House of Commons Hansard #35 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gasoline.

Topics

Drug Patents
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa South
Ontario

Liberal

John Manley Minister of Industry

Mr.

Speaker, I have indicated to both types of pharmaceutical industries, the generic and the multinationals, that it is important for them to consider the impact of these regulations. Despite their highly complicated nature, it is vital that they work to the benefit of all Canadians.

I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to explain his position on these regulations. I am open to his ideas, because it is important for us to determine the best way of implementing the regulations.

Drug Patents
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, we need to try to decode this. It is my impression that the hon. member is trying to tell us that he will be doing something to Bill C-91, as they tried to last year in response to Ontario lobbying. It was very clear at the time, but now they are trying to do the same thing in secret. We too have met with drug companies, and they do not share the minister's opinion in the least.

Will the minister repeat in this House the commitment made on April 28, 1994 not to touch the Drug Patents Act, either directly or indirectly, before the spring of 1997, or in other words not until the time set for its re-assessment?

Drug Patents
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Ottawa South
Ontario

Liberal

John Manley Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear on this issue. The member is quite right. A review period was established in Bill C-91 that will come into effect in the spring of 1997.

At the same time, he understands that the NOC link regulations which were enacted pursuant to section 55(2) of that legislation are very complex. In order to determine whether they have the desired effect of appropriately balancing the interests that lie in this area between the rights of patent holders to protect their patents-which I believe is what he is endeavouring in suggesting that these should not be changed-against the interests that consumers have in the legitimate acquisition of generic products when patent rights have expired-to which I am sure he also does not object-I think he understands that the essence of patent protection is that it extends for a period of time after which it ends. That is the law.

The NOC link regulations are intended to establish a mechanism whereby both interests are adequately protected. In order to determine whether that has been achieved we are looking at the litigation that has ensued from those regulations and we will determine what the best result is to follow from that.

Domestic Violence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canadian women are dying because of a fatal flaw in the way the police are forced to handle domestic violent cases.

The tragic shooting rampage in Vernon, B.C. where a man killed himself after shooting his estranged wife and eight members of her family illustrates what can happen when warning signs are ignored for whatever reason.

Does the the justice minister not agree that it could save lives if we gave police the power to follow through on domestic violence charges after a complaint is made, whether the complainant asks for the charges or not?

Domestic Violence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, such discretion is provided for already and is well within the administrative powers of police forces at present.

While I recognize the very genuine concern on the part of the hon. member in his question and the tragedy in Vernon, I must say, before concluding my response, that there is a healthy measure of irony in the hon. member's question.

It was the member and his colleagues who for months stood in the House to oppose the measures we introduced in Bill C-68 to more rationally control access to and use of firearms, to put in place systems and processes that would enable authorities to follow up in cases of domestic abuse and to make sure firearms are removed from persons who represent a danger to themselves or others.

To hear the hon. member today suggesting that further steps should be available in such cases is indeed a very distinct irony.

Domestic Violence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I probably should ask if the justice minister feels any better that these victims were shot with a registered gun. I wonder if that would make any difference.

In the mass murder in Vernon, the estranged wife did not ask for charges to be laid because she was afraid for her life, naturally. However, 10 people are dead because the police were handcuffed.

Contrary to what the minister has said, is he saying today that there is no way we can give the police the tools they are asking for, or the tools victims' rights groups are asking for, or the tools that Canadians are asking for to help prevent more needless deaths in these kinds of tragedies?

Domestic Violence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, all the tools or remedies or procedures that the hon. member is suggesting are either already available or well within the grasp of police forces in Canada. It is a

question of the police forces themselves making use of those remedies and those procedures.

With respect to the nature of the gun being responsible for the tragedy in British