550 million is an acceptable price to pay in this day and age of recession. I cannot see the priorities of this government and this government cannot deny impending increases and is trying to pull out the safety net of generic drugs.
In fact I submit it is imperative that generic drugs get to the market quickly and 20 years, in my opinion, is not quick enough. This bill calls for another three years of patent protection, three more years for which the provinces must buy higher priced brand name drugs.
The government House leader was recently interviewed on CBC Radio and stated that the price of drugs would rise. Well, neither the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs nor the Minister for International Trade has denied that prices would climb as I indicated and they seem to relish that.
The fact is compulsory licensing keeps the cost of drugs down. Generic drug companies have evolved from the need of Canadians to protect the medical system. If I could so kindly remind this government, yesterday the government admitted that this bill will cost Canada $550 million by the year 2000, a headline in The Ottawa Citizen.
The health minister of Ontario has indicated that over 20 per cent of citizens are covered under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program and that Bill C-91 will have a price tag of $1 billion in the next 10 years. No matter which way you slice this bill it will cost millions.
Undoubtedly, the federal government did not drive a hard bargain and it was hoodwinked or brow-beaten by lobbyists. We could easily allocate $550 million for research and development directly under the leadership of the federal government. That is the way to go.
Bill C-91 promises to strengthen the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and says that it can roll back prices, it can impose jail sentences, and so on. In the same breath, the minister said that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has served to protect consumers allowing the cost of medicines to increase by only 2.9 per cent between 1987 and 1991. If he was so convinced that the board had done its duty, why then would he consider putting these so-called severe penalties?
I do recall once more that during the debate on Bill C-22 this government at that time indicated that it was the answer, that it was a balanced bill. Five years later, it is no longer a balanced bill, no longer a balanced law. In fact, the intent of Parliament at that time was to review this by the year 1996 and then report to this Chamber, making recommendations after consulting the Canadian public and all stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry, health care system, provincial ministers, and so on. But it is only 1992 and already the rules of the game are changing. Is that fairness?
What the minister failed to concede was that the Green Shield plan has found the cost of drugs to be increasing at 11 per cent per year. In my province of Manitoba drug costs have jumped by 12 per cent. I will tell you how angry Manitobans will be if we proceed with Bill C-91, how upset my constituents of Winnipeg North will be.
Last summer Maclean's magazine had a cover story and I remember the title as being something like: "Canadians are mad as heck", because we do not listen to the concerns of our constituents. Constituents are telling us that Bill C-91 will deal a devastating blow to their pockets.
When we pay for a drug we pay not only for the research and development costs and a mark up for profit. We are also paying for a business to function, to expand, to pay shareholders, to recoup losses from failed drugs that did not reach market, for overhead and aggressive marketing. We are paying for offices with marbled floors, skylights and fountains, corporate jets and advertising. But when we buy a drug or a pill we are buying health and health must always be affordable to Canadians.
November 17, 1992

I would like to remind the Minister for International Trade about the World Economic Council report which stated that Canada's health and education systems give us competitive advantage. Well, let us treat our health care system with care and not imperil that advantage.
I wish the minister could have spoken to one witness, a mother, who appeared before the standing committee on health and welfare. Speaking about the death of her daughter from hepatitis B, these were her words: "After my daughter's death, we were all vaccinated against hepatitis B and we were paying $137 for three shots. It varies from clinic to clinic, and probably from city to city but in fact that is far too high. The federal and provincial governments have worked hand in hand and then we must bring the pharmaceutical companies to be responsible and give us a fair price because this is outrageous. They are just raping the citizens. We cannot afford this cost factor and it is not necessary".
I wish the minister had heard those words. Perhaps the minister should also try to listen to the seniors of this country, like those in Manitoba, those in Winnipeg North who launched a court action against the government because of the threats of Bill C-22. Now we are even going farther. Indeed, it is a disgrace that we are proceeding with this bill.
I bring to this House a certain amount of experience as a clinical doctor and a medical teacher. I know that if this government really wanted to help our universities, teaching hospitals, scientists and technicians it would have defined research and development by demanding a quota of basic research.
In one study published by the department of economics of the University of Pennsylvania in the journal Research Policy in 1991, looking at the role of basic research and how it has hastened the introduction of new drugs, the average time lag between the conclusion of the relevant academic research and the first commercial introduction of the innovations based on this research was about seven years. The estimated sales and savings of these new products to industry accounted for over $30 billion. We do not need Bill C-91 to ask our pharmaceutical industries to invest in research and development, there is already the moral force.
Government Orders
Academic research has allowed them to come seven years earlier than would have been possible. They have an obligation to contribute to research and development. They have an obligation to contribute to a medical discovery fund even without Bill C-91. Then a decade later, two decades later we would see what has happened.
Who does the minister serve? Does he and his government serve the people of Canada or multinational giants? I think the answer is clear. Nearing the conclusion of my debate today with the query directed to the minister of health, I know he has in his possession a study done by a University of Laval professor, Dr. Denis Gagnon. This study recommends to the government ways to clear the drug approval backlog and make our system even more efficient.
I estimate that in fact we will reduce the delay in the approval process by at least one year. That is one year of additional exclusivity already from the notice of compliance. Therefore, why has this minister of health not tabled in the House of Commons a document that I understand already exists and has been on his desk since July? I call upon the minister of health to release that document so that it can be part of the relevant debate today.
In closing, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the concern that this bill really fails Canadians in many, many ways. Once again, The New York Times of yesterday said that the differences in the price of drugs in Canada and across the border in the United States is anywhere from 5 per cent to 183 per cent. Thke one group of drugs, those used for anxiety. The cost of drugs across the border in the United States is about 183 per cent more. No wonder they is a lot of anxiety in the States. Are we to import that level of anxiety to Canada and increase the price of drugs?
The argument that will be used to develop research and development, to encourage more jobs in this country, is the same argument used in 1987 when Bill C-22 was passed. It is the same old argument. In fact, Mr. Stewart MacLeod in a special article in The Free Press published last July 6 reminded us that if jobs are to be created in the pharmaceutical industry we must also remember that jobs may be lost from the generic industries. So there could be a balance.

Government Orders
Bill C-91 has no rationale today. It places our health care system in great jeopardy. It will adversely affect our seniors, it will adversely affect young families, and there is no reason for it.
Can we look upon Bill C-91 as an economic tool, or is it a bill that will provide safety and security to Canadians so that they have access to drugs that will cure them of their illnesses and restore them to health? Only then will they have a decent way of living and can participate in the workforce. Those are the questions, Mr. Speaker.
On that basis I strongly oppose Bill C-91. May the government have a change of heart and withdraw this bill.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to what my colleague opposite had to say about this most important legislation, Bill C-91. He is in a very good position to appreciate the problems caused by this legislation because, as it turns out, he is a medical doctor, someone who is well aware of problems in that community. It is interesting to note that in the medical, hospital and health care providers community, he does find flaws in this bill.
I listened carefully when he mentioned the negative effect this bill will have on older people. I would just like to point out to him that various seniors groups from Quebec and elsewhere in Canada have already made it clear they are dissatisfied with this bill. I would also like to call his attention to the fact that the provincial health ministries have already registered their disapproval of this bill, which is quite interesting considering the bill provides for a marginal increase in investments by pharmaceutical companies, which in turn would create jobs. However, the provinces are not convinced. They said: "Perhaps there will be a few little jobs created here and there and a slight increase in investments but, all in all, we the provinces will have to pay more, a great deal more, for those few extra jobs".
I have two questions. The hon. member mentioned two things. First, a document he is hoping the minister will table in this House today in order to have a better idea of the effect Bill C-22 has had so far. I would like to know what document he is referring to and what use it is to us.
My second question is the following. Does he not find somewhat disturbing the fact that one of the main lobbyists for this legislation on pharmaceutical products is a former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, namely Mrs. Judy Erola? I met her back in those days as a consumer advocate from Quebec. This bothers me and I would like to know'if it bothers my colleague opposite to see this former Liberal member become the leading advocate for increasing the price of pharmaceutical products.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second question, I have the highest respect for the former minister Judy Erola. She served our country well. She is now head of that industry association and I congratulate her for that. Of course she will present her point of view to us and that, in a real sense, is the challenge and the test of the maturity of democracy in our country, that we can hear opposing views.
However, I am not troubled because I know where I and my party stands. Am I troubled? The answer is no. We are testing the maturity of democracy in this country. Ms. Erola has her point of view and we have our policy position in the interest of Canadians.
In answer to the first question, the document I was alluding to that I would like the minister of health to table is a report commissioned by the department of health. It has asked Dr. Denis Gagnon of Laval University to look at and review the drug approval process for Canada and to see how we can make it more efficient so that there will be a speedier process and no backlog. Its advantage is that it will also enhance the introduction of essentially important new drugs for the benefit of consumers. It will also benefit the industry. I think this is excellent.
In a sense what I was saying earlier is that there already is the potential benefit coming in, not through Bill C-91, but as a consequence of the present legislation. Therefore, we do not need Bill C-91.
If we extend the monopolistic control on prices to any one group of companies and if we eliminate compulsory licensing altogether, as is envisioned after this Bill C-91 is passed, there will no longer be any incentive to go back to the drawing board and discover new drugs because the profits will be so lucrative that there will be no more incentive to discover new drugs. In a sense by having a conclusion or an end through compulsory licensing we
November 17, 1992

are ensuring the search for new drugs continues in Canada.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I did not hear all of the hon. member's speech, but I understand that he has some concerns about the cost of drugs as they will affect seniors.
I would ask the member why he has those concerns. How does he feel that this bill will impact on seniors adversely? It is simply is not accurate to contend that for a number of reasons. First of all, most seniors are covered by drug plans that cover most of the cost of drugs whether they are patented drugs or whether they are not patented drugs. Even for those seniors who are not covered, we are really only talking about a gradual increase of up to 2 per cent by the year 2000. It will actually be 1.7 per cent by the year 2000 which is over nine years. We are talking only about those drugs that are under patent. You must remember that is only a small proportion of the entire drug product that is sold to Canadians each year across the country at retail outlets across the country.
I might also mention that the Liberals had in fact, as I understand it, contemplated rescinding the compulsory licensing regime before they lost the election in 1984, because they too could see that this was a backward step in an increasingly globally competitive world. Therefore I am quite surprised that my colleague would come forward with an objection to the ending of this compulsory licensing regime because clearly the members of the previous Liberal government believed that it was something whose time had come, that it had fulfilled its purpose and should be rescinded.
Perhaps the hon. member could tell me why he thinks prices will rise inordinately when we have a prices review board that has been given additional powers to roll back drug price increases, to penalize, very severely, those offenders who dare to try to raise prices over the recommended level and which can put these people in jail, imprison them, or fine them.
Surely the member must know something I do not if he feels that prices will increase in view of all of these things.
Government Orders


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, history must be quoted correctly. The Liberal government introduced compulsory licensing in Canada and we are proud of that.
Second, it is anticipated by this government in so many documents that I cannot read them all to the House at this time that by the year 19% it will go even further into the issue of why no prices will increase.
The government has already admitted prices will increase. What else can I say? It has admitted prices will increase, but it has said by only 2 per cent. For seniors on fixed incomes, only 2 per cent. For seniors who may in fact already be poor, only 2 per cent.
The seniors of our country paid their dues during their working years. We cannot afford the national disgrace of saying now that the seniors should give an additional 2 per cent of expenditures for the drugs that they need.
I ask the hon. member if it is true, if it has been admitted. As there is no more time for me to speak further, I would be glad to elaborate outside the walls of this Chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind all hon. members that the first five hours of debate have now expired and we begin the period for speeches of 10 minutes maximum without questions or comments.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, many things have been said about this bill and what it entails in the last few hours and weeks.
This House and the other place have heard many debates on the subject of patent protection for some pharmaceuticals for some years now, but what this government has achieved since 1987 and what it intends to achieve with these amendments to the Patent Act is nothing less than a concrete and lasting example of providing good, effective government for the people of Canada.
Our government has succeeded in balancing economic growth with consumer protection through its policy on pharmaceutical patent protection. Bill C-91 continues in that tradition, building upon the successes of the 1987 revisions to the Patent Act.
In 1987 this government took its first step to begin to correct an outflow of economic activity in an industry which has traditionally had a strong scientific and manufacturing presence in Canada but which was on its way

Government Orders
to leaving Canada for more welcome homes elsewhere in the world.
What the 1987 revisions to the Patent Act were meant to achieve was the reinstatement of a polity of recognition for discovery, for innovation in Canada while balancing that with the protection and the interest of the consumer.
Rewarding discovery is an essential component of developing a strong economy in an age of increasing technological sophistication and international competition. Quite frankly, we as a government wanted the pharmaceutical innovators to remain in Canada to develop a technological and research base here, not elsewhere. We wanted them to concentrate their businesses here, to employ our science graduates, to invest in plants and equipment on Canadian soil, to invest in research in Canadian universities and in Canadian hospitals and other research centres and export from Canada rather than import into Canada.
We wanted to accomplish this while at the same time provide a strong system of controls on the prices of patent medicines. There was never a question for us as a government of having a strong growth in the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of consumers. Part and parcel of our policy in 1987 as well as today was to have strong patented drug price controls to ensure that drug prices for Canadian consumers remain reasonable.
This legislation as well as the legislation of 1987 provides for exactly that. We created the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in 1987 to control the prices of patent medicines in Canada. It has done its job since then and with this legislation it will be given even more powers. Bill C-91 gives the board expanded powers to roll back unwarranted price increases and provides for fines and sentences for those who do not comply.
By the year 2000 it is projected that the cost of purchases by pharmacies and hospitals of prescription and behind the counter drugs will only be 2 per cent higher due to the provisions of this legislation. It is projected through detailed calculations that the total added cost of patent drugs over the period 1992 to 1996 due to this legislation will be one dollar per Canadian more per year. One dollar per year per person in this country is not a large amount for having a policy that stimulates research and development in this country.
The opposition would have us spending all sorts of dollars per person of government money through taxation, but I guess that is a more clouded way and people do not realize that it is costing them. This is a straight-up, free enterprise, entrepreneurial way where there is research done at minimal cost.
Because of this bill Canada will reap the benefits of close to $.5 billion in increased investment by the innovative pharmaceutical industry in the foreseeable future. We are achieving a true balance in promoting economic growth while protecting the consumer through our continuing policy of pharmaceuticals.
The record since 1987 speaks for itself. The Patent Act amendments of 1987, then known as Bill C-22, have been a true success story. That success story is continuing to this day. However, it should be looked at in light of what the critics in this House and elsewhere had said at that time. One was that an innovative pharmaceutical industry would not meet its investment promises to the government. Second, the opposition said the government would not succeed in controlling patent drug prices. Third, the generic manufacturers would disappear.
Let me take the House through what has happened on all three counts since the passage of Bill C-22. The first issue is research spending. The innovative industry has delivered on its promised targets for doubling research spending in relation to sales five years earlier than was promised. This innovative pharmaceutical industry invested over $1 billion in R and D in Canada in the last five years, with over $340 million going to Canadian universities, hospitals and other medical research establishments.
I should add that since the government announced its intention to eliminate compulsory licensing, the industry has already announced over $500 million in new investment across Canada.
Second, the issue of contention in 1987 was drug prices. Price increases from existing patent drugs have kept an average growth of 2.9 per cent from 1987 to 1992, compared with an average Consumer Price Index of 4.7 per cent. This is a very strong record of effectively controlling patent drug prices and completely discredits the critics. We should make everyone think twice about their criticisms today.
-i?.-

*'	-	, >
- 'c-f.	-	'[DOT] * [DOT][DOT]:

It has become increasingly clear to others in the world that our system of drug price control works, our drug price control system has worked, and we certainly have every indication of that.
A study done by the U.S., one half of the 200 drugs studied, indicates significant drug prices being less at the wholesale level in Canada versus the United States. I can attest to that. I attended a meeting in the United States when congressman Bonior was putting on a seminar a few months ago and that was related in that meeting. They were surprised at the price of wholesale drugs in the United States versus the price in Canada. Certainly that was an important part of their discussion on that day when they talked about medicare and looking at ways of providing better medical care to their people in the United States. Clearly the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is doing a good job.
The third issue of 1987 was the supposed disappearance of the generic manufacturers sector in Canada. It was all going to disappear. It is amazing, it did not disappear as was claimed by the critics in 1987. The results have been quite the contrary. The industry is growing, it has grown and has had twice the growth since
1987.
We can say quite correctly that the critics have been wrong on all three counts. As my dad always said, the best measure of what will happen is what has happened in the past and certainly the criticisms of the critics have not been proven on any point.
Bill C-91 is a prime example of good comprehensive government policy that effectively strikes a balance protecting the interests of consumers while stimulating the growth of a knowledge based, high technology industry here in Canada. We know we can compete internationally and this bill deserves the support of Parliament and of the people of Canada.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-91.1 am against this bill because I think that it will have three harmful effects for all Canadians.
First, I think that this bill will raise drug prices. Second, I think that it will hit older people especially. When I say older people, I will soon be 50 and I am talking about people 50 and older. You do not need to be a golden ager to know that drug prices are now out of control. With this Bill C-91, it will be a real jungle, if we
Government Orders
go by what the New York Times wrote, and the reason I mention this newspaper is that I find it to be fairly independent in this debate. It is neither NDP nor Conservative nor Liberal; it is not even a Canadian paper. It is published outside Canada and it wrote that according to independent studies, this bill will cost us about $508 million more a year. This will have a second effect that will hurt all of Canada in that our health system will be more threatened because the provinces will have to delist some drugs or require more and more beneficiaries to pay part of the cost of medication.
We in Quebec have seen what happens when drug prices go up and druggists charge prescription fees. In Quebec we now have a user fee of $2 for every prescription filled. The minister said earlier that it was only 2 per cent more. Drugs will only cost us 2 per cent more if Bill C-91 is passed. But in Quebec we already pay more when the druggist charges $2 for every prescription.
A headline of an article in Le Devoir that I will quote reads: "Deterred by the user fee-the $2 charge-seniors cut their drug consumption too much". Because they have to pay $2 more, people are already deciding to do without their drugs. That is only $2, but now we are talking about 2 per cent.
I ask my colleague from Winnipeg South to really listen to the people in his riding. Let him go to the various activities of seniors' groups in his riding and I am sure that he will see that they are against this Bill C-91. If you do not want to hear your constituents, listen to your family, talk with your mother, your father and the older people in your family and you will realize, as the good colleague and good politician that you are, that drug prices are already unreasonable today. The system we have in the various provinces is already pushed to the limit in that they are looking more and more to see what service can be cut, what drug can be cut, what amount Canadians can be required to pay in order to balance the budget.
I certainly do not want to get into a war of figures because the government has figures showing that it will not cost that much and many jobs will be created. On the other hand, we are told that they are low-paying jobs, like those for cleaning staff in the various drug companies. One can always claim that it will do no harm, but, Mr. Speaker, I quoted you a figure that came not from the Liberals or the New Democrats or the Conservatives and not even from the Canadian government but from

November 17, 1992
Government Orders
the Americans who say that Bill C-91 will bring them a billion dollars more.
I was disappointed when my colleague from Winnipeg replied by saying, "Come on, how can we trust the Americans?" You here in the House of Commons are acting as if the Americans were part of the evil empire. You are saying that they cannot be trusted. I am not asking anyone to trust all Americans but at least to trust the figures quoted in a reputable newspaper like the New York Times. Those figures were quoted there yesterday and I have not seen any retraction today. I have not heard this government ask that newspaper to retract so those figures still stand and they show that it will cost us a billion dollars more.
I conclude by saying that those listening and watching us will want to know whether to believe the Liberals, the Conservatives or the New Democrats. It is not necessary to trust us either, but check out drug prices, talk to your pharmacist and especially your doctor because he too will tell you that this is an unnecessary bill that will open the field of pharmaceuticals to a certain kind of banditry and make the law of the jungle prevail and above all that it will affect not just old people but everyone. That is what bothers me.
Although the government made promises to the drug companies, it should have told them: "Thanks for all your donations, but we did what we could and were unable to pass this bill. Wait for the next election and maybe after that we will submit this bill again". We must not pass this bill now because it is detrimental to Canadians' health.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and I wish to begin by raising one very simple question: Why is it that the government in the last gasping, dying days of its existence is bringing in legislation which is so destructive and so injurious to the well-being of this country? Why does it believe that it has a mandate to so completely go against the interests of the large number of Canadians who depend upon proper health care and proper drug prices? Whom is it paying off? To whom is it answerable on this question? Clearly, there is nothing in this bill that justifies the Draconian actions of taking away what has been one of
the most useful areas of social legislation that Canada has had for the last 20 years.
I was in this city at the time when the compulsory licensing bill was brought in. I was a special assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the former leader of the Liberal Party, when we brought in compulsory licensing. I remember well the debate at the time and the committee examination because my job was to monitor what was taking place. I can remember the conditions back in 1968: price gouging, exorbitant, unfeeling rip-offs of all kinds of people by the major manufacturers, with no sense of responsibility. They were not simply providing a product, they were providing the life blood for hundreds of Canadians who need their medicaments.
Now we have a government that is going to return exactly back to the old system. It is turning the clock back over 20 years. Again, one would have to ask why. What is the reason? What possibly could seize it with this reason?
I suppose it is not too hard to find because all one has to do is read the North American free trade agreement and realize that this was a condition inserted by the now rejected Bush administration in the United States for signing the NAFTA agreement and this government went along. It was the classic pieces of silver that it sold out for. If anybody wants to know why they should object strenuously to the North American free trade agreement, it is because it includes measures like this that totally work against the interests of Canadians. This is not the only hidden nugget in that agreement, but this one is the most blatant and the most damaging because it goes to the very vital health of Canadians.
My colleague has reported the general accounting study done by the Americans, about the extra $400 million in health costs per year at a time when the health system is already overloaded. It is interesting that at a time when the Americans have examined the Canadian compulsory licensing system to see if that is a way of effectively cutting costs in their health care system, we are rejecting that very same system. I would suggest, watching the impacts of the American election, that President-elect Clinton has made a major commitment to reduce health costs. One of the things that the new administration will be looking at is this proposal to deal with compulsory licensing that Canada has had for over the past 25 years and it will take a hard look at that as
November 17, 1992

one of the measures that it would introduce to reduce its own health costs-talk about a government that is swimming upstream.
Here we have an American administration trying to reduce health costs and we have a Canadian administration, because of a previous sell-out under NAFTA, saying it is going to go ahead with the bill.
It had received pleas from provincial health ministers of all political stripes right across this country to say this would put an enormous burden on the system.
Under those circumstances what nerve it has when its mandate is about through to go ahead and ram this bill through with a majority and I plead with Conservative members of Parliament who are responsible and accountable to their own constituents to tell their cabinet to withdraw this bill and not to proceed with this legislation.
I have heard some members get up and tiy to defend this on the other side, saying it will be a great boon to medical research. I look at the commitments. There has been some investment. Have they talked about the
losses?
The generic drug industry of Canada is also investing substantially in original drug research. In my own city of Winnipeg several major companies have started up new plants and the president of Apotex has said without any hesitation that he will have to shut down a major plant in the city of Winnipeg because of this bill, not because it is not there, but because of this bill.
That example is reproduced right across Canada.
If you total the suggested increases in research with what we know are the known losses, the net impact in my view will be a substantial decline of a Canadian based generic drug industry that is prepared to invest right across Canada to use the facilities to start our own industry at a time when that is what we desperately need. Instead we are bringing in legislation in this House to serve the interests of multinationals and in which control accountability is missing.
Government Orders
As an intelligent, thoughtful member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, can you find any reason to support this bill? You cannot because sitting in the chair in an impartial state you would have to make a judgment that there is no reason. There is no moral authority for this government to bring in the bill.
Members of this government will ultimately be answerable to the people, particularly to those in this country who must go daily to their pharmacist, their druggist to get medication. I had a case in my office about a month ago of a gentleman who has to take drugs on a daily basis for a very severe condition. They keep him alive. He has no choice in the matter. He has been buying generic drugs in bulk.
Even under those circumstances, as it has now shifted and the impact of Bill C-22, the old bill, has come into effect, it is harder and harder to get access to those drugs and he has seen increases of 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent in those prices.
If this bill goes through he has no chance. It will virtually double the cost of his pharmaceuticals. Who is going to pay for that? The health care system in the province of Manitoba, senior citizens, taxpayers.
I watched with some interest the Prime Minister last night saying he is going to have an economic renewal speech. What is his prescription for economic renewal? Increased cost; make basic pharmaceuticals higher priced, harder to get for people who need it. That is his prescription for economic renewal.
I can only say and plead there is only one way to stop the bill. We must recognize our limitations. We can only do that if certain members of Parliament on the government side have the courage of their conviction and the honesty of their view to know that the only reason for this bill, the only reason it was introduced at this time, the reason it is being rammed through by closure motion, why we are not being given proper opportunity to debate it, to hold hearings on it, is because of an obligation owing to a defeated president of the United States to get the NAFTA bill passed.

Government Orders
It is part of that general misguided sense of ideological purity that only this Prime Minister and his cabinet have. Only they know what is right and these obligations to the discredited members of that old neo-conservative coalition that unfortunately ran too many countries in the industrialized world for the past 10 years must finally come to an end.
I say again to the members of Parliament on the other side for the sake of seniors, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our health care system, for the sake of preserving a Canadian based research industry, for the sake of standing up for the integrity and independence of this country to decide its own policies and not have them decided somewhere else, stand up in your caucus tomorrow morning when you have the chance and tell the Prime Minister, for the sake of this country, to withdraw BUI C-91.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the debate on BUI C-91 that deserves special attention; that is its impact on Canada's senior citizens.
Seniors are probably the single group that is most strongly interested in the costs of medicine in this country. They are at least twice as likely to need prescription drugs as the average Canadian. Though most senior citizens are covered by provincial drug plans, changes in the costs of pharmaceutical products are something that seniors see and experience directly.
The Canadian government remains sensitive to the concerns of seniors about drug costs. The changes proposed in BUI C-91 wUl strengthen measures to guard against excessive increases in patent drug prices. Above all, they will expand the powers of the board that reviews patented drug prices in Canada.
Since 1987, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has tracked increases in the prices of patented pharmaceuticals and it has been singularly successful in keeping those increases well below the rate of inflation.
The record is clear: since the board was created, the costs of patented drugs have risen by an average of only
2.9	per cent a year, well below the average rate of increase in the consumer price index. This is good news for Canadian senior citizens.
The success of the board has even been noticed by our neighbours. A report by the United States general
accounting office recently compared the costs of prescription drug prices in the United States and Canada. It found that on average the manufacturers' price for prescription drugs was 32 per cent higher in the United States than in Canada.
Furthermore, the study found that one half of the drugs cost at least 50 per cent more in the United States. Of the top selling 200 drugs, 27 cost at least 100 per cent more in the United States, three drugs cost 500 per cent more and one, Isodel, used in the treatment of angina, costs an incredible 967 per cent more in the United States than in Canada.
Since there are no differences in manufacturers' costs in the two countries, the study concluded that the major source of the difference in drug prices in the United States and Canada is to be found in the action of the Canadian government.
As the report says, in setting prices manufacturers of patented drugs must conform to Canadian federal regulations that review prices for newly released drugs and restrain price increases for existing drugs. The fact is that the Canadian system is working. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has been proven to be an effective mechanism for keeping drug costs in line.
Bill C-91 strengthens the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Under its terms, the board will be able to roll back price increases and provide fines and jail terms for those found not to be in compliance with its guidelines.
The legislation also gives the PMPRB new powers to better control the prices at which new drugs are introduced into the marketplace. To enforce the board's authority, Bill C-91 makes it an offence for companies not to respond to board orders or to refuse to provide pricing or sales and expense information.
The net effect of these changes will be to make an already effective mechanism even more effective. It will ensure that those who hold drug patents will not be able to exploit those patents unfairly.
The provisions of Bill C-91 strike a reasonable balance between rewarding those who produce pharmaceutical innovations and protecting the interest of those like Canadian seniors who need effective and affordable medicines.
November 17, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the creation of Nunavut has been a dream of Inuit leadership since the 1970s.
The people of the eastern Arctic have sought a new jurisdiction in this country consistent with their desire to govern themselves and manage their own affairs. In this whole process, the people and Government of the Northwest Territories have been fully involved.
First, division of NWT was approved in principle by a majority of voters in a plebiscite in 1982. Second, in May this year a majority of voters approved the precise location of the new boundary in a second plebiscite.
On October 30, the Nunavut political accord was signed by the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Thngavik Federation of Nunavut.
Now, in a referendum held between November 3 and November 5, Inuit voters overwhelmingly said yes to the accord. With an 80 per cent turn-out, 69 per cent of the voters said yes and people who were not voting were counted as no votes. That is a very significant level of approval.
Accordingly the Government of Canada will be introducing legislation at the time of the claim settlement legislation to divide the Northwest Tbrritories and set up Nunavut. A happy day, particularly because the peoples themselves have been directly involved in making these decisions.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I call on the government to reassure the veterans of Canada
that the benefits and the programs it provides will continue as long as there are needy and disabled Canadians who need them.
Seventy-five years ago the Prime Minister of Canada promised the veterans of World War I that they would be cared for by a grateful nation. Today there is fear among the veteran population that this government is planning to abandon the veterans and the department in the name of cost efficiency.
I understand that at least 250 positions at DVA will be declared surplus. I also understand that the department is looking at a merger with the Department of National Defence.
We wonder if this government is also looking at taxing or cutting veterans benefits. It is time for the government to make a clear recommitment to the veterans of Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this government's economic policies have been a disaster for Canada. The Conservative government and the previous Liberal government before it have followed policies which have increased unemployment in Canada.
On some of the reserves in my riding of Churchill and across Canada the unemployment rate exceeds 90 per cent. This desperate situation is made worse by inadequate housing and a lack of sewer and water facilities. Many reserves do not have permanent roads into their communities and others still rely on run-down diesel generators for electricity.
This lack of necessary houses and infrastructure creates an opportunity for the government. A water and sewage program along with a program to improve housing could employ people in both native and many other communities across Canada. These programs would improve the quality of life for thousands of native people.
I strongly urge the federal government to introduce these programs now in order to create jobs and to help make life for Canada's native peoples much better.


S. O. 31 NUNAVUT
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I speak for all members of this House when I say how pleased I am that on November 3 to November 5 of this year Inuit of the Northwest Tferritories voted overwhelmingly to their comprehensive land claim settlement agreement. In so doing they voted yes to settling the largest land claim in North America.
At the same time they have affirmed their aspirations to set up the new territory of Nunavut to further this stewardship of the lands and waters of the eastern Arctic and to better manage their own lives.
Through the whole region of Nunavut, 69 per cent of all eligible Inuit voters supported the claim settlement agreement. Of those voting, 85 per cent voted to support the settlement.
This was not only a vote on the claim. Settlement of the land claim is intimately linked to the goal of creating a new territory in the north, that is Nunavut.
Thus Nunavut will be established as a new territory alongside Yukon and Northwest Territories.
May I say that with the territory of Nunavut proposed for the year 1999, it will be a truly memorable inauguration to the 21st century.


GRAND-MERE ACTION
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Grands-meres Action in my riding for their good work against violence and sexism in the media. It is unacceptable that there is so much violence in 1992, and especially that the media do not feel that this issue should be on the agenda.
I believe we must address this problem right now if we really want to ensure a peaceful future for all Canadians.
Violence is unacceptable, whatever the group attacked, and we must correct the problem now. The media have a responsibility to promote a non-violent and non-sexist society and they have a lot of work to do in that respect.


SMALL BUSINESS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses urged the Canadian Bankers Association to improve access to credit for small and medium-sized businesses in this country. The minister added that the economic recovery was also dependent on a commitment by the banks to provide additional money for loans to new small businesses and generally on the openness of financial institutions to the credit needs of small and medium-sized businesses.
The economy needs help. Canadian businesses must have fair access to credit. This is why I urge the lending institutions to show greater flexibility toward small businesses.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, when the federal government laid out GRIP in 1991 it promised a final payment in November 1992. Now the government indicates it will not be in a position to pay producers for wheat and barley until next year.
Why should cash starved farmers wait another few months before they can pay their debts? They are still suffering from the farm aid shortfall of 1990 when the federal government tried to spread the aid package for 1989 and 1991 across that year and the farm debt rose dramatically as a result.
Recent studies show that grain farmers have lost $6.7 billion since 1986. In Saskatchewan alone this translates into $106,000 net cash loss per farm on average. The result is that many of them have lost the equity in their farms and have lost their farms entirely, as the recent increase in bankruptcy figures in that part of the country show.
Spreading the aid thinner will not help the situation. If the payments are due now they should be made now and the package should be reassessed because it is totally inadequate.
November 17, 1992


CP RAIL
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister announced in his speech on economic recovery that he would emphasize transportation links. Yet today we learned some very sad news for Quebec and for Canada, namely that CP Rail has requested authorization to end its service between Quebec and the maritimes.
Quebec will not accept this decision. The Eastern Townships will not accept this decision. The mayors and reeves in my region are upset. I urge the government to intervene immediately with CP Rail to stop this discrimination against Quebec and the maritimes. Trade between Quebec and the maritimes is now over $4 billion and we want to keep it. Our jobs are at stake.


THE VALOUR AND THE HORROR
Mr. Don Blenkam (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ombudsman has declared that the drama documentary series The Valour and the Horror is flawed, that it fails to measure up to CBC's demanding policies and standards and that a number of the events and associations in the series are historically false.
That being the case, I call upon the Minister of Communications to direct the National Film Board to withdraw The Valour and the Horror from public distribution so it will not be available to schools and young people and the government will no longer be seen as denigrating the services of those who fought for Canada in World War II.


CENTENARY HEALTH CENTRE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in 1967, the centenary of Confederation, a new hospital opened in Scarborough. Fittingly it was called Centenary Hospital. Over the ensuing 25 years Centenary Hospital has grown just as Scarborough has grown.
Today the hospital, now known as Centenary Health Centre, is on the leading edge of health care services in Scarborough, metropolitan Toronto, and Ontario.
This reputation has been earned and is well deserved. The combination of excellent administrators, competent and dedicated staff, and selfless volunteers has resulted in a health centre relied upon by the citizens of Scarborough for their well-being.
The Margaret Birch wing permits patients to recuperate and rehabilitate right on the premises under the continuing and watchful eye of their surgeons.
On behalf of my constituents and all residents of Scarborough, I offer congratulations and thanks to all staff and volunteers of Centenary Health Centre for a quarter century of service to the local community.


JOB SEARCH
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the decision of a group of unemployed workers to get together and learn how to do a successful job search.
Several groups of unemployed workers are spending three weeks from nine to five, acquiring the tools they need to enter the labour market. Writing a curriculum vitae, introductory and thank-you letters, simulated interviews on video and targeting of potential employers are all part of the session.
The federal government is proud to be associated with this job search clubs project, aware that to have a satisfying job is a legitimate goal. Although these are difficult times, there is always room for excellence.
In an increasingly competitive world, standards are high and getting the right job means going all-out.


CP RAIL SYSTEMS
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we were dismayed to learn today of a CP Rail Systems application to abandon all railway operations east of Sherbrooke. This is another example of damage to the economic infrastructure of this country caused by government negligence and its complete

Oral Questions
inability to develop a consistent and comprehensive national transportation policy.
If this application is approved more than 300 railway jobs will be lost and hundreds of others in industries depending on rail freight services will be put in jeopardy.
While this government talks boldly of improving Canadian competitiveness, its inaction and irresponsibility fail to provide Canadian workers and business with the means and services they need in order to compete.
The CP Rail Systems announcement lays the blame for its application directly on the government's shoulders. It says that the absence of coherent and construction government policies has placed it in this unhappy position.
The railway industry has pleaded with the Government of Canada for years to amend its taxation and other policies to permit it to compete, but this government, this Toiy government, has been satisfied to sit by while the Canadian economy literally falls apart.


POLITICS
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I know I am not alone among my colleagues in this House in being concerned about the low state of respect and confidence in which the Canadian people so obviously appear to hold the parliamentary process in general and this Parliament in particular.
It is not only a source of frustration for most politicians who address this profession as a high calling, but the public mood of cynicism about government at all levels in Canada is indeed dangerous to the effectiveness of the whole democratic system.
There are many causes for the chasm of confidence between leadership and followership in Canada, but perhaps none more so than the constant pursuit of partisan politics, the everlasting search for support, the vigorous and sometimes vicious battle for votes.
I have become convinced that to a considerable extent Canadian cynicism with respect to politicians comes from a perception that the practice of politics is frequently tainted with a principle almost akin to prostitution, that the noble purpose of serving the public is too often based
primarily on what measures will be electable rather than on what policies will be effective. We must commit ourselves to counter that perception. It is time for Parliament to become less partisan and more purposeful. Surely it is also time for each one of us as MPs to more-


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


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, one of today's headlines in the Financial Post reads: "Resist Siren Call of the Spenders". I could not agree more.
One of the greatest mistakes the government could make would be to proceed down the road of massive government spending. More spending will simply add to the debt, rekindle inflation and increase interest rates. This would be a destructive course and should be avoided. As Canadians, we should know because previous governments have taken that path and we are still paying off their debts.
The fundamentals of a strong economy are in place and with some encouragement on the tax side, that is a reduction in taxes, specifically a reduction in the GST, along with additional yet fundamental changes in that area, consumer confidence will rebound, revenues will increase and the need for a massive injection of borrowed money into the economy can be avoided.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury just made a remark that this Parliament should set an example and be a little bit less partisan. I would like in asking my question of the Prime Minister to note that yesterday the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party asked this government for some answers on economic policies and there was no answer from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance.
November 17, 1992

The next thing we saw, and showing disrespect for this Parliament, the Prime Minister went out and made the announcement of his economic plan to a fund raising dinner at $500 a plate, neglecting to make that statement here in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister announced a plan that was no plan at all because it will take its course. I would like to say to the Prime Minister that Campaign 2000, in a report on child poverty, said that one out of six children in Canada lives in poverty; that internationally we look terrible. It is shameful. The U.K., France, Holland, Germany and many others are ahead of us. We are barely above the United States. Everyone in this country knows that the best way to give pride and dignity to these children is to ensure that their parents have work in Canada.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will have a program soon to make sure that the fathers and mothers of these children will have some work so that they can give bread and dignity to their children.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention important measures the government has taken, especially this year, aimed at Canada's children.
Since the beginning of 1982, the government has invested around $3 billion, which includes the child tax benefit and the $500 million earmarked for children at risk, plus a number of projects concerning drugs and the environment, probably the largest amount of money invested by a Canadian government in the kind of situation we have today.
I believe that child poverty is something Canadians should never condone and that it will require a commensurate effort on the part of all governments and all Canadians.
I believe that considering the economic situation, to which he himself referred, the Leader of the Opposition should remember that what the government has done for Canada's children was done responsibly as part of our responsibility for managing the affairs of this country.
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we had a debate in this House and the problem was examined by a committee, but none of the experts supported the government's point of view. The government has introduced a program that will give cheques to children during the first six months of the 1993 election year, but subsequently they will lose those benefits. TWo years from now, they will be even worse off than they are today.
Instead of introducing these election gimmicks, could the minister perhaps talk to his colleagues and tell them that the best way to give these children some dignity and support is to ensure that their parents have jobs?
When will the government take the advice of the opposition, now supported by the New Democratic Party and even by the Bloc Quebecois, and introduce a program to finance infrastructures, with one third paid by the provinces, one third by the municipalities and one third by the federal government? This would put hundreds of people to work immediately.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare):Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that giving an additional $500 to every low-income family in Canada, especially those earning $10,000 or more, was a political ploy and an election gimmick. I think that calling any assistance we give to children an election gimmick reflects a lack of class and an outlook that is absolutely deplorable.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the minister appeared before the committee, he met the experts and everyone agreed that this was not a solution, or should I say it was a purely political solution to try and win votes-which they will not get in any event-during the first six months of 1993.
Is the minister prepared to go back and set up a long term program instead of this vote-winning gimmick?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Leader of the Opposition may be concerned about the election, but I am concerned about the future of our children.

Oral Questions


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The sad reality in consequence of this government's economic policy is that the only growth has been in the number of poor in this country.
Today Campaign 2000 announced that this year it is expected that 900,000 children in this country will be on social assistance. This is a 200,000 increase in numbers since the 1988 election.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister: How can this government defend its economic policy when so many families have been left in poverty?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can just repeat in English what I said in French. In the last year, in light of the economic reality we face, the Government of Canada put out $3 billion for the children of Canada. Of course if we had the capacity to put up more we would, but we have to consider, as he said, the economic reality. A government such as ours which is able under these circumstances to put up that much money for poor children and children at risk should be commended by the member.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister knows full well that the problem of poverty is being created by his government's policies, that in fact the distribution of income between the rich and the poor is much worse since this government took power. There is now an unemployment rate of 30 per cent among families in poverty and 60 per cent in single parent families. When is this government going to present to the Canadian people an economic policy which will deal with this issue?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, in due course the government will make those announcements.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question and the minister is responding. I am sure the House will give the minister the courtesy to complete his answer.


Benoît Bouchard: Once again, we are talking about poverty with children, families and so on. I listened to his question and I believe he should listen to the answer. It is fundamental to understand that in light of the realities we face. One of my friends said that we invented it. If we invented poverty for children, it was certainly not here in 1975 and 1981-82. Poverty is a fact of any society and as a government, as would any government in the world, we are tiying to deal with that, but as a responsible government we have to take into account all our realities.
Once again, this government gave $3 billion to poor people and particularly to the children in this country. We also put $15 billion a year into different departments for children. It is not enough. It is never enough for the children of Canada. But it is what we have the capacity to do, and it is what we will continue to do.


POVERTY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of child poverty in this country and poverty which is increasing is, I am sure, of concern to every Canadian because we are really talking about the future of Canada and the ability and investment in the future of Canada. With one in six children living in poverty, as the child poverty action group has said today, we have to realize that of course poor children have poor parents.
I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Last night the Prime Minister spoke of modernizing our social programs. Surely one of the best modem social programs would be to have a goal of full employment and economic policies which would address that goal. The Prime Minister was willing to commit to a goal of full employment in the recent constitutional document. I would like to ask him if he is willing to commit again today and to commit his government to pursue that goal of full employment and the policies that flow from that.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the policies that we pursue are designed to increase employment and to eliminate to the extent humanly possible the problem of unemployment. It is a problem that affects all industrialized societies and it causes great damage to the social fabric of any nation. It causes great disappointment to families and it diminishes opportunities for our young people.
November 17, 1992

That is why the government, and governments, along with the private sector and the unions and all political parties, must have as their highest priority the intent to create new economic opportunities that translate into durable jobs for Canadians. That is the objective of all of our government policies. This is exactly what we are seeking to do, without affecting inflation negatively, while attracting foreign investment and creating a climate wherein this can be possible.


Mr. Fontana:: How come it's had the reverse effect?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend has a seatmate making remarks. I do not think I would have any quarrel with the objective articulated by my hon. friend; where we may have some disagreements is how we achieve it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
The reality is that we are not achieving it. In 1988 the Prime Minister promised jobs, jobs, jobs, and unemployment went up; the government promised to reduce the debt and the debt went up; the government has promised to reduce poverty in this country and poverty has simply increased in this country.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that Canada needs action now, not promise. We need economic policies, not the same ones and staying the course with those that have failed, but new economic policies that really address what is needed for the majority of Canadian people who now are looking forward to a future in poverty.
I say to the Prime Minister that the fundamentals are not working. Will the Prime Minister address that, admit that, and change the economic direction of this government to meet the very real needs of those Canadians who are suffering as a result of the policies of this government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD would disagree fundamentally with my hon. friend. It is their assessment that the fundamentals are working in Canada. They have stated that with an inflation rate of
1.3	per cent, Canada has now the lowest inflation rate in the industrialized world. They have stated as well that we will lead in terms of economic growth in the G-7 next
Oral Questions
year and that employment growth will be highest in Canada among any of the G-7 countries.
While we do have a serious problem, I think the general assessment around the world and nationally is that we have chosen the proper instruments to deal with it.
The alternative to what we are doing is printing money and spending borrowed money. If deficit financing and spending by governments were a solution, we would not have had the results that we had when the Liberals were there or when the Liberals were joined in a loose and affectionate alliance with the NDP. That did not work.
The fundamentals are in place and we hope to move it along even more.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The sad reality is that millions of Canadians are far more familiar with food banks than they are with the World Bank, and that is what we would like to change. We would like to see Canadians not so familiar with food banks.

In 1988, the Prime Minister said that the best social program was employment. He should tell that to his finance minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada because yesterday interest rates rose again, which will raise the deficit and even more people will lose their jobs. The Conservative government's economic policies are undoubtedly a failure. Can the unemployed and welfare recipients find out what this government's alternative is?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat some of what I said a few moments ago in English; that despite the difficulties that the governments of all industrialized countries-Great Britain, France, Japan, Germany, the United States- are going through, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the OECD have concluded that the foundation is now in place for what we hope will be a lasting recovery in Canada in the coming months and years.
All the signs are both significant and encouraging for Canada. While I recognize the reality of the problem

November 17, 1992
Oral Questions
raised by my friend, we must also admit that there are very encouraging signs for the future of Canada.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Campaign 2000 report card on child poverty which has already been the subject of questions in this House today says with regard to the minister's new program, which includes an earned income supplement, "almost half of all poor families will receive no earning supplement in 1993".
In the light of this fact, how can the minister say that his program is doing anything worth while for poor families? Why will he not do something better to help poor children and their families all across this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I have not read the report. After I do, it will be easier for me to answer questions.
What I can say, however, is what we have always said about the tax benefit. We give $500 more per family to low income workers whose earnings average $10,000 to $20,000 as compared to those earning $50,000 to $60,000 a year. At that level there is a decreasing amount of money.
We continue to give more money than we did before. We consider factors such as the inflation rate, the cost of living and so on. These are applied to all families in Canada. For low income workers, the amount of money available today is greater than it was under the family allowance system.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the report also says that "it is estimated that only .7 per cent of single parent families will move above the poverty line due to this benefit in 1993 and only 1.6 per cent of poor couple families will do so".
The report says: "Moreover, these moderate increases will occur only if adequate jobs are available".
In light of the continuing desperately high levels of unemployment, more than 1.5 million people continue out of work and this government has done nothing to
ensure that there will be adequate jobs, why has the government not come forward yet with a program to ensure that all Canadians have the jobs they require to provide a decent standard of living for themselves and their children?

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I never said that the program for children replaced the jobs that have always been the first objective for the government and all Canadians. It is very obvious that the government's first objective in our economic policies is to create jobs. These programs that we put in place help to mitigate the problems faced by poor children in particular.
Once again, I quite agree that the job creation efforts made by other departments remain the fundamental response to the problem of child poverty in Canada.


MONTREAL
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, almost one in five people in the city of Montreal are out of work. In this year alone 17,000 people have lost their jobs in manufacturing, 10,000 in retail and 9,000 more in the financial sector.
On top of these very sad unemployment statistics, today we learn that the city's bond credit rating has dropped from AA to A-plus.
Montreal is the economic heart and lungs of the province of Quebec. Why did the Minister of Finance let things get to this point and what action plan, if any, does he have to revive the economy of Montreal?
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I understand the difficulties throughout the country. As I said yesterday, the Canadian economy is going through a difficult period because the world economy is going through a difficult period.
Markets are soft. Commodity prices are weak. There is a huge overhang and a burden of debt at the consumer, corporate and government levels. All of these things are having an effect on the slowness of the world economy.
November 17, 1992

Oral Questions AIRLINE INDUSTRY
It is expected that the G-7 countries will grow by something like 1.7 per cent this year. There has been an increase in the unemployment numbers in the G-7 countries of some five million over the last two years. That has had a direct impact upon the economy of Canada.
I remind the hon. member that notwithstanding all the difficulties, there are 12,240,000 Canadians who are working in this country. We would like to see fewer people unemployed. Some of the initiatives that were outlined by the Prime Minister last night are things that we are developing. We will build upon the budget initiatives we brought down in February which are indeed working and strengthening-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister will be able to expand on the supplemental.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the 25 per cent unemployed in east end Montreal, Snowdon and Cote des Neiges are not going to get much comfort from those remarks.

According to data from the Quebec construction commission, the unemployment rate in that industry is about 50 per cent. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to announce immediately a program to rebuild infrastructure and renovate buildings in order to create jobs for these workers, as the Leader of the Opposition has already proposed, or will he wait until the unemployment rate is 100 per cent?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has addressed some of the points made by the hon. member. I would be interested in knowing how she proposes to pay for this sort of infrastructure spending, recognizing that the focus in Canada is on its level of debt, the burden of debt, not only at the federal level but at the provincial level.
I remind the hon. member that the unemployment figures are going down, not going up. There has been an improvement of 64,000 new jobs created in the last six months. Eighty-three thousand new jobs have been created in September and October of a permanent nature. While it is a slow recovery, consistent with the recovery that is going on globally, it is nevertheless a recovery and it is moving in a progressive way and not in a negative way.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday in this House we talked about the devastation that is imminent in the airline industry because of the policies of the Conservative government and the former Liberal government on deregulation. Today I want to raise with the minister the devastation that the policy has brought to Atlantic Canada.
Canadian Pacific Railway announced this morning it is its intention to seek permission of the National Transportation Agency to rip up every single track of theirs from Sherbrooke, Quebec, to Saint John, New Brunswick, as well as all their tracks in Nova Scotia. Will the Minister of Transport use the government's authority under section 23 of the National Transportation Act and instruct the NTA to reject any request to abandon any main line track by any railroad anywhere in Canada? Will he do that to protect Atlantic Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member correctly, he would have us take steps to make businesses lose even more money so that job losses might be even greater in a few months.
There is a procedure in place. CP Rail announced this morning its intention to submit a request to the National Transportation Agency to abandon theses lines. The agency will hear the representations from all sides, from the users and from government. Every citizen or group who wishes to made representations may do so by contacting the National Transportation agency. The agency will assess the situation and give a ruling in August 1993.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister and the House that the National Transportation Act says that transportation is recognized as a key to regional and economic development and commercial viability of transportation links is balanced with regional economic development objectives

November 17, 1992
Oral Questions
in order that the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized.
Mayor Elsie Wayne of Saint John, New Brunswick agrees, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission agrees and, perhaps, even the Prime Minister in his pledge last night to rebuild the transportation infrastructure might agree.
Will the minister protect Saint John, New Brunswick, and the rest of Atlantic Canada from lack of competition and ensure that CP will continue to operate one way or the other?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, when the National Transportation Act was passed in 1987, it provided for a committee review of its content and impact. A committee was struck and is expected to table its report by January 31, 1993. Proposals will be made to ensure that this government's objectives, which are essential to our national economy, are reached and revisited.


DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of industry.
When this government announced its intention to scrap compulsory licensing it said the cost to Canadian consumers would only be $29 million a year. Yesterday the minister's own officials revised that figure to $129 million a year and The New York Times yesterday pegged the extra cost to Canadian consumers at over $400 million per year.
Why is this minister intentionally confusing Canadians with phoney figures on the true cost of the elimination of compulsory licensing?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not accepting that kind of a question. Why was this minister intentionally confusing Canadians? That is a clear allegation of lack of honesty and I do not think we need that. I am going to ask the hon. member to withdraw his remark.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark and ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I accept and I thank the hon. member for withdrawing. Perhaps the hon. member could complete his question.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the minister now stand and tell Canadian consumers why there is confusion over the various costs to consumers by the elimination of compulsory licensing. Could he tell us why there have been different figures from his own lips and those of his departmental officials?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question last spring for the same member.
We said at the time that the savings made by the compulsory licence system represented $300 million a year. However, in terms of the patent drugs covered by Bill C-91, it will be about $75 million because two-thirds to three-quarters of all drugs covered are non-patent drugs. If the $75 million is divided by two, because 50 per cent of the costs are covered by the health plan at the provincial level, it represents, as I said at the time, about $35 million to $40 million a year. I stand by the same figures today.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I sort of thank the minister for that clarification.
My supplementary question is again to the minister of industry. In a letter dated October 29 the provincial ministers of health universally reaffirmed their opposition to the elimination of compulsory licensing. However, in contrast yesterday The New York Times reported that the president of the huge U.S. drug lobby fully supports this government's plan to do away with its system of drug price controls.
Why is it that this government refuses to listen to the unanimous pleas from Canada's health ministers, yet continues to respond on command to the wishes of the huge U.S. multinational drug lobby?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the minister of health, has responded to the misconceptions that my hon. friend had on the price impact.
As I stated in the House yesterday in my speech on Bill C-91, the reason we are proceeding on this bill is because it is creating jobs and new investment, high-priced jobs and investment in research and development by companies in hospitals, universities and in medical institutions right across the country.
November 17, 1992

It is these value-added jobs which my friends opposite in the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are appealing to this government to help to create. Then when we introduce some legislation that clearly is leading to the creation of this investment in these high value-added jobs, my hon. friend says that is the wrong way to go. You cannot have it both ways.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the exchanges in Question Period I am reminded of what the Prime Minister said when he was first elected, that after eight years we would never recognize Canada. He is right. It is in total collapse.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport about an another calamity that he is responsible for. Yesterday in this House the minister said that he supported and endorsed the efforts of the employees of Canadian Airlines to rescue their jobs. Today he is now reported as saying he has changed his mind, that he is now looking at a merger proposal.
I ask the Minister of Transport: What is the government plan? It is too late to be playing mental ping-pong with the lives and jobs of thousands of Canadians in the airline industry. Within the next 24 hours, will the government put forward its blueprint so that we can save this industry and save the jobs and have something to defend in this country when we take over this government?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I protest vigorously against the allegation made by the other side to the effect that we had a change of heart or that I would have said that we had undertaken some other process. It is absolutely untrue. We are still looking at ways for the government to reconcile fiscal constraints with its desire to support the efforts of the Canadian Airlines employees in the best interest of the people of Canada.
Oral Questions


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's inaction makes a mockery of the dedicated employees of Canadian Airlines, the management and the unions who have put together a workable positive approach to saving their company, saving their jobs.
It is five minutes to midnight on this issue. Will the minister quit stalling and announce that he will back the employee-led package? Yes or no?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, we have repeated many times that we are interested in this package provided that it meets the financial constraints of this country.
I again invite the Liberal Party to tell us at what price, to what amount it is prepared to expose the Canadian taxpayers to effect a settlement of this situation.


PROSPERITY INITIATIVE
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and for International Tade.
At the end of October the minister received the conclusions of a year-long, nation-wide study on prosperity. My question to the minister is where do we go from here? So far there does not appear to be a lot of action coming out of the report and several of my constituents have expressed concern about the amount of money that was spent on the study.
Can the minister give us assurances that Canadians are going to get value for the money spent on the prosperity initiative?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, very clearly Canadians will see that they will really get value for money on this consultation. It involved meetings with 186 communities right across the country. Out of that has come an action plan from the private sector steering group which recommended a number of things that the Prime Minister referred to in his remarks last night, proposals relating to training, a partnership among business, labour and government to

November 17, 1992
Oral Questions
provide investment in the training possibilities for Canadian citizens, the work that needs to be done to increase our research and development effort, to increase our trade effort internationally, to rebuild the infrastructure in this country.
As these proposals get fleshed out, I think my hon. friend and his constituents will see that there really is going to be value for money here.


FOOD INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture or to whomever is speaking on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture.
On Friday the minister announced measures to largely deregulate the food industry, to shift responsibility for food safety and quality from government inspectors to industry itself.
Does this government not understand that there are limits to deregulation? Does it not even understand that it is the government's not industry's responsibility to make sure that Canadians do not eat bad meat, rotten eggs or contaminated poultry?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the president of the Public Service Alliance had to panic so much at the announcement made last Friday. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that when the budget was tabled, the Minister of Finance said three departments would review the regulations to ensure they meet the needs of a modem and competitive Canada.
Public health is not in danger here. Most of the recommendations in the report are not related to health or salubrity. They affect the classification and certification of exports. I think my colleague should join me in reassuring Canadian consumers and reaffirming there are no health hazards.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we know what competition means. We know that it has meant C-91 and that it was supposed to have
had no influence on health. Now we are hearing that inspectors will look and see what industry thinks after industry has done the job.
My supplementary is addressed to the Minister for International Trade. My question to him is quite simple: Will the minister admit that the North American free trade agreement provides for the harmonization toward an international standard for food quality that is lower than Canada's standards, that these deregulatory changes I asked about a moment ago are a part of that and that Canadians could very well face increased importation and availability on the market, for example, of chemically contaminated foods in increasing amounts from Mexico and the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend has asked me that question. I would like to refer him to the parts of the North American free trade agreement that he clearly has not read. There are specific provisions in the agreement which allow each country to set its own standards. They specifically allow those standards to be set above international norms precisely according to the desires of the country involved and has nothing to do with what the other two countries in the North American free trade area might want to have for themselves.
If my hon. friend would quit blowing off his mouth and listen-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Wascana.


TAXATION
Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the current practice of Revenue Canada wherein court ordered child support payments are considered a tax deduction for the noncustodial parent and taxable income for the custodial parent. This places an added burden on the custodial parent and at the same time creates a more favourable financial situation for the other parent.
Could the minister advise the House whether or not the government intends to address this apparent inequity?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important
question, an issue with which I am very familiar.
November 17, 1992

He knows as well that this matter is currently before the courts and it would be inappropriate for me to make any specific comments in that regard except to say that I am prepared to look at the situation after the courts have dealt with it to continue the government's practice of bringing even greater fairness to the tax system.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister suggested that he is about to use public funds to put Canadian Airlines on an artificial respirator. But he knows full well that the airline is in dire straits and no band-aid, however costly, can put it back on its feet. Can government not see that by throwing good money its way, it is only prolonging Canadian Airlines' agony? Does government plan to continue squandering public funds instead of applying it toward genuine economic recovery?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think there is nothing further from the truth than saying that government committed funds. Government committed to look for, in partnership, a solution that would take into account its fiscal constraints, recognize the major role the company's employees are willing to play in finding a viable solution that would ensure the viability of the aeronautical industry and the airline industry for years to come while being in the best interest of the people of Canada.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this kind of verbal covering-up is not helpful. Either there will be money and guarantees or there will not. It is well known that the usual means of intervention of government are guarantees or money. The minister knows full well that our domestic market cannot support two national airlines. The Montreal coalition also warned him that any public funds he may spend on Canadian Airlines are likely to compromise directly Air Canada's survival. Then we will have two lame ducks instead of one. How can the minister not be aware of the fact that he is destroying the Canadian transportation industry while striking a terrible blow to Montreal's economy at the same time?
Oral Questions


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it might be important for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean to clarify whether he supports competition in the area of air transportation and whether he agrees that air carriers and the air transportation industry should be viable and serve the general interest of all Canadians. That is what we are trying to do, considering there are a great many jobs at stake. That is why we insist that it be in the best interest of the Canadian people.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries.
Has the minister now allowed licence holders of ITQs, either companies or fishermen, to buy and receive permanent quota transfers of fish from inshore fishermen in the Scotia-Fundy area?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check on that particular point to see exactly what the answer is. I cannot recall undertaking this action myself, but I will have to see whether the department has.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, assuming that the minister is not informed of what his department has done, it has sent out a form to allow such permanent transfers.
Does this not mean in the minister's opinion that the Scotia-Fundy area of fish could ultimately be caught by fishermen from another area or province and then landed in another area or province, therefore leaving communities in South West Nova without access to the fish and certainly without the jobs? In other words, whoever has the money can buy that quota and have the fish to catch and process somewhere else outside that area in Nova Scotia.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, fisheries in Canada is under federal jurisdiction. We do not have protectionist measures in effect to prevent the fish being caught from moving from one province to another.

November 17, 1992
Tributes
I understand what the hon. member is concerned about. She wants naturally to protect the fishermen in her own area. But to get the full answer for the hon. member, I will have to check with the department. She does not need to fear. No one is going to discriminate against Scotia-Fundy. We act equally and fairly with respect to all areas in the fishery.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister speaking for agriculture today. It has to do with the study and possible removal of barley from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Now we know that the minister responsible for grains does not like the Canadian Wheat Board. We also know that he is a great fan of the multinationals which would love to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. But the fact of the matter is that not one major farm organization in Canada supports this kind of move, not the CFA, not Prairie Pools and not even the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board has said this: "This continental barley market is like wanting to be married and single at the same time".


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a very strong case. I would like him to put his question.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, all I want to know is where does this nonsense come from? How would he support this kind of study?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, are in Toronto consulting our provincial colleagues on the future of the Canadian farm industry. They are working very hard on these issues.
I will report the hon. member's comments to my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, and see if they can be useful.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Labour.
For months now, a number of Canadian women have been waiting for the federal government to include the protective reassignment of working women in the Canada Labour Code.
Can the minister describe the progress made towards the protective reassignment of pregnant women in the federal Public Service?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague from Abitibi that the cabinet has in fact approved the bill on that issue, which I intend to table very soon. The bill will bring several amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code, including provisions concerning the reassignment of pregnant women.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for his work on that issue. I am sure women in his riding will vote for him in the next election.


THE LATE PAUL MCRAE
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this privilege this afternoon to be able to make some remarks in memory of a great citizen of northern Ontario, one of our finest citizens and a respected-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen to pay tribute to a former member of this House. I am sure that perhaps some members did not realize the occasion that we are now in. I am sure that for the remainder the hon. member will have the attention of the House.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Thank you Mr. Speaker for intervening on this matter. I would like to rise to make some comments today about a former parliamentarian, Paul McRae, who passed away recently in Ottawa.
Prior to Mr. McRae's election to this House, he served with distinction as an educator in Thunder Bay and retired as a high school principal. I believe Sir Winston Churchill was the school he last was a principal at. He succeeded a very fine parliamentarian in his own right, the late Mr. Hubert Badanai, who served in this House
November 17, 1992

for many years. I think Mr. McRae had a difficult job in succeeding a person of Mr. Badanai's stature from Thunder Bay, but to his credit Paul did his job very well.
He was a very effective parliamentarian, not only for his riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, but he was an effective member for all of northwestern Ontario. He always dealt with great sincerity about the feelings and the viewpoints of the people of the north and considered everyone's concerns in northern Ontario to be his own responsibility.
On a personal note, it was my honour to have known Paul McRae prior to his becoming a member of this House, during the time he was a member of this House and after his membership in this House when he became a valued member of the CRTC here in Ottawa.
The very first call I got from Ottawa after my election some four years ago was a call from Paul asking if he could do anything in any way to assist me in the transition from Thunder Bay to Ottawa.
Through your leadership, Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House would like to join with me and the Liberal Party in offering our sincere sympathy and our condolences to his wife and his family.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I would like to associate myself with the words of my friend, the member for Thunder Bay.
Paul McRae came into this House in 1972 along with many of us. We were class-mates in that sense. He had been a teacher, as has been mentioned, and as the member for Provencher, the so-called first western riding, Thunder Bay was literally in our back door. We were neighbours.
Mr. McRae served very faithfully in this House up until 1984. He served on many committees including transport, national resources and communications. He was parliamentary secretary to a post we had then known as the Postmaster General and more laterally as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He was also appointed to the CRTC.
I take it that one has a slightly different view of a colleague from across the way. Paul McRae was one of those members willing to heed his party's call and if
Tributes
there was a speech to be made Paul was one of those who would make that speech; at least that is the way it appeared to us at all times.
I have described him as a happy warrior. I think that is what he was in this House. He represented his riding well. On behalf of my party, we would like to associate ourselves and express our condolences to the family.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I now represent the constituency Paul McRae represented so well for 12 years; first as the riding of Fort William and then, after redistribution, Thunder Bay- Atikokan.
I knew Paul as a political competitor and we ran against each other for the job that he held on two occasions. I can remember on the night of the 1980 election two of us arrived at CKPR television together literally shaking our heads in amazement because we had come so close, with 84 votes between the two of us, neither of us really knowing who was going to come out the winner that night.
Paul did and he served his constituents and this House very well. As the minister just said, he was very active on committees, particularly transport, because like a lot of us from Thunder Bay he recognized the importance of transportation to our region and its viability.
He was more than just a transport person or parliamentary secretary. He was very active in the Parliamentarians for Global Action. He was very strong in terms of his party for the call to end the cruise missile testing and on a number of occasions Paul did break ranks with the government of the day to let people know how he felt.
In addition to politics I knew Paul in a number of other ways. He was my high school vice-principal and I can remember working with him and the late Bob Cato, arranging dances at the high school. I remember being sent out one day to hire Neil Young and the Squires, now Crosby, Stills, Young and Nash.
I also worked with Paul when he was the principal of Sir Winston Churchill when I was a community development officer working with that neighbourhood to bring in some social change, some social action. I remember being at his house in Vickers Heights one night when he was part of the Lakehead social planning council. I

Tributes
cannot remember what the issue was but Paul was front and centre in that as he was in many other things.
One other memory I have, and it is not mine but from my predecessors in the region, is the fact that Paul McRae once was a CCFer. He ran for the CCF in Rainy River before 1972. I do remember being at the public meeting where Paul indicated that he felt it was time to make a change and he felt he could do more from within, as opposed to being a member of the opposition, and he lived up to that. He worked hard, he worked for the things he believed in, he worked hard for his constituents. I know that in addition to Yvonne, his wife, David, his son, and David's family, all of us in this House and in Thunder Bay will miss Paul.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will not take a long time but I would just like to add one further comment about Paul McRae's work as a parliamentarian.
Some very fine words have been spoken so far to describe his work as a constituency person and someone who was deeply interested in the issues of northern Ontario and of Canada. I would like to talk about my own experience with Paul from the time I began to serve with him in 1979 as someone who was that special breed of parliamentarian who took an interest in the world outside.
He became very active, as the last member of Parliament said, in Parliamentarians for Global Action. He was one of the most knowledgeable and informed members of Parliament on questions of nuclear disarmament, arms control and north-south issues. He put his energy and time and interest, not just in terms of what was happening to his own constituents, but he had a much broader constituency he felt he had to serve and that was people around the world who felt that they were being threatened or victimized. Something that deserves recognition in this House is the fact that even after he left the House and served at the CRTC, I can remember on virtually a weekly basis getting notes from him or articles or comments about various matters dealing with international affairs, particularly his really strong commitment to try to end the scourge of nuclear war in this world.
For that reason I will have a special memory of Paul McRae.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with members of the House in paying tribute to Paul McRae who served in this House for many years. Paul, as you know, was a member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, a member of our northern Ontario caucus for a number of years.
As the hon. member from Winnipeg has just said, Paul liked to be involved in more global issues and issues that went beyond his own constituency. I think we all recognize that and it was especially refreshing because sometimes we do tend to get bogged down in all the nitty-gritty and the problems of our own constituency.
His wife Yvonne was from Manitoulin Island originally in my constituency and Paul actually taught school in Mindemoya. Paul had a great interest in the wide scope of issues of northern Ontario and of the country. When he left the House of Commons he served in the CKTC for a number of years. He always had that ability to put forward an alternative view. He did not always agree with the majority and that was very refreshing in the House of Commons. Some of those in the cabinet on the government side back in those days may not have found it as refreshing, but he had that special ability to look at the alternative view.
I want to join with members of the House in paying tribute to Paul and extending our condolences to his wife Yvonne and to his son David and his family.
Mr. Speaker I do not usually do this, but I knew Paul McRae very well. I have been much affected, as I think members on both sides of the House have been, with the comments that have been made concerning our colleague. I found that Paul McCrae was one of the most idealistic men I ever knew and he had no apologies for it. He was not always easy to get along with, I suppose, because he reminded us of the distinction between right and wrong.
I remember once when the government of the day felt it had to take very strong measures with respect to energy resources and conservation. The then minister was the Hon. Donald Macdonald. I notice my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who, like so many of us, was elected at the same time many years ago, is smiling because he probably remembers this.
November 17, 1992

There was a section in the act which gave Draconian measures to the government with respect to overriding any environmental laws, whether at the municipal or provincial level. I knew that Paul was deeply concerned about that and deeply concerned as to whether it was necessary. He and I worked together. I was a member of the opposition and a brand new member of the House. He arranged a meeting with himself, myself and the Hon. Donald Macdonald and officials. Very quietly he set out the reasons why he felt that particular section of the bill was not necessary. What is more, he pointed out that it went in a bad direction.
The Hon. Donald Macdonald listened. He and his officials discussed the matter further with Paul and myself and in one day the department came back, led by the minister, and said it agreed and would change it.
Sometimes people say that politicians do not make any difference. The right kind of politicians do make a difference.
That is just one story and there are others.
He made a difference and he was our friend and I am deeply conscious of the fact that he made a contribution to Canada which was important and a long way from being ordinary.
I hope his family will accept our condolences and our remarks of respect and affection for a very fine man.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, Canada's seniors need effective and affordable medicines. There are critics who do not want Canada to give the same protection to pharmaceutical patents as every other advanced industrial country.
They are not interested in attracting new investment or creating new jobs in this country. They do not want a strong and innovative pharmaceutical industry to grow on Canadian soil. They have used fear in their campaign against Bill C-91. They have attempted to frighten senior citizens with tales of spiralling drug costs and a collapse of the health care system in this country should the legislation be passed.
I think it is time to put an end to all this fear-monger-ing. Let us look at the facts. First, all pharmaceutical products account for only a small percentage of total health care costs in this country. Second, patented drugs account for less than half the costs of these pharmaceutical products or about 3 per cent of all Canadian health care costs at the retail level. Third, the net effect of the legislation will be to extend patent protection for an average of only about three years. The best estimates currently available suggest that this legislation will have no near-term impact on patented drug costs. Over the longer term, that is by the end of the decade, it is estimated that the additional costs incurred under this new policy will represent about 2 per cent of the value of purchases of prescription and behind-the-counter drugs by pharmacies and hospitals.
Indeed, the cumulative total increased cost of purchases of patented drugs by pharmacies and hospitals due to the elimination of compulsory licensing as a result of Bill C-91 over the next four-year period is estimated to be about $1 per Canadian per year or less than one-twentieth of one per cent of the total health care bill in Canada. That is hardly enough to bring down the Canadian health care system.
.	.	Let us not forget it is the ability to develop new and
The House resumed consideration of the motion of more effective medicines and treatments that is the best Mr. Blais that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, hope for keeping health care costs in line, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, be read the second
time and referred to a legislative committee in the Research has shown that new drug treatments can Departmental envelope.	actually save on over-all health care costs by reducing

Government Orders
the need for far more expensive treatments involving surgery or hospitalization.
Bill C-91 is good for Canada's seniors and it is good for all Canadians. It will keep the cost of patented medicines in line. It will encourage the search for new and more effective medicines. It will attract investment and create jobs in the knowledge-intensive industrial sector.
Bill C-91 is a balanced piece of legislation that will ensure that effective medicines remain available to all Canadians who need them. It therefore deserves the support of the members of this House and a speedy passage through Parliament.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, this government which has now been in power for eight years has reached many lows, but with Bill C-91 that is now before us, this government has reached, yes, yet again, another very, very low in its administration of this country in the last eight years.
Bill C-91 has been worsened by the government moving time allocation, a means of closure. Here we have an important bill that is going to affect our elderly people, our seniors, taxpayers, insurance plans of one kind or another in all the provinces of the country and yet this government has the unmitigated gall, the nerve to move closure after having only a few hours of debate. I consider this a shameful and dastardly act.
This kind of major legislation affects hundreds of thousands of people, especially the elderly and of course all taxpayers in the country, reaching millions of people. I really do not think that this government has the mandate to move this kind of legislation. It simply does not have the mandate. Here is a government that is now beginning its fifth year in office. We have a government that has been down in the polls at 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent for more than two years and yet this government believes, or at least it is pretending to believe, that it has the right and the mandate to bring in and to impose this kind of legislation on Canadians and again imposing it on elderly people, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our country. I say that this government does not have the mandate to bring forward this kind of legislation. If it had any decency whatsoever it would hold back this kind of legislation until after the next election so that the people of Canada could offer some comment.
But, no. This government shows again its arrogance and the fact that it is totally and completely out of touch with the Canadian people. It also shows that these people who constitute the current government will do
anything to satisfy their big business friends, especially their big business friends from the United States. I know dam well that Canadians are not supporting them on this issue. Canadians do not support them.
It is the height of arrogance for the government to bring forward this kind of legislation so late in the day, when it is entering its fifth year. Instead of debating issues of this kind in the House, we should be out on the hustings in the midst of an election campaign.
Let us point out that we have model legislation that goes back over 20 years in this country, going back to the late 1960s. We have, under our compulsory licensing system, perhaps one of the most advanced forms of controlling prices of any country in the world and yet this government is prepared to tear that down.
We know, for example, that if we compare our prices of drugs with prices in the United States that we are enjoying a huge advantage. If you compare prices of brand name drugs in the United States with the prices of brand name drugs in Canada, we are talking savings on this side of the border in excess of 30 per cent. However, if you take into account our generic prices, if you compare brand name prices in the United States with prices of generic drugs in Canada, you are not talking savings on this side of the border of 30 per cent or 40 per cent or 50 per cent. You are now talking savings of 60 per cent. This government is prepared to throw that all away.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Eastman commission in 1983 showed that since the inception of compulsory licensing between the late 1960s and the early 1980s Canadian taxpayers, because of compulsory licensing, saved well over $200 million. We are not talking 1990s prices, we are talking 1960s prices and 1970s prices. Canadians saved well over $200 million. We are talking in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a billion dollars. That is what this government wants to throw away. I do not think Canadians want that thrown away at all, but this government does.
For a government to bring in this kind of legislation it has to have some credibility because it is taking a major step. People have to believe that the government is doing the right thing. The people of Canada will only believe if the government has some kind of track record. Sadly, this government has a terrible track record when it comes to keeping promises. It has talked for eight years about just getting government out of the way, leaving it to the big boys, leaving it to the marketplace. Out of that process, out of that neo-conservative economics, the
November 17, 1992

Government Orders
goods would just flow down on us from heaven. Some people refer to it as the trickle down theory.
Well, it has not worked. We have gone from bad to worse. The trickle down theory does not work. Neo-conservatism does not work. We have looked at Thatcherism in England and it is wanting. We have looked at the United States and what has happened under Reagan. Look what happened under Bush. It went from bad to worse. The United States of America went from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation in a mere eight years of Reaganomics.
Yet, this is what the government is saying. Despite all the woes and despite all the failures of neo-conservative economics, we want more. Just get the government out of the road and leave it to the big boys, in this case to those big pharmaceutical companies. Happy days are going to be here again. We know that is not the truth. That is a crock.
The government said some time ago that it was not going to cost a lot of extra money. After all, we were going to get some new research and new development and we would get jobs and any little increase in the prices of drugs would be offset by this renewed economic activity, especially in the province of Quebec. The cost was going to be about $29 million or something like that. Just yesterday we got an estimate from The New York Times that the cost is not going to be $29 million; it is going to be in the neighbourhood of $500 million.
The headline in The Globe and Mail states: "Drug law cost set in the billions". Here is the headline from The Ottawa Citizen of today: "A bitter pill. Drug bill will cost Canadians an extra $550 million by the year 2000". Can you imagine? Yet, we are supposed to swallow this pill because it is good for the friends of the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada.
There is a higher calling than the Conservative Party of Canada. That higher calling is the country and the people of Canada and they do not want this Bill C-91 because they do not want to pay higher drug costs, which is exactly what is going to happen if Bill C-91 is passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would like to point out that no applause is allowed from the gallery.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Domestic Worker Program; the hon. member for St. Boniface-Unemployment; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-Softwood Lumber; the hon. member for Burin-St. George's-Westray Coal Mine; and the hon. member for York West-Drug abuse.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today on second reading of Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act.
The government tabled its bill in the House on June 23, and on September 17, a little over two months ago, the debate started on second reading. It is now time to continue the process of adopting this important bill and give our country legislation that is in line with the latest patent legislation for pharmaceutical products and reflects the most advanced provisions in this field.
Today I simply want to give an overview of a bill with which hon. members are already familiar. There are certain basic questions I will try to answer: What kind of amendments are we proposing to the Patent Act? What will be the fundamental advantages of this new legislation? Will the Canadian public also benefit as a result of these amendments? How will these amendments put us in a better position to meet current challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, on Canadian and global markets?
Reasons for reinforcing the Patent Act include promoting investment in an advanced technology industry and making Canada more competitive on the international scene in a sector where competition is intense.

November 17, 1992
Government Orders
By eliminating compulsory licensing, Canada will bring its patent system more in line with that of its main trading partners. From now on, patent holders will be guaranteed exclusive protection on the market until the patent expires, in other words, for a period of 20 years. This is the same period granted patent holders in all other economic sectors.
The proposed legislation will encourage Canadians to develop new drugs in Canada, with the added benefit of reducing health care costs in the long term. I may recall that innovators, universities and research institutes have discovered or developed several new drugs in this country, including treatments for cancer, Parkinson's disease and diabetes.
Last year, the innovative sector in the pharmaceutical industry spent $84 million on research in universities and hospitals. In a region like the riding I represent, for instance, the presence of a university is a major economic factor. Universities contribute to the intellectual, social and economic development of a region.
Since 1987, the last time the government improved patent protection for brand-name drugs, the industry, which has already nearly 18,000 employees, created 2,400 new and highly specialized jobs for Canadian scientists and researchers.
In 1987, the innovative sector promised to double its R and D-sales ratio by 1996 if the government reinforced patent protection. By 1991, the industry had practically reached that objective, five years ahead of schedule, and also announced that it would make additional investments.
Since the government announced last January that it would eliminate compulsory licensing, innovative companies indicated their intention of investing an additional $500 million in this country; $90 million worth of additional projects were announced, to be directed to the regions away from central Canada between 1992 and 1996.
In Canada, more than 26 per cent of research and development consists of basic research on pharmaceutical products. This percentage represents a ratio comparable with the situation in other industrialized countries. Between 1987 and 1991, the innovative sector spent
about $1.1 billion on research and development. Between 1988 and 1991, investment in basic research rose from $30.3 million to $94.2 million.
On June 19, 1992, Statistics Canada announced that between 1988 and 1992, the pharmaceutical industry recorded the highest growth rate-113 per cent-of all Canadian industries for R and D spending.
Major international innovators have already decided to grant new exclusive contracts to their Canadian plants. New spending on research and development, new scientific and technical jobs, spin-offs for other sectors and increased export sales are many factors that can be expected to improve Canada's competitive position on the international scene.
With the elimination of compulsory licensing, costs of purchases by pharmacies and hospitals of prescription and behind-the-counter drugs should not increase during the first year. Future increases should not exceed 2 per cent of purchase costs by the year 2000. On the other hand, we must stress this point. The increase in research leading to the development of new and more effective drugs could very well reduce health care costs in Canada, if they are combined with better management practices. The federal and provincial health departments have agreed on this issue and they are committed to working together toward that goal.
The generic drug industry, which employs some 2,300 people in Canada, will have to put up with a waiting period of about three years. But under the licences issued before December 20, 1991, generic drug companies will be allowed to carry on their activities and market their products. They will also be allowed to start developing a product before the patent expires. This will reduce the delay in introducing these products on the market. In proceeding in this fashion, the government creates a climate for generic drug companies similar to the one that exists in the other industrialized countries.
Bill C-91 also gives new powers to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which was set up in 1987. The objective is to enable the board to make sure that the prices of new and existing patented drugs are not excessive.

These new powers will enable the board to influence more effectively the entry level pricing of new patented drugs. They will allow the board to order lower prices or to impose fines to compensate for previous prices deemed too high, thus deterring companies from abusive pricing. Finally, these new powers will give the orders issued by the board the same authority that a Federal Court order has. It must be said that since it was created, the board has been successful in keeping increases in the prices of patented drugs below the increases in the Consumer Price Index.
In proposing these amendments to the Patent Act, the Government of Canada is making its legislation match that of the other countries, which is a good thing. It promotes investments in our country and encourages companies to increase their R & D activities. It also creates new jobs for scientists and technicians, while ensuring that all Canadians can obtain at reasonable prices the patented drugs they need.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous legislation for two reasons. First, it furthers the attack, which was mentioned earlier, coming from a neo-conservative ideology on the Canadian structure of social support and social justice at the behest of foreign, alien standards for community economic and social conduct. This is the response to the free trade agreement and NAFTA. Second, it is an attack on democracy.
I expected to be able to speak for 20 minutes, but I cannot because this government once more has abused democracy.
This is contentious legislation. We are going to hear statistics bandied about in these chambers that are in complete contradiction of one another. For no other reason than that, this government should not have imposed limits on this debate.
We also know that this government is not only going to limit debate in this Chamber, it is going to make sure that nobody will have an adequate chance to know what it is doing and therefore will not have an adequate chance to have their voices heard.
This is about the abandonment of compulsory licensing. Very briefly we ought to say what that is all about. Compulsory licensing was introduced in 1969 at a time when Canadian drug prices were the highest in the
Government Orders
world. It was said that patented drugs must be licensed for manufacture by generic companies, but not for nothing.
This government would have you believe that the generic companies were stealing the drugs, but in fact, just as a singer or a musician or a composer is paid royalties on their intellectual property, so are the patented drug manufacturers paid a royalty on those drugs. They profited by virtue of the existence of generics to a significant degree, just as Canadians profited by having an arrangement that ensured that our health care in this country would be affordable.
That is one thing the Americans do not have and it is one thing the Americans do not want us to have. The next step will not be another Bill C-22 or Bill C-91, it will be to eliminate any provisions that would limit the price of drugs. Perhaps when they have us hooked to another free trade deal, we will ban medicare altogether.
When Bill C-22 was introduced in 1987 we were told that there would be vast increases in research investment; that there would be vast increases in the number of jobs and that drug prices would not go up.
What happened? We are going to hear the government people saying that the amount of money or the percentage of sales devoted to research and development by members of the PMAC went from about 5 per cent to a little over 9.5 per cent in the interval, between 1987 and now.
Nobody mentions the fact that between 1980 and 1983, the percentage of sales invested in R and D doubled. It doubled without Bill C-22, it also doubled without Bill C-91.
Nobody on that side mentions that after 1985, in preparation for the introduction of Bill C-22, the drug companies managed to diminish the proportion of their sales invested in research to the lowest level in this decade in order to say afterward that they had increased their investments in R and D.
The patent and drug manufacturers do not put as much into research as do the generic manufacturers and
9.7	per cent of sales is a long way from the 16 per cent of sales which is invested in R and D in the United States. The amount that goes into basic research in Canada is still on a percentage basis only half what goes in down in the United States. The R and D that goes on in Canada is in the vast majority still clinical testing.

November 17, 1992
Government Orders
We do not have and are unlikely to have a patent drug industry that puts huge amounts of money into research and development so that management, research and development, production and sales are centred in Canada.
They told us that they were going to increase the number of scientific and highly-trained technical jobs by
3,000.	Here one finds oneself immersed in a morass of statistics. According to the drug companies' statistics, 1,386 new jobs were produced. Two-thirds of those jobs were in administration and in sales. What is irreconcilable with that is the evidence gleaned from other sources which indicates that 850 production jobs were lost in the drug industry in which we are supposed to have 3,000 new jobs for scientists and technicians. It did not happen.
With respect to the promise that the prices of drugs would not go up, well, we know the evidence. We know that 40 per cent of new drugs were beyond the guidelines imposed by the Canadian Drug Prices Review Board. We know that the prices of drugs, after the passage of Bill C-22, exceeded the average increase in the CPI by over 2 per cent, 6.2 per cent as compared to 4.4 per cent for CPI.
We know from statistics prepared in Ontario and British Columbia by Green Shield that there have been massive increases in the price of drugs.
I should add this additional little piece of information. The industry promised that it would increase the amount of research investment in R and D by $1.4 billion over the level expected by the trend lines without Bill C-22, if you can understand what I am saying.
They have come nowhere near that, but what we have to understand is that the drug companies, even if they had put in that so-called $1.4 billion, would have spent nowhere near that amount. Something that has not been pointed out in this Chamber before is that in the province of Quebec, for every dollar the drug companies brag about putting into R and D, they in fact only invest 30 cents. Seventy cents of that dollar came from the Quebec government or the federal government.
In fact, anywhere in the United States the drug companies have to put 65 per cent of that dollar in.
Nowhere in Canada do the drug companies have to put any more than half what they claim to put into R and D.
Now we have Bill C-91. Bill C-91 will eliminate compulsory licensing. It will provide the benefits of complete patent protection for 20 years for companies that do not even work their patent in Canada, that do nothing with respect to all those promises in Canada.
Furthermore, it is retroactive. It requires no production of fine chemicals in Canada. It is not good. Members sit over there and tell us that it is not going to cost Canadians any more for drugs. The government's own spokespersons say that by the turn of the century the budget for drugs in this country will be increased by $550 million per year.
Other statistics indicate that almost as soon as this legislation is passed, the cost to this nation for these patented drugs will increase by $500 million, and by the turn of the century, $1 billion more will be spent for drugs because of this bill than is being spent now.
This is offensive legislation introduced by a government that has offended the whole country. It should be withdrawn. If there are any Conservatives who give a damn about Canadians, they should stand up and say: "No more. This country has had enough of the wreckage that this government has imposed on Canada and Canadians, and on what Canada stands for". This bill should be defeated by true Canadians.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member opposite and other hon. members speaking with such great disrespect about this bill.
I am quite pleased and proud, frankly, to rise in support of this bill and to say, among other things, this is not just a bill about patent protection and about pharmaceuticals. It is a bill about economic development and I will get to that in a moment.
We have been focusing in detail on the provisions of Bill C-91 and it has been a useful and a necessary exercise. This is complex legislation, as it must be, to achieve the balance we need. It is also very important as we do so that we do not lose sight of some of the basic aims and principles which underlie this legislation. I would like to touch on these now.
November 17, 1992

First of all, we want to strengthen patent protection for brand name pharmaceutical products. We want to eliminate compulsory licensing and we will be the last major industrial country to do so. We want to provide controls in pricing of both new and existing patented drug products. We want to introduce the principle of innovation and discovery and to demonstrate that it will bring value both in terms of costs and cures and in terms of medical treatment more assuredly than any protection process.
I would like to quote Dr. David Stewart. I am sure this is probably repetitious, but it bears repetition. He says:
Brand name companies develop new medications at tremendous expense. It now takes between $100-$250 million to develop a new drug and bring it to market. For every drug that is successfully marketed, there are large numbers of others that prove unworthy of further interest part way through their development.
The new drugs that do make it to market save lives and alleviate suffering. In the process of doing this, they can save society and individuals very large amounts of money-they are highly cost effective.
They bring into the realm of knowledge products that otherwise would not ever have been available. This debate is about innovation and its relationship to Canada's future. It is also about the special importance of new knowledge and new understanding in a particular field, modem health and medicine. Where pharmaceutical research is concerned, humanity simply does not have the option of staying put.
Scientific exploration has allowed us to defeat many diseases and to alleviate much suffering which has burdened past generations, but many deadly scourges such as cancer, AIDS and so on remain unconquered and present tremendous challenges to us to conquer.
My family in recent months has had experience with heart disease. It has been very surprising and gratifying to me to realize that just in recent years there have been advances in drug technology that, if the patient can get to the hospital in time, frankly save lives which otherwise would not have been possible. As Dr. Richard Gallop,
Government Orders
executive director of the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation said:
While we are concerned about the question of the cost of drugs, we nevertheless recognize that considerable savings have been achieved in the cardiac area, in recent years, because of the break-through in drug technology. This has resulted in a substantial lowering of death and disability from heart disease and stroke.
I can speak with firsthand family experience that that is so. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to encourage this work of discovery.
The fact is that strong, innovative pharmaceutical industries do not grow full-fledged out of the ground. They rise from the ground up, one laboratory after another, until clusters form and eventually a strong sector emerges.
Between 1988 and 1991 basic pharmaceutical research, and let me underline basic research, has more than tripled; from about $30.2 million to $94.2 million. Today the innovative pharmaceutical sector leads all others in the funding of medical research.
There is another basic principle involved here and it is that protection for the innovator and the developer is consistent with consumer interest in knowledge-based industries. What does the record show? Five years ago the opposition predicted that increased protection of patents through Bill C-22 would produce an explosive increase in the price of drugs. It did not happen. Over those five years, according to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the average rate of increase in the price of patented drugs was less than 3 per cent a year. That was lower than the rate of inflation for the basket of goods and services covered by the Consumer Price Index and lower than the rate of inflation.
This debate is also about staying in step with the times. It is about adapting our policies and our laws to match changing needs and priorities. This applies with particular force to the matter of compulsory licensing. Members on the other side have sought to move this argument back 30 years and to base their arguments on the priorities and challenges of that period.
In the late 1960s there was legitimate concern about the lack of competition in Canada's pharmaceutical industry. Compulsory licensing was introduced at that time to make it possible for a generic industry to get started in Canada. It was like planting and nursing a new tree. Compulsory licensing was needed to support the industry in its early growth. That was close to a quarter of a century ago and today we have an established generic industry in Canada and it is a strong industry.
Our innovative patented medicine industry is also well established and growing. It employs 18,000 people now

Government Orders
while the generic industry employs 2,600 people. What is significant is that in the five years since 1987 when Bill C-22 was introduced, the patented medicine industry has grown by 2,400 jobs or as much as the total generic industry as it exists today.
Study after study has come to the same conclusion: Our economic future depends on innovation and the encouragement of innovation. As the steering group on prosperity says: "We need to invent our future". To do that we have to think long term. We have to put in place the foundations for sustained growth and prosperity.
A debate about patented drugs today really is about the economy. Bill C-91 is a positive and powerful thrust pointing toward economic growth and it is one that we should all be supporting. This legislation will help us to build a strong, new sector of innovation into the Canadian economy. It will contribute to our competitiveness, it will contribute to jobs, to opportunity and to the improvement of our standards of living.
Throughout the world, pharmaceutical companies are investing huge amounts in research and development. In today's global market that money can go anywhere. By making the climate friendlier to innovation, we can ensure that much of it comes right here to Canada.
We need to move forward decisively on the economy and we need to move forward decisively on Bill C-91. For those reasons and for its great contribution to our medical research and our scientific knowledge, I urge the early passage of this bill with the support of all members of this House.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today. However, it is not pleasing to look at Bill C-91, combined with Bill C-22, which is leading us down the path of higher drug prices. It is very unfortunate for the Canadian consumer and the Canadian senior citizen on a fixed income is going to lose more dollars out of their pockets.
The issue of patent protection for prescription drugs is quite old, dating back to the 1960s. In 1967 the member for Vancouver Quadra, then the Liberal minister of consumer affairs, brought in a system of compulsory licensing to protect the Canadian consumer. That system remained in effect for 20 years. During that period people like senior citizens benefited from the development of the generic drug industry that lowered the cost of many medications.
The system was fair. It helped consumers through lower prices, it allowed generic manufacturers to grow and employ over 2,500 Canadians and it still allowed the multinational drug companies to thrive in terms of market share and profitability.
Like the old saying goes, all good things come to an end. The balance system ended in 1987 when the Conservatives forced through Bill C-22. Do not worry, the government said, it will not hurt a bit; we will create lots of new research and development jobs for our young Canadian scientists. Sadly, this is just another Tory promise to be broken.
Let us look at the cost of prescription drugs. The Conservatives promised that the price increases for drugs would not exceed the rate of inflation. The government set up the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board to review and enforce the regulations and price increases. However, the government's performance in this area was very poor.
The review board is just a toothless tiger, unable to force the multinationals to follow the rules. In its fourth report to Parliament the chairman of the review board said, and I quote: "The high number of prices out of compliance (that is breaking the rules) suggests either that some patentees follow a strategy of setting high introductory drug prices so as to benefit from the temporary gain, or that they resist the board's guidelines".
The government's hand-picked chairman is admitting that the major drug companies are either deliberately gouging Canadian consumers or they are deliberately ignoring the rules completely.
In August of this year the NDP government of Bob Rae made drastic cuts to the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan. The cost of running the program had increased an average of 18 per cent over the last 10 years, so the NDP dropped the knife. I wonder if Bob Rae has figured out how a senior scraping by on a fixed income is going to come up with the extra dollars to pay for drugs that are not covered by the drug plan.
They could buy extended health insurance to cover the cost of prescription drugs. Green Shield, one of the largest operators of drug plans, prepared a report for its clients explaining why its premiums have been increasing so much. In its report Green Shield said: "The average cost of a prescription claim has risen at a rate in excess of
November 17, 1992

11 per cent compounded annually for the period 1987 through 1991, well above the CPI rate".
That is not all the company report had to say. According to Green Shield the average cost per claim for new drugs introduced between 1988 and 1991 was more than double the average for drugs introduced before 1988. The key question through all of this is who is going to pay. Why are drug prices going through the roof and what can seniors and the general public expect in the future? For this question the president and CEO of Green Shield had to say: "It is reasonable to suggest that any further extensions to patent life will result in continued high level of increase in drug costs".
During the debate on Bill C-22 seniors groups and consumer advocates told the government that prices would increase if patent protection was extended. Now we have proof that the government did not know what it was getting into. Instead of admitting that Bill C-22 was one more of its mistakes, the government is pushing ahead with extending patent protection even further. The government is turning its back on the seniors and is walking down the garden path to higher drug prices.
The promise the government made in 1987 has not been fulfilled. While spending for research and development has increased, much of it has gone toward clinical testing of drugs and not for the leading-edge research for new beneficial medications. Despite promises of new jobs, the multinational drug companies have actually cut back on staff.
I think it is quite unfortunate when the chairperson of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in its report to Parliament indicated that drug prices have increased not below the rate of inflation, but well above the rate of inflation. For example, Green Shield increased by 11.4 per cent, Ontario Drug Benefit Plan by 13.2 per cent and Manitoba health insurance by 12.3 per cent. He also indicated that drug companies are totally ignoring the rules they agreed to five years ago. Unfortunately, there is no way to force them to follow the rules.
The people who are really getting walloped in this situation are the people on fixed income, the seniors of this country. One might say that seniors are only 11 per cent of the population, but they consume about 40 per cent of the drugs. What we are doing is taking and taking
Government Orders
from the senior citizens. They have no recourse. We tell them to buy more medical plans. The medical plans are going up in price. They are caught. Most likely some of the seniors unfortunately, the people who have made this nation what it is for you and me, are possibly caught in the situation that they cannot pay for the drug plan and when it comes time to get the drug, they just have to do without.
I call on the government to show some compassion, look at Bill C-91, think of the Canadian people and withdraw this legislation.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to participating in this debate to correct some of the misinformation the previous speaker has just put on the record.
I will just mention a couple of figures that come to mind for example. He talked about an 11 per cent increase according to the Green Shield plan in drug prices. What he failed to mention was that includes all drugs, patented and non-patented. What he failed to mention is that patented drugs, which is what Bill C-91 deals with, represent 20 to 25 per cent of the total drugs. He fails to mention that prices for patented drugs over the last four years have increased less than the rate of inflation, less than the CPI, that the increases he is talking about are for the non-patented drugs which are not affected in any way, shape or form.
The concern about price rises in non-patented drugs lies totally within provincial jurisdiction. If the hon. member truly wanted to contribute to the understanding of Canadians, he would not confuse the two in the way he has done.
He talked about the increase in cost to the drug plan of the province of Ontario, for example. He fails to mention that is the total drugs prescribed within that plan including non-patented as well as patented.
He failed to take into account the number of people and the number of prescriptions. He failed to mention, as he could have, that the average senior citizen gets some 26 prescriptions per year in this country. There are many, many duplicates. Go into the medicine chests of a lot of senior citizens and you will see a lot of prescrip-

Government Orders
tions. Because of their age they do not feel well, they see doctor, and they get prescriptions.
The mere expedient of having a central registry so that physicians or pharmacists could check to see whether in fact this is duplication would save millions. In fact, reducing by one prescription per senior citizen would save more money than even the worst assumption in terms of what Bill C-91 would take into account. It is that kind of misinformation that makes it very difficult for the public to understand.
Figure three in the March 19, 1992 report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board shows very clearly in pictorial form since the introduction of Bill C-22 the prices of patented medicines-not all medicines, just patented because that is the only thing affected by this bill-rose less than the cost of inflation. In constant terms in fact the prices went down. They went down. That cannot be denied. It is incredible to me that that simple fact shown visually is ignored or distorted by opponents to this bill.
Look at the principle involved. The principle is very simple. It is a long-established principle. Creators have a right to exploit their creations. In terms of inventions the convention around the world is 17 to 20 years of exclusive right to market, to sell, to produce that which you invent and get the rewards for it. It is an absolutely essential ingredient in terms of promoting research, invention, creation.
Let me give an analogy. One of the significant costs of education is in textbooks, books for libraries, books for students. Those books are all copyrighted. The authors and the publishers have a copyright. You cannot duplicate the books. It is against the law. Why do we not save the education system money by having compulsory licensing of textbooks so that we could have generic copies? If there is a good book written, rather than paying the full price, we would allow somebody to produce a generic copy for the benefit of students and educational institutions. It would save hundreds of millions of dollars.
Who would support that in this House? Nobody. That is an affront to the author. It is an affront to the creative
skills of the author. We recognize that the author has the right to-


Robert Evans Skelly: Bring in the bill.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member from the New Democratic Party says bring in the bill. He would have generic copies of textbooks. That is an interesting policy. Maybe the NDP would like to propose that we should have a debate on that.
The reality is that in all modem societies we recognize something called intellectual property. If you create the product of your mind, just as the product of your hands is yours, it is immoral for governments to come along and say that the product of your mind belongs to the common good because what that does is it turns off minds.
In terms of the pharmaceutical industry what we had prior to Bill C-22 was the situation where it simply did not make sense to do research in Canada because you spent $150 million to $200 million to develop a new drug. You spend that money, you create a new drug. If it has any market at all, it is because it helps people with their illnesses. And then you say: "But you, the creator, do not have the exclusive right to enjoy the fruits of invention; somebody else will enjoy them".
Then what happens is that there is not much research in Canada. Indeed, prior to 1987 pharmaceutical companies operating in Canada spent about 6 per cent of their total sales on research versus a world average of 10, 11 or 12 per cent, in that order. We had about half the research.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Where is it? Tell us where.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member from Kingston should listen rather than heckle from his seat.
What has happened now is that the pharmaceutical industry said to us in 1987 that if we passed Bill C-22 it would raise the level of R and D in Canada to international levels by 1996, 10 per cent by 1996. Well, what happened in 1991? It was 9.7 per cent. This year it has already exceeded what had been committed to by 1996. Why? Because once you provide some protection for the fruits of research you get research. Lo and behold, Canadian universities and medical establishments, Canadian laboratories have shown that they are very good. We
November 17, 1992

have some excellent people. Given the opportunity to pursue research and the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of that research, Canadians have responded.
The November 10 issue of The Globe and Mail on the report on health and pharmaceuticals says: "Robust industry defies sick economy". There are several pages about how robust the pharmaceutical industry is in Canada as a result of Bill C-22. What do we have? We have investments in research and development near international levels finally. We have a robust industry employing people and growing.
I will never forget the young man who stopped me on a street in Montreal and said: "Thank you, Mr. Andre. I have been working in California since graduating with my Ph.D. in biochemistry. As a result of Bill C-221 have been able to come back to Canada and work in my home country doing research and development". The member from the New Democratic Party over there chuckles about this. He thinks it is pretty funny that we provide an environment for Canadian scientists to work in Canada.
What was said about Bill C-22? Let me read you some quotes on Bill C-22, one by the now NDP leader, but not then: "Estimates suggest that it will double or even triple the cost of prescription drugs in the country". What happened? They actually went down in real terms. I think it was the member for Essex-Windsor: "The bill will bring Canada dramatically higher drug prices and very little research". Wrong on both counts. More research, lower prices. What did the then leader of the Liberal Party say? "Consumers could wind up paying billions more under C-22." Wrong, dead wrong.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Where are the facts on this? Who says so?


Harvie Andre: The facts say so. The hon. member from Kingston can read. He should read the report and look at the chart.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It went up 4 per cent a year.


Harvie Andre: And inflation was more than that. The hon. member should know.
There was Ed Broadbent who said that already prices for drugs were going up four times the rate of inflation. Then there was that great journalist, Don McGillivray, who said: "The policy will not cause prices to rise, said
Government Orders
Harvie Andre. He must have been talking for the benefit of the people who believe in the tooth fairy".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. Time is running out and I invite the hon. speaker to conclude.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by reading a quote from an article in The Ottawa Citizen of October 6 because I think it explains why we are doing it: "Canada risks becoming a mere bystander in the global race for new drugs and treatments unless the government passes its controversial drug patent law, a group of researchers warned Monday. The real losers are going to be Canadians in need of innovative medical treatment, said Dr. Howard Dickson, chairman of the Coalition for Biomedical and Health Research and associate dean of research at Dalhousie University's faculty of medicine". It goes on to say: "The coalition is urging the passage of C-91".
The reality is that the scientists of this country want us to pass this bill because it is right. Those who understand what research and intellectual property is about want us to pass it because it is right. Those who look fairly at the success of Bill C-22 recognize that this is a move in the right direction that will produce more research, better drugs for Canadians, more jobs for Canadians, and in fact is the kind of legislation that any intelligent government would pass.
That is why I am pleased to support it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-91. I want to address three issues: compulsory licensing, research and development in jobs and the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. First of all, I want to assure my hon. colleagues that I have in fact looked at the research and I am going to try to make a case which I think is fair.
We have to understand that compulsory licensing was brought in because the prices of pharmaceuticals in Canada were really much higher than in most countries of the world. Because it was difficult to try to make these medications available to our population, there was a different way to do it. In fact it was the right hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who amended the Patent Act so that holders of drug patents no longer had a monopoly on the production and the bill established, as I was indicating, a system of compulsory licensing whereby generic drug companies could produce a patent drug

Government Orders
by receiving the compulsory licence and paying the licence holder a royalty fee.
That was a step forward because this practice increased competition in the industry and lowered the aggregate price of drugs sold in Canada. It also had the effect of helping keep medicare and health costs stable. That has been demonstrated in a number of studies.
I want to point out a couple of studies that have dealt with that. For example, the report of the inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry, the Eastman report, stated that by 1983 the multinationals had lost only 3.1 per cent of the Canadian market to generic competition and the profit levels of the multinational companies in Canada were higher than in most well developed countries of the world.
It goes to show that in spite of these changes, that permitted keeping the cost down and therefore gave more access to Canadians generally and it did not have a large a large debilitating effect on the patent drug industry.
At the same time, the system of compulsory licensing brought the price of drugs in Canada under control. Here is where Eastman reports again. The system of compulsory licensing in Canada saved Canadian consumers $211 million.
It has also created a generic drug industry that employs over 2,500 people and does business in excess of $400 million. That is in comparison to multinationals which employ about 17,000 people and have a business of $4 billion, which is significantly larger.
I think most people would agree that in 1984 Canada was well served by a policy of compulsory licensing and medical drug patents. Why is it that the government decided to offer more protection? Why did it offer a monopoly if you wish to the multinationals? Why, when it was working perfectly well?
Since the passage of that infamous bill in 1987, Bill C-22, Canadians have become clearly aware that the board's methodology in terms of looking at prices is flawed. The Patent Medicine Prices Review Board only monitors the price of old drugs already on the market. It does very little to address the issue of new products coming on the market.
I want to quote that the real increase in the cost of drugs on the market has risen well over the rate of
inflation. I want to point out as well that the following Canadian insurance plans have reported substantial increases in the prices of drugs since 1987: The Ontario government drug plan reports a 13.2 per cent increase; the Green Shield health insurance company reports an
11.4	per cent increase; the Manitoba health insurance plan has reported a 12.3 per cent increase. Now the government wants to offer less protection to consumers.
The fourth annual report of the PMPRB, which is a government board, ending December 31, 1991, admits that new drugs on the market have risen substantially since 1987. I want to quote from that report. "Even though price increases on existing drugs have been below inflation, the cost to consumers, third party insurers, and provincial drug plans have increased at a faster rate, chiefly because of the substitution of new drugs for those previously prescribed."
I could go on. I shall quote another study. It is a study prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology entitled The Impact of Pharmaceutical Company-sponsored Basic Research at Canadian Universities. The report states: "In addressing the kinds of research and the amount that has taken place, Canadian medical schools have found that Bill C-22 has had a minimal impact on basic research and development in Canada".
This Bill C-22 that in essence destroyed compulsory licensing not only contributed to the increase in cost for medication, much of this medication going to seniors obviously and those people who are ill more than the average population, but contributed very little to research and development in this country.
This government board, the PMPRB, report said: "In relationship to the amount of activity in research and development, the location of significant research in the pharmaceutical industry is principally determined by the location of the parent firm's headquarters". There is proof that this bill is not going to do anything to generate significant additional research.
Further, in an OECD report entitled Multinational Enterprise: Governments and Technology the pharmaceutical industry states that whenever governments have tried to encourage pharmaceutical innovation in countries where it only exists at low levels-such as the case in Canada-the results have been disappointing.
November 17, 1992

What proof do we need that this is not the right type of legislation? A report from the department of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who introduced this bill shows that there has been limited job gain, little growth in basic research and almost no capacity to produce the active ingredients of drugs in Canada.
There had been a prediction in 1987 by the government that 3,000 jobs would be created by 1996. Another study concludes that only 1,386 jobs were created between 1987 and 1990, and nearly half of those were in marketing and sales. Only a third was in research and development, the area that the government had targeted for job creation.
You could look even further at those in research and development and realize that those that were taking place were not the kinds of jobs that we wanted primarily, although they were important jobs.
We opposed the last government intervention in this sector. We continue to oppose it because we believe that there is absolutely and totally inadequate proof that this is good for Canada, that this is good for Canadians and particularly for those Canadians who will need most assistance.

When I talk about Canadians who will need assistance with drugs and medicine, I am of course referring mainly to seniors. Except in rare cases, the need for medical attention tends to increase as we grow older. I suggest it is unfortunate that legislation such as this be allowed to cause hardship to the elderly.
There are those who are sick often, sometimes over the course of several years, and who will require medicine during most of their lives. Costs are already prohibitive. We suggest, and there is evidence to back this up, that they will only go higher with this legislation. I find it is absolutely irresponsible on the part of this government to go ahead with this.
I want to stress once more the fact that there is no adequate proof whatsoever to the effect that this bill will generate as many new jobs as government members claimed it will. Even if that many jobs were created, it would not be in the area they targeted, i.e. primarily research and development.
Government Orders
Why then has government decided to go ahead? [English]
I want to finish by stressing strongly that Bill C-91 will have very similar effects to the last bill, C-22. It will not, if it passes, create the number of jobs in the areas that it was indicated it would and it will not hold the cost down.
We have a number of really incredible studies which show that actually the contrary will occur. Therefore, with that kind of evidence and that kind of proof, I have no choice but to say no to Bill C-91 for those Canadians who will need medication and in particular the seniors and those who have need of medication because of their medical condition.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to say a few words on this bill.
Patent protection is something that is easy to attack but it is a very fundamental principle. In fact, when you read the history of the western world, it was only when we got into patent protection that gives to somebody who creates something new an exclusive period to use it and to profit from it that all sorts of people spent time and effort in writing books and developing products because of that patent protection. It led to an enormous creative energy that swept across the western world. We are benefiting from that today.
In the sixties the price of drugs started to go up. There is no doubt about that and governments around the world reacted in different ways. Virtually every other country in the world that acted at all acted in terms of a prices review board. But Canada did not act that way. The then government, which was a Liberal government, decided that it would abolish patent protection. In a way it seemed like a weird choice but that is in effect what it did. It immediately had an impact. It meant that there was less and less research being done in Canada, and why not?
If you were a scientist or were employing scientists and you wanted to develop a drug, would you put that money in Canada where you have a very limited protection? Or would you put it in Germany or Switzerland or Britain or France or the United States or any other number of countries in the world where you could get the patent protection for the period?

Government Orders
Of course you would put your money elsewhere and that is what started to happen. Just recently, we were faced with the loss of Connaught Laboratories Limited to a French company. That was an outflow of decisions that were taken years before because that is what we all learn as members. It takes many years for these things to come to fruition.
The company that developed insulin did so in this country. Had we kept the patent protection, we should have continued to be at the cutting edge. We lost out on Connaught Laboratories Limited and it is now owned by a French company.
In 1984 we proposed a remedy. It was Bill C-22. It was an enormous battle. The two opposition parties fought it tooth and nail. We stuck together as a caucus and got it through. As a result, even though it is just a short period of time, there are 2,400 people working that would not otherwise be working. One billion dollars has been spent on research and development since 1987. Once this bill goes through, we will have another $900 million of projects that are actually on the books and ready to move. We will have $84 million in research going to universities.
The point I want to make is that that bill was dramatically opposed by the opposition. We pushed it through and there are jobs. Those jobs would not have been created in the absence of it. Have any generic companies gone out of business? Not one. They are all here. Indeed, when you look at the generics, they have actually gone and made investments in the United States. If the generics are not being hurt and the prices of patented drugs have gone up by less than inflation then who is hurt? Nobody is hurt. We have 2,400 people working and we have over $1 billion in research.
A second bill that came along dealt with copyright. That too was opposed by both opposition parties but with less vigour. It went through. Again the principle is that if somebody writes something or creates something, they should be able to get some benefit from that for a period of exclusivity.
The third bill that came along was for microchip technology. We have 25 companies that build these microchips. They needed to have patent protection for the topography. This is how these microchips are designed. As you know, they are simply layers of silicone.
The people that design these are really like people that design apartments, figuring out how the water pipes go and the electrical pipes cords are put up and all that type of stuff.
By the time we got around to that bill, both opposition parties voted for it because they finally realized, I hope, that patent protection is good. On this bill they do not. I think it is really flowing out of their inability to stand up to Canadians and say the right thing. It is easy to oppose. It is an attractive thing to go out to seniors. There is no doubt that some of the stuff that has come from seniors shows that they have had the fear of God put in them because of some data that have come to them. Whether it is from the opposition parties or whether it is from the generic firms, it is out there and it is real.
The hard thing to do is to make a decision that is right for the country. Do we as a western country want to give up that historic patent protection that led to all sorts of creative ideas around the world? I do not think anyone would want to do that. It might appear attractive in the short term but it will sure hurt this country in the long term. Do we want our young kids in university to do the research to develop tire drugs? We are going to buy them. There is no doubt if a drug comes in and is designed in the United States, Germany or Switzerland and will help on cancer, our people will spend every cent they have. Do we do the research here and have our own people with all the multiplier effects or do we buy it from abroad?
I believe we should be doing it here. That is how this bill is designed. We have all the protections of the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, the same as other countries. If the companies get too far out of line, the board has the power to act and it will act with the full support of this Parliament and the Canadian people.
In the meantime, why would we put one hand behind their back because other people will step in and do the research? As I said, has any generic company disappeared? The fact of the matter is that they have not. When we look into the drugs that the generics choose to get into, they choose a very narrow spectrum of drugs from which they make enormous profits without ever having put one cent into basic research and funding of that research to create that new drug. If anything is a parasitic relationship it is the generics.

Government Orders
I would rather have myself criticized for supporting companies that do that basic research to create the new one than to be acting on behalf of the few companies, the generics, that are taking the research of somebody else and creating it at a very low price without having paid for the research. That to me does not seem right.
I believe that the balance in this bill between the legitimate pharmaceutical companies and the generics and the population at large is a proper balance and I am proud to vote for this bill.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my place in the debate on this bill as well from the opposite point of view of the member who just spoke.
In my view this bill is simply another pay-back that the Conservative Party is making to the people who have financed its election campaigns over the years and a pay-back to its friends in the multinational corporations and their United States branch plan partners who have established really the Conservative agenda over the last eight years.
There have been a number of those kind of pay-offs to the American and multinational supporters of this government party. Those pay-offs have reduced the sovereignty of this country, have virtually bankrupted this government in its ability and power to act on behalf of its citizens. This is one of the reasons for this piece of legislation.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Nobody believes that.


Robert Evans Skelly: If you are going to comment on what I am saying, madam, sit in your seat and do it like any other member.
It has also eliminated policies which the U.S. has considered trade irritants in Canadian policy so that the Conservative government has done a great service to the United States companies and to the branch plants subsidiaries that have financed its campaigns over the years. I understand that drug companies have done that to the extent of something like $48,000 a year. What we are seeing here is essentially a pay-back to those corporations and to those supporters of the Conservative Party.
I am a bit concerned about one of the statements that was made by the House leader. Essentially what he said is that creators have the right to exploit their creations.
To some extent that should be true. There should be some protection for intellectual property and some protection for those scientists and researchers who do the fundamental research that ultimately results in good things being developed and in new developments being made in science and literature and other fields of human endeavour.
To suggest that patents and protection of intellectual property have been the great motivator for that kind of human endeavour misses the point of tens of thousands of years of human creativity. There were a lot of things invented before the inception of patent laws; things like the wheel, the steam engine and the automobile. There were a lot of things invented before we brought down patent legislation in order to protect this intellectual property.
I was interested in the House leader's statement because he said that creators have the right to exploit their creations. Essentially when we are looking at drug companies and companies that hold these patents we are not looking at the creators themselves, we are looking at people who have the power to deal with scientists and researchers and creators. They are able to buy up the results of those creations and exploit the results of those creations for their own profit. That is precisely what we are talking about here.
We are going beyond this because we are talking not about the right of a creator to exploit his creation, but about the right of manufacturers to exploit the people of Canada because they hold a government granted, time limited right to a patent that gives them the right, not to exploit their creation, but to exploit Canadian people in a monopolistic kind of situation.
That is what disturbs me because of the hypocrisy of this government. On the one hand it says that the telecommunications industry should be open to the rigours and the discipline of competition, that there should be many people operating in the field and that nobody should have the exclusive right because perhaps they have developed that technology or because they have the wit and the wisdom to invest in that technology first. That does not grant you any kind of exclusive right.

November 17, 1992
Government Orders
It has opened up the telecommunications field to wide open competition.
Look what it has done to the airline industry. The airline industry is being deregulated, opened up to competition because this government believes that competition is a necessary thing to impose the rigours of the marketplace upon our industries so that they will become competitive world-wide. To demonstrate the hypocrisy of this government, what do we see in this legislation? In this legislation, in exchange for the $48,000 a year that the PC Canada fund gets from the drug companies, these drug companies are being given the exclusive monopolistic right. It is a restraint on trade, it is a restraint on competition, it is exactly what the Tories say they do not stand for.
Why are they giving this exclusive right, not to the creators of these drugs or these chemicals, but to the people who have the money to buy the products of the creative researchers and the creative scientists who operate in Canada, the United States and around the world? Why are they doing this? There has to be a better explanation than the pat line that was given to us by the House leader that creators have the right to exploit their creations or the line that was given to us by the member from Alberta in a similar vein.
I cannot even understand the logic of the arguments being made by the Conservative government opposite.


An hon. member:: A last favour to their friend, George Bush.


Robert Evans Skelly: The drug companies are doing veiy well, thank you very much. Why do they need this additional protection, except to satisfy an unbelievable greed on the part of those drug companies? Look at the return on investments that those companies have enjoyed over the past many years, even when they were in competition with the generic drug manufacturers.
Here is a report about pharmaceutical patents and politics Canada in Bill C-22 which reports the pharmaceutical industry enjoyed an extremely healthy rate of return: in 1972, 24.7 per cent; at the same time all manufacturing companies were enjoying a return of 14.1 per cent. In 1976, still under the compulsory licensing division, 22.7 per cent return for drug companies whereas all manufacturing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day in accordance under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 of the motion 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.
And more than five members having risen:


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Mr. Soetens:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like to point out that although I was present for the entire process of the vote, I did not participate as there have been some discussions about my chairing the legislative committee. Until that decision is taken, I remain neutral on the matter.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, because I was detained, I was unable to participate in the vote. Had I been here I would have voted with my party against this Draconian measure of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 14, 1992, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whittaker that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of developing a healthy small-business sector by targeting more federal contracts to the small-business sector and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.
[Stage Direction]
November 17, 1992
Private Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I yield the floor to the hon. member for Jonquiere, but first I would ask the co-operation of all members to hold private conversations outside the House.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of developing a healthy small-business sector by targeting more federal contracts to the small-business sector and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.
I read what certain members said in this House about this motion and I would like, first of all, to quote what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, a Liberal, a member of the opposition, said on this motion when he spoke of the Department of Supply and Services:
The department of which he is in charge is one of the most efficient and co-operative of all government services since it deals with small and medium-sized businesses.
He added:
It is fantastic.
In fact, nothing prevents a small or medium-sized business to deal with the federal government.
That goes to show you the difference in perception between members of this House. On the one hand, we have an NDP member who would like to see the system improved because he believes it is not efficient and, on the other hand, a Liberal member who thinks it is fantastic and it works pretty well. But how does it really work when it comes to awarding contracts to small businesses within Supply and Services Canada?
Eighty percent of all contracts-I repeat 80 per cent- which go to tender are awarded to small and mediumsized businesses. That leaves 10 per cent which are awarded to what we call big businesses, but also offered to small businesses. In a way, 90 per cent of Supply and Services contracts go to small and medium-sized businesses.
You will therefore understand that I am somewhat puzzled by the request put forth by the member from the
New Democratic Party who would like to improve the system. Could he tell us what exactly is the problem? Ninety per cent of contracts already go to small businesses. On top of that, for the last two years, the Minister of Supply and Services has created a system which is working or which at least allows our business people to use their computers to learn about the calls for tender put out by the government or by the Department of Supply and Services.
Under those circumstances, you will understand that what we hear from our small businesses, be it in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area or in the riding of Jonquieres, or anywhere else in Quebec, is that people are pleased that the Department of Supply and Services has created this system to allow our small businesses to bid. They are ready to compete. All they ask is to have the opportunity to bid. It is what our government gave them two years ago.
That is why under the circumstances I really wonder if such a motion is not solely intended to allow the members to speak without achieving anything in terms of content since the system is working.
If the member is experiencing particular problems, there is an appeal mechanism for those businesses who feel that they were cheated. Judging by what we hear in the field from the business community and people, this mechanism is working just fine.
Ninety-seven per cent of businesses in Canada employ less than 50 people. Between 1981 and 1989, 81.5 per cent of jobs created in the country were in the small business sector.
For some contracts we have to take into account our GATT commitments; every contract over $204,000 must be open to foreign competitors. Do you know how many contracts that is, Mr. Speaker? Only 4.6 per cent of our contracts fall under this category according to the GATT agreement.
As far as the free trade agreement is concerned, there again certain provisions state that contracts for $25,000 and more must be open to foreign competition. However there are important exceptions which I will specify.
November 17, 1992

Areas like the police force, the Solicitor General, Justice, Fisheries and Oceans, Communications and National Defence are excluded; therefore, it represents 9 per cent or less of all contracts.
Let me go back to my opening remark. What we have put in place at Supply and Services is working out very well. Contractors say they are satisfied. They wanted to have the opportunity to bid and now they have it; not only that, they can even use their computers and know from day to day what goods and services our government needs. They are then in a better position to bid.
That is why I refuse to discuss this issue further because I feel that the motion proposed by the member is, to all intents and purposes, useless. People say they are happy with the present situation and if ever some improvements are in order, we will be very happy to see what can be done. Representing a riding where unemployment is high and where small businesses want work, you can rest assured that I would be the first one to do whatever is necessary to help them and make sure they have the opportunity to get contracts. As things stand right now, they say they have that opportunity.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate this evening on this very important motion.
My colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has the vision to be able to see that the current system is not supporting small business and has put forward this motion as a means of asking the members of this House to demonstrate their support for small business and for the Buy Canadian program.
I have first-hand knowledge of many of the small businesses in my area and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it confirms my colleague's concerns.
Last week I visited the Institute of Ocean Sciences, which is a federal facility in my riding, located on Pat Bay, for the commissioning of an oil spill recovery barge. One of the things the Institute of Ocean Sciences wanted to do when the facility was first commissioned was to attract those high-tech, high-paying small business firms to the area so that the spin-offs from the Institute of Ocean Sciences would create employment
Private Members' Business
and create all the spin-off benefits that small businesses generate in my area.
To a large degree that has happened. However, under this government there has been a rejection of that philosophy. It came first in 1989 with the dying of the unsolicited proposals program and those small businesses in the high-tech, high-paying field were strapped by the cancellation of that program.
They also were strapped because of the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement puts additional constraints and penalizes the small business sector in Canada.
Let me give a little background first. Of the number of businesses in Canada, 97 per cent are small businesses with less than 50 employees. That shows us all where the job creation potential is: 97 per cent of business in Canada is small business.
As I was saying, the free trade agreement has put further constraints on small business which has already been constrained by the high dollar, high interest rate policy of this government. Because of those three factors, over 13,000 businesses declared bankruptcy in
1991.	I think that demonstrates that we do need some sort of federal initiative to support the small business sector. They are the ones that create the jobs that create tax revenue for our government so that we can pay for our social programs and create a strong economy.
Under the General Agreement on Thriffs and Trade, the federal government does not have to put out to tender those bids that are under $204,000. So the federal government can buy Canadian under GATT if it does not exceed $204,000. This is a fairly reasonable bidding process. Until the free trade agreement that was the relationship between Canada and the U.S. Under that agreement the bidding was dropped down to $29,000, which does not buy a whole lot, particularly in the high-tech, high-paying jobs that we want to create in our country, with the kind of benefits we would have in technology and education.
This would be annoying enough, even as it stands, if it were not for the kind of difference that the United States enjoys. It enjoys an advantage over us because it does not suffer from the same sort of provisions. They have a Buy America Act which protects, to a much greater degree, their small business sector.

November 17, 1992
Private Members' Business
In my riding of Saanich-Gulf Island those high-tech environmental technology firms are creating high-tech, high paying jobs, not the Mac jobs that this government is so proud of having created, not the $5 an hour jobs, but real jobs that can support real families, that can support real communities, that add to our tax base, that add to the wealth in our society, that are able to pay for higher education so we can actually have a future for our children and for our country.
What we also have incorporated in my colleague's motion is that there has to be more support for Buy Canada programs, and there has to be.
At the meeting of the Institute of Ocean Sciences last Thursday I was shown a particular computer modelling system and this modelling system was beautiful to behold. It had the map of Vancouver Island on the computer screen and the capability of that facility, as the promotional material showed, is not a computer mapping tool or geographic information system but it is the kind of management tool for making decisions.
It takes the map of Vancouver Island and if I were to ask what if an oil spill happened on Galiano Island, or in the Gulf of Georgia, that computer is able to look at the tides, the wind conditions, all of the situations which would determine where the oil is going to end up. Then our federal resources, the Canadian Coast Guard, the province of British Columbia, would know where to put their resources to clean it up.
This is the kind of technology that is available in Canada that we should be buying, that we should be protecting, creating jobs in our own community. Right now that is not happening and it is because of the sort of wrong-headed approach that the market is the salvation for all things. This government has forsaken those people who have created, who have had the initiative to go out and risk a lot of capital in developing these high tech tools for decision making.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the members of this House to support my colleague's motion, to show some vision for the 1990s and into the next century. We have the capability in Canada to provide the environmental technologies that will benefit not only our own communities, not only our own country, but the world.
I think we have a responsibility to be able to share that with the world.
Please vote yes on this initiative.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute in this debate on a very important issue raised by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt.
I easily understand why my colleague would move this motion, which I agree is in itself quite good, but I have serious questions on its relevance.
Let me read the motion, Mr. Speaker, and then I will comment.
That. . . the government should consider the advisability of
developing a healthy small business sector-
I will read the remainder later on.
If my colleague wants to develop a healthy small business sector, it seems to me that this is not a good time to present such a motion because, as far as I know, economic, fiscal and tax policies announced in different budgets, including the last one, did foster through special initiatives the development of businesses so that they may become a healthy sector. We should not forget that small businesses represent two thirds of our economy.
The first part of the motion leaves me unsatisfied, because the development of a healthy small business sector is already well under way.
I go back to the motion:
-developing a healthy small-business sector in Canada by
targeting more federal contracts to the small-business sector-
I will get back to the rest.
A moment ago, my colleague for Jonquiere reminded us of some very interesting statistics. If we want to grant federal government contracts in larger numbers, we have to know what the situation is. Let me repeat the statistics recalled by my colleague for Jonquiere. Already 90 per cent of the federal contracts are awarded, allocated to the small and medium-sized business sector in Canada. I might also add that through subcontracting from this sector, another 10 per cent of contracts are going to other small businesses. Nearly 90 per cent of those contracts go straight to the small business sector. I realize that we may not have achieved 100 percent, Mr. Speaker, but you have to admit that as currently worded this motion seems to be off the point. For my part I
November 17, 1992

favour the new program, the new contract allocation policy has found in my own area, in my own riding of Richmond-Wolfe.
Many Chambers of Commerce are intensely involved in favouring the granting of such contracts in their area. I think particularly of the Eastern Townships, and I could also mention Richmond-Wolfe. If already 90 per cent of contracts are awarded to the small business sector, I fail to see how this motion should get our approval. While being virtuous per se, 100 per cent is nothing but wishful thinking.
I now come to the last feature, and I will quote if I may the rest of the hon. member's motion:
- targeting more federal contracts to the small-business sector and
establishing a more aggressive "Buy Canada" program.
Here perhaps could we take most exception to this motion, beyond the virtue it commends. There are obstacles to boosting a Buy Canada program. For instance, we live in an international market framework: there is the free trade with the United States and soon with Mexico, and it is ages since we are exporting and importing outside of those two markets. Canada is already known as an exporting country and its whole economy is largely reliant on export.
What happens? If we introduce what I would call a restrictive policy based directly on the Buy Canada principle, you can easily imagine how our international partners would react to such a policy, as commendable as it may be. The Buy Canada principle obviously has its merits. It is a goal that can be achieved through awareness programs and publicity. It is not hard to figure out that a strict governmental policy to that effect would soon be under attack.
In that regard, the last element may be the most difficult to achieve, whereas the other two that I mentioned earlier are already under way.
Of course, we can use the Canadian content to encourage people to buy Canadian. That is precisely where the policy of this government has played a role. Instead of imposing a restrictive, disciplinary not to say dictatorial policy, we chose other ways to encourage our people to buy Canadian, mainly by insisting more and more on a Canadian content for all our products. It can
Private Members' Business
be done. There were up to nine policies before whereas we have only one today. We have managed to simplify the whole system relating to federal contracts.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to tell you this. I understand very well the good faith of my colleague from Okanagan and the validity of this motion. But I am not sure that it has a place here in the circumstances that we know, especially with its wording that causes some problems.
To sum up, as far as I am concerned, we have followed much tighter policies in order to establish and develop a healthier small business sector, and we have made good progress so far. You only have to think about the last tax decreases, incentives to businesses and loans in some cases, all aimed at making credit more easily available. So, I think we have made progress on the first element.
About the second one, as I mentioned earlier, more contracts is exactly what we have achieved with the new policy put forward by the minister these last three years. All businesses have access to government contracts and all managers, presidents or purchasing officers can bid through their own computer. What more can you ask for when you can practically access this information from your own home?
I do not think this second element can be discarded, quite the opposite. It is under way and things are going very well indeed. It is the last element I worry about, and that is why I am dead against this motion, because this third objective seems unrealistic and unachievable.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to reword his motion. Of course, the motion is now before us, before the House, but you will understand why I, among others, will have to stand against the motion on behalf of small businesses, given the achievements of our government.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in this House today to speak to the motion which simply calls upon the government to consider the advisability of developing a healthy small business sector in Canada by targeting more federal contracts to the small business sector and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.

November 17, 1992
Private Members' Business
I listened quite carefully to the previous speaker and I have read and reread this motion. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why anybody would want to vote against it. It is something that is straightforward and it is nothing more than developing a healthy, small business sector in Canada. I do not think that the mover of the motion could want any more than that and certainly I could not either.
I fully support this motion as I recognize the vital role that small business plays in Canada. Indeed, 40 per cent of Canadians work for small business and between 1978 and 1987-1 notice that we all have different figures here-93 per cent of all new jobs were created by small business. These facts clearly show that small business is the engine of growth and new job opportunity in this country.
In October 1990 I wrote in a little local newspaper in my riding of Nepean, The Clarion, that these days entrepreneurs are confronted by market globalization, world-wide competition and increasingly demanding consumers. At the same time, the speed of change in world markets is in product development. Even global political systems are accelerating at a rate few would have imagined.
For Canadian small business, each of these changes has brought the issues of quality and productivity to the forefront and many people in the city of Nepean work in small business, as I said previously. Most talk of the need to compete head on with the best companies in the world.
They point out that to do so, our companies must do more than simply match the price, services and design of competitors on a local and regional scale. They must compete on the larger global scale. They must make their wares and services attractive and accessible to an expanding marketplace.
In an era of fewer and fewer trade barriers, consumers all over the world have free access to the highest quality products at the lowest possible prices. The result is simple. We have to become ever more competitive, we have to explore every avenue and take advantage of every opportunity to exploit the marketplace.
What has this government done to help small business in Canada?
As I review the past eight years I do not see much. I look at the GST. I would like to say that I consistently
receive letters from constituents who own and work in small businesses. The overwhelming majority of them complain about the burden that has been placed on their businesses as a result of this unfair tax grab.
They write about the cost of and the difficulty in getting access to capital to expand their businesses. They write that the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Federal Business Development Bank do not seem to be in tune with the needs of small business.
At a time when many businesses have gone bankrupt in the last couple of years, I am hearing over and over again that banks are calling loans on small businesses. They are shutting down small business. What are we doing about it? What is this government doing about it? Not very much.
The government failed to reform the bankruptcy legislation until thousands of small firms went out of business. High interest rates combined with a high dollar gave us a made-in-Canada recession from which we are still trying to recover. All this government has given us is a hollow prosperity initiative. It offers no meaningful solutions.
As this motion says, the federal government should endeavour to target more federal contracts to the small business sector and to establish a more aggressive Buy Canada program. This is but one step toward encouraging this vitally important Canadian sector.
But more needs to be done. We have to address the issue of access to capital. We need to have export programs which will encourage small and medium sized firms to look outward. Currently less than 10 per cent of Canadian firms export. This has to be changed. We need to look at countries like Germany which have aggressive export programs.
There is much the Government of Canada could be doing to help small businesses prosper and grow in this country. I believe it is high time something be done. I certainly can support this motion.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt for putting forward this motion. I very much appreciate the words of the hon. member for Nepean. It is worth while to draw the attention of members to the wording of this motion because it is wording that members all sides of the House should be supporting. Essentially it says:


November 17, 1992

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
the advisability of developing a healthy small business sector.
I wonder who could possibly be against that. The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt proposes that we target federal contracts to the small business sector and establish a more aggressive Buy Canada program.
I cannot understand how a government that is thinking properly would reject this motion or reject the ideas contained in this motion, or a government that pretends to be a government for Canadians by Canadians in Canada. It simply does not make sense that government speakers would stand in this House and say, first, that they are against enhancing small business and, second, that they are against expanding the Buy Canada program and providing contracts to small businesses in order to encourage those businesses to grow and strive.
As my colleague pointed out these are businesses, depending on what figures we use, that create somewhere between 80 and 90 per cent of all new jobs in this country.
I heard the Minister of Finance, the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister talk this morning about the G-7, the World Bank and international agencies like the OECD, congratulating Canada for having all its fundamentals in the right place.
One fundamental that is not in the right place is jobs. This government should be about creating jobs. Well over one million Canadians are collecting welfare and unemployment insurance; 11.4 per cent of Canadian workers have no jobs to go to.
If the small business sector is responsible for creating somewhere between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of all employment in Canada then, by gosh, rather than having Conservative members standing in this House and rejecting a motion calling for the enhancement of small business by encouraging a Buy Canada program or providing more contracts to small business, they should have been on their hind feet demanding that the opposition present a motion like this one and indicating that they were going to be voting for it.
Private Members' Business
This is one of the problems with this government. When a motion comes from the opposition it refuses to listen to it. It refuses to accept good advice.
Unfortunately I heard the Prime Minister speaking at a meeting last night, I think it was in Montreal, in which he admitted that he was one of the most unpopular prime ministers in the history of this country because he thinks he was doing the right thing rather than the popular thing.
He is unpopular because he has been doing the wrong thing. He has not listened to Canadians. He has not listened to advice outside his own caucus and outside his own political advisers. That is why he is the most unpopular prime minister this country has ever had.
My colleague presents a very reasonable, reasoned motion. It came from the small business people in his riding and across the country he is in contact with. Yet the government rejects it out of hand. Why? It is because it came from the opposition. There can be no other logical reason for rejecting it.
In a speech a few months ago supporting this motion my colleague pointed out that even our major neighbour to the south, our major trading partner, has a similar program that has been very beneficial to small business in the United States. He pointed out that in 1989, under the U.S. Small Businesses Act, 18 per cent of prime contracts and 39 per cent of subcontracts representing a total value of $59 billion were awarded to small business. Of these, $13 billion in contracts were specifically designated by contractor officers as being set aside exclusively to the U.S. small business concerns.
Our major trading partner, the one we have joined in a free trade agreement, has a policy like this to encourage indigenous small business in the United States, and speakers on the Conservative side express some concern that our trading partners might get a little worried if we have a buy Canadian program for small business.
Everybody is going to be worried if a government that represents itself as a Government of Canada and for Canadians does not support a program like this one. It would be very surprising for me if the Conservative government and Conservative members stood in the House and voted against this motion because they felt it did not make sense. It would indicate they are against small business in Canada if they are against this kind of a

Private Members' Business
Buy Canada program and support in the form of contracts to small businesses.
There are other areas of small business I would like to talk about for a few seconds before closing wherein this government has taken actions which have had the result of creating problems for small businesses that want to get into exports. A few minutes ago the Minister of Forestry was in the House. He has indicated in past months that he was supportive of secondary manufacturing of forest products in British Columbia.
However, a manufacturer in my riding manufactures furniture and framing component blanks for export to the northeast United States market. He exports them all across the United States to the northeast United States from the east coast of Vancouver Island. He had a problem with one of his receivables. He had a fraudulent purchase of his products. As a result the Export Development Corporation jacked up his premiums on his receivables insurance which just about drove him out of business.
What kind of way is that to support and encourage the development of secondary forest products manufacturing in British Columbia and the development of new export markets by small businesses into the United States and elsewhere in the world?
This government has taken action which has been deleterious to small business in Canada. I really cannot understand it and I cannot understand the attitude on the part of those members who say: "Since we did not think of this motion we are not going to support it". That is basically their attitude. The problem is that they have been taking their own advice for too long. That is why they are unpopular. That is why we have the most unpopular Prime Minister of Canada. That is why at the next election small business people along with other workers and other people in this country are go to rise up and throw the Conservatives out. Why do they not listen to good advice for a change?
This is a motion that is worth supporting. My colleague got the idea for this motion from the small business people this motion intends to support.
I would urge my Conservative colleagues to reconsider the hard line position they have taken against support of this motion. Small business people are watching then-attitude about this motion and about small business in general.
I want to wind up by repeating this motion and questioning why Conservative members cannot vote for it. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of developing a healthy small business
sector in Canada-
How can they be against that? It continues:
-by targeting more federal contracts to the small business sector-
Are they against that? It continues:
-and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.
How could the Conservatives be against that? They should stand up and support this country for a change and vote for this motion.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this motion. I thought it would be possible to debate it in a non-partisan way, but after listening to my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party I realize it is not to be. He was being extremely partisan when he asked the federal government: "Why don't you listen to the small business sector?"
Since he seems to have a very short memory, I would like to remind him of a few things. When we introduced the last federal budget, which raised the small business loans to $200,000 from $100,000, his party voted against it. They voted against the interests of small businesses of this country, responsible for creating jobs; they voted against helping small businesses get operating capital
November 17, 1992

and better businesses opportunities. He motions that it is no so, but I remind him that his party voted against the last federal budget.
We have signed regional development agreements with each of the provinces; in the west we have set up a structure to help business, as in the maritimes and in Quebec. We created specific programs in specific business areas.
I would like to underscore another important point. When we were debating Bill C-22, which was to generate major investments in Quebec as well as other Canadians provinces like Manitoba, they voted against it. Today, these same people rise in the House of Commons to tell Canadians that the government is not sensitive to the needs of the small business sector. These same people, New Democrats in particular, were against tax credits to businesses because they allegedly do not pay they fair share. These same members of the New Democratic Party were against the signing of a free trade agreement with the United States, our main financial and economic partner. We trade mostly with the Americans. It is because of them that we can have social programs and policies which allow Canadians to grow in all provinces. It is the North American market which makes progress possible within the Canadian society.
These same individuals said no. But they are proud, for example, of the dispute settlement tribunal that was put in place with the Americans so that we could solve important issues like pork and other issues like lumber, that will come later. When I hear my New Democrat colleague say that the Canadian Minister of Forestry did not defend the interests of the forest producers, I remind him that we signed with the provinces agreements that come to more than $ 1 billion. I remind him as well that our minister defends Canadian forest products everywhere, in Canada, in the United States and in Europe, because we know that in British Columbia, as in Quebec and Ontario, it is extremely important to have a flourishing forest economy.
It is also important that other international communities know that Canada does things perfectly and properly. But where were the members of the Opposition? They were hiding behind their desks, because they were scared to defend effectively the interests of their constituents, their communities and their businesses, as our government and the Minister of Forestry do, as did the Minister of Finance during the last budgets, and as the Minister of Regional Development does, in order that-
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the motion is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration why the day before he had implemented changes to the domestic workers program while the standing committee was still studying his proposals of January 30 and the committee had not yet reported. The minister had asked a committee to study certain proposals and before we finished studying the proposals, he implemented the changes he had proposed.
At the time I said this was an insult to the parliamentary committee and made a farce out of so-called parliamentary reform. It is interesting to note that the majority of members on that committee were Conservative Party members and the chairman was a member of the Conservative Party, but despite that the minister ignored the committee and went ahead.
I also pointed out to the minister that not one witness appearing before the committee up until that time had supported the proposals the minister had suggested. As a matter of fact he had not even consulted with any of those witnesses.
Since that time, the committee has tabled its unanimous report. It was tabled on July 28 and it disagrees with the new measures introduced by the minister on April 27. Under the minister's new program, domestic workers must have the equivalent of grade 12 in Canada and six months' full-time training.

Adjournment Debate
It is very rare for domestics to go through to grade 12 in the countries they come from and there is no course for domestic workers in any countries except England and the United States. Where are the people from the Caribbean and the Philippines to get these courses? They may have grade 12 but that is a high level of education in those countries.
Since 1981, when the Liberal Party introduced this program, 60,000 women have come to Canada to serve as domestics. Many stayed and went on to better things. Prior to the minister's changes, a woman only needed one year of experience as a domestic. She did not need a grade 12 education or a formal course. If she had experience of one year working in a home with children, that was good enough to get her into the country as a domestic, if she showed the right sort of compassion and care for children. After two years of good work as a domestic, she was given the privilege of applying as a permanent resident, as a landed immigrant.
The committee unanimously said that it did not want grade 12 or the six months' training to be the sole criteria but that there should be a wide range of flexible criteria, including the experience of the woman as a domestic.
The minister said on April 28 when I raised this question: "If hon. members on the committee come up with recommendations to improve this program I will look at them seriously. I do not think this takes away from the efforts of the committee or the subcommittee".
The report has been out since July 28. We have not had any response from the minister yet. It is true he has until December 24 to respond. However, I am hopeful the government will listen to a unanimous committee report of this Parliament, have respect for that committee and in this case make changes to this program which are reasonable changes and not blindly follow the proposals of the minister.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I would like to bring to his attention some of the details, some of the background and some of the reasoning for the changes.
As he knows, after several years of consultation the new live-in caregiver program was introduced on April 27,1992 to replace what was the former Foreign Domestic Movement Program. This program continues to be the government's policy of meeting a labour market demand for live-in caregivers by facilitating the entry into Canada of trained and qualified workers. Several elements of the live-in caregiver program are specifically targeted to reduce the exploitation of domestic workers-which I know he would be concerned about-such as a model contract of employment and more information on the respective rights and responsibilities that they have.
The live-in caregiver program requires a grade 12 education and six months of training in the caregiving field. This reflects the level of responsibility given to live-in caregivers and recognizes the skills required to work independently in a caregiving role.
The education level required under the new program also reflects the realities of the Canadian labour market. Tvo-thirds of the new jobs in Canada by the year 2000 will require a minimum of 12 years of education.
Last year close to 60 per cent of all persons who landed under the foreign domestic program had over 12 years of education. These education requirements will lessen the chance of abuse as the worker will be better able to understand his or her rights and how to seek redress should these rights be infringed upon.
In answer to the concerns of the hon. member, the government appreciates the sound research of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration on this issue. I want to assure him that the minister and the department are reviewing the recommendations made by his committee.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 1992, I raised a question with the Minister of Employment and Immigration in which I tried to show the minister that there was an important link between work and education, particularly with respect to young people. I pointed out to the minister that tuition fees had gone up and were continuing to increase substantially,

making it more difficult for these young men and women to stay in school, college and university.
I pointed out that the student debt was going totally out of sight. We now have a debt load that people may never be able to repay. I stressed that there were waiting lists of up to two years for people waiting get into a program, that there were thousands of students as of that date without meaningful jobs. Of the very few jobs that were available, they were short-term, poorly remunerated, they would not last, they were dead end. They did very little to contribute to the education, the training or retraining of that particular person. I found that was really very deplorable.
On that particular date I recall we were not only talking about line-ups of over two years of applications but in one university in the city of Winnipeg, it was estimated that 300 people would lose their jobs. I wanted the minister to understand that these kinds of conditions are really demoralizing. They destroy our cities, our provinces, our country. My question was: Why had the government permitted this to happen?
In response the minister said that they were relying on the prosperity initiative to set things straight. What the minister did not understand is that there are problems that have to be dealt with immediately, today. If there is a fire you do not plan how you are going to get out and when you are going to get out. That should have been done before. You get out. After that you try to make sure that it does not happen again.
There are real needs out there. People are without jobs, tuition fees are increasing, the debt load is skyrocketing. What was the minister doing? Relying upon the prosperity initiative. Then he said: "Let us co-operate".

I am quite willing to co-operate. I gave him so may ideas, I do not understand why he did not do anything, nothing at all, six months after having said that.

Here are some of the things I suggested. The 3 per cent tax on student loans for those students who need to borrow so they are among the poorest of the poor students, eliminate it. Do not increase by six months the
Adjournment Debate
interest that has to be paid on student loans. Eliminate the GST on books and reading materials. This government had a wonderful opportunity and it denied it, it stopped it.
I said we should make sure we have appropriate summer jobs for these young men and women so they can help pay for the education they want so they can become contributing members of society. I did say stop slashing education, training, retraining, research and development. Come to grips with reality today. Six months later nothing has been done. We are still relying on the prosperity initiative and I fear for the future.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the concerns of the hon. member for St. Boniface.
The Minister of State for Youth understands perfectly how difficult this summer and last year's have been for Canadians, young and those not so young.
I want to assure the hon. member that the government wants to make it clear that its goal is to assist all young Canadians if it can, those who are entering post-secondary institutions and those who need to get back into high school to complete their diploma.
I guess there are many programs that we could point to and I would like to reiterate for the member's information some of the programs that have been in place this summer. The figures are not in yet but the government expects that some 52,000 students have benefited from the subsidized summer employment program. Some $83 million was spent this summer across the country in seed funding, as the hon. member may know. That is an increase of $3 million over last year.
Again this year seed allocations in certain areas were increased to reflect changing labour market conditions. I know funding was increased in my riding and I would hope that probably they were in the riding of the hon. member. In the metro Toronto area last year the funds were tripled because of the changing economics in the labour situation there.
There is funding under the youth initiatives for 1992-93 set at $211 million and this would reflect the concern of the federal government.

Adjournment Debate
Under the youth CJS program we had 143,000 young people who participated and in 1991 total youth spending under CJS was $446.9 million.
We are spending a lot of money and let us hope it has been well spent.
We have the co-operative education program and the stay in school program and START. Wow, Those programs are very important and they have worked veiy well.
We appreciate the member's concern and thank him for being concerned about it and bringing it to our attention.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on May 191 asked a question in the House of the Minister of Forestry on a very important trade matter that is still before us. It is the whole question of the softwood lumber tariff dispute Canada is having with the United States.
I raised two important questions in that question to the minister that I would like to touch on briefly tonight and hopefully get a response from the government.
The first was the point following the delegation of New Democrat MPs to Washington, D.C. on this issue that clearly the whole basis behind the tariff dispute with the United States is the American attempt to grab our raw resources, in particular our raw logs, and ship them to the United States. They said that to us in very clear terms in Washington and it is clearly an issue that this Parliament and this government are going to have to deal with.
They also raised, as did we, the important issue of how to resolve this particular dispute. At that time the government was saying not to worry, the free trade agreement would save us, the dispute panels that would be set up under the free trade agreement would deal with the softwood lumber issue.
In Washington we were told by the commerce department that it had no opinion on this particular issue and that we would have to wait and see whether, even as weak as they are, the dispute panels can be used to try and resolve this issue. It is ironic that this question is
being raised today because today in Washington there was to have been a panel hearing in which the U.S. lumber lobby, using every opportunity it has to try to thwart Canada's exports of softwood to the United States, was to have presented a motion basically suggesting that these dispute panels do not even have jurisdiction on the whole softwood question.
We understand that one of the American panel members, for whatever reason, was not able to attend today so the hearing was put off. It is very clear to all of us who are concerned about this issue from lumber exporting communities that the American political process, from the President on down to the U.S. lumber lobby, will use every effort, legitimate or not, to try and thwart our exports. That is clear from the attempted motion today which will obviously be brought forward at a later date. It is also clear from the recent petitioning of President-elect Clinton, who comes from Arkansas, one of the lumber producing states in the United States. The interest is to triple the current 6.5 per cent tariff on Canadian lumber exports.
It is a very clear and important issue for all of Canada, in particular my home province of British Columbia as a lumber exporter. In this ongoing trade dispute we have seen the failure of the free trade agreement to address this issue. It is a specific example of that. We may have to wait until April of next year before this issue might even possibly be dealt with, and even then we do not know if it is going to be dealt with in Canada's favour.
It is a critical issue, it is one that was raised in May. It is still relevant today, perhaps even more relevant given the whole question of the failure of the free trade agreement to tiy and resolve this issue.
I would ask the government to seriously review its position on this question. What is the state of this dispute panel mechanism? Can we rely on the government's assurances any more? I ask for some action from the government on this issue.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley regarding his question and raise whether article 2009 of the free trade agreement concerning the softwood lumber MOU precludes the appeal of the results of the countervailing duty investigation.

Article 1904 of the free trade agreement provides that either party may request a binding binational panel review following a final subsidy dumping or injury determination in the countervailing duty.
We have exercised our rights under the FTA and we have established chapter 19 panels to rule on the U.S. subsidy and the injury findings. On September 29, 1992 the U.S. Lumber Industry Coalition, as the member may know, filed a motion to dismiss the FTA chapter 19 panel examining the commerce department's final subsidy determination for lack of jurisdiction.
There is no question that the panel has jurisdiction to hear Canada's appeal. FTA article 2009 does not exempt the case from panel review. Canada and the United States have both filed briefs with the panel stating categorically that the panel has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We have confidence in the FTA dispute settlement process which has served us so well in the pork case and as well in the recent case involving live swine exports.
The resolution of this case is a priority of the government and we are resolved to exercise all our rights under the free trade agreement and the GATT in defence of our trade interests.
The federal government, the provinces and, I would like to remind the hon. member, the industry remain united in their determination to fight this case to the very bitter end and I thank him for his concern.


WESTRAY COAL MINE
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I raised the matter of the Westray mine disaster on May 21 and again the following day because there were so many unanswered questions. Six months later those questions still remain unanswered.
I was one of several of my colleagues, including in particular my friend and colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond, understandably determined to get to the bottom of this tragic affair, as are the families of the 26 men who lost their lives in that tragedy.
Last week's decision by Madam Justice Glube of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, a decision which is certainly a fair ruling based on the law, leaves the Nova Scotia government with veiy few options. There is a government which does have some options, the same options it
Adjournment Debate
has had for six months and has refused to exercise, the government that sits opposite.
The time has come for this government to relent and to establish a federal inquiry. Nothing in Madam Justice Glube's decision would rule out or prevent this government from taking that initiative and holding its own inquiry.
We on this side and in particular my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond are calling today on the government to establish either a public inquiry into this or a standing committee assigned, similar to the one we held into the Al-Mashat affair last year.
That inquiry ought to be held without delay for several good reasons. One is that a dangerous precedent was established in this affair when the interests of political parties clearly overruled advice given by federal civil servants concerned with safety and the economic feasibility of that project. These officials ought to be given an opportunity to testify to that effect without any fear of reprisal.
Second, the Prime Minister must be called to testify as to his involvement in this affair. A senior official of Curragh Resources, Marvin Pelley, said that the Prime Minister was the facilitator in this. The member for Central Nova, the Minister of Public Works, and the premier, Mr. Cameron, stated in interviews with the Halifax paper The Chronicle Herald that without the help of the Prime Minister the project would have been killed. That is a direct quote from these men.
Third, the member himself, the Minister of Public Works, has had an involvement in this. He was involved in silencing the opposition of federal bureaucrats on this issue. That is well documented, and that needs to be scrutinized by a public inquiry or a standing committee.
Fourth, a committee of cabinet looked at this matter in
1988.	What was it told by federal bureaucrats? Was the advice to proceed? What was the advice? Let us call these people and let us table the documents before a proper inquiry and have this issue out in the open once and for all.
Finally, Clifford Frame has been curiously successful in getting his way with this government in terms of financial assistance for his mining projects, although mining is hardly within his bailiwick.

Adjournment Debate
We need to get to the bottom of this one. We owe it to those people. We owe it to the country as a whole. We owe it to the taxpayers. We owe it to people who believe in safety, who believe that safety ought to be a consideration when we are giving public assistance.
Why was a well ordered and defined decision-making process influenced by questionable political interests? That is just one of the many questions we need to get an answer to. Mr. Speaker, I think you agree we need to get to the bottom of this one.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the federal government does not have the jurisdiction in the area of occupational health and safety.
This is the responsibility of the provincial government. Notwithstanding this fact though, the Government of Canada took a variety of measures consistent with our role as a financial guarantor to ensure that the project he speaks of was technically safe and viable.
The initial environmental assessment, the Acres report, pointed out the key health and safety concerns associated with coal mines and the methods that the company was putting in place to overcome these concerns. All concerns including those pointed out by the Devco report were deemed to be correctable with known technology.
The CANMET review spoke briefly of mine ventilation and spontaneous combustion risk. It concluded that in spite of these technical uncertainties the proposal had no major technical failings. Westray was required to comply with all the appropriate coal mining regulations in Nova Scotia including those dealing with mine ventilation and spontaneous combustion matters and regular provincial mine inspections were carried out.
According to the mining industry, the causes and mechanisms of coal dust explosions are well understood through past research. It is the responsibility of the operators and the regulators to apply that knowledge base in developing control strategies.
We put in place steps to ensure that the company was in full compliance with the provincial regulatory standards and in health and safety. This was monitored on a monthly basis by independent mining consultants. All of these facts were taken into consideration before making the decision to fund this project by the federal government.


DRUG ABUSE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this occasion to review a question that I posed to the Solicitor General last May 5,1992. It had to do with the serious problem of drug trafficking and drug abuse that unfortunately has afflicted all too many Canadians and certainly afflicted all too many neighbourhoods across our country, particularly in a large urban centre like metropolitan Toronto.
I do not want to suggest that we ought to be negative or have a doom and gloom approach to the situation. I believe that we have to lay the cards on the table and begin to realize that some of those neighbourhoods which are under siege by these drug traffickers are in fact losing the battle. Governments are perhaps losing the battle. For average Canadians and their neighbours living in those neighbourhoods and communities, the feelings by long measure are feelings of wanting to triumph over this serious cancer that is spreading and touching the lives of too many Canadians and particularly our young.
Therefore, I have had thousands of names put to petitions deposited on the floor of this House of Commons. I had the opportunity on several occasions of asking the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice as to what their answer would be on one particular aspect of fighting drugs on the streets. That one aspect happened to be the amendment to the Narcotics Control Act so as to share the assets that flow from any drug seizure. Rather than having all those assets flow back exclusively to the federal treasury, there could be a shared arrangement by which some of those assets would flow back to the local authorities, whether they be the municipal government or the police affiliates or in fact local organizations so that those entities which are on the leading edge of that battle, not those in the background, for instance, as the federal government in Ottawa, would have at their disposal some assets that would further the cause of putting back and stemming what seems to be a growing tide.
Ib his credit, the Solicitor General has said on a number of occasions, and in fact responded to my question, that he is in agreement with the general principle. He has been saying that for a veiy long time. He has also been saying for a very long time that legislation to amend the Narcotics Control Act is just around the comer.


It has been a very, very long comer indeed because we have not seen the legislation. We have the good intentions of the minister in his responses to this Chamber, but thus far we have not seen the realization or the fruition of bringing those amendments before the House of Commons at which point I believe there would be relatively speedy passage from all sides of the House because of the urgent need to do so.
Therefore, this evening I am looking forward to perhaps the parliamentary secretary giving us specifics and indicating that in fact we are not only paying lip service to this very urgent need but that the government is prepared to specifically with time constraints and agendas say yes, we are prepared to move and this is when and this is how.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think the whole subject is a little more complicated than the impression you might have gathered from the comments of the hon. member.
First of all, I think it should be pointed out that Canada's Criminal Code and its drag legislation does have provisions designed to attack the profit motive in a wide variety of crimes, not just narcotics crimes.
The ability of the Crown to apply for forfeiture of the proceeds of specified offences severely undermines the obvious profit motive for committing those offences.
This is a particularly effective tool in Canada's drug enforcement initiative. Sharing those forfeited assets with other jurisdictions should not be equated with giving the police another tool for the battle against drugs.
The hon. member's questions assumed that the forfeited assets are necessary in order to finance local law
Adjournment Debate
enforcement efforts. This seems dangerously close to making forfeitures the driving force for undertaking drug investigations.
The carnage, as he pointed out, caused by the drug trade is the reason behind these investigations. The ability to seize proceeds is an ancillary benefit. Any sharing of that benefit would be undertaken as a matter of fairness and not as the rationale for undertaking investigations. The simple fact is that many other enterprise crime investigations lead to forfeiture of assets, but this has not led to a demand for sharing in order to win the battle against those crimes.
It may in fact be the best indicator that the issue of sharing deserves careful examination, which the Solicitor General has indicated to the House he would do. Perhaps reimbursement of expenses may be appropriate, but viewing law enforcement as a business is not appropriate.
There is a popular myth that suggests that drug traffickers have rooms full of cash available for seizure and forfeiture. This view of assets available from drug seizures may drive the claim for sharing since this is an obvious source for enforcement revenues. I support the active use of our proceeds of crime scheme.
Essentially the scheme separates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. Your time has expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 18, 1992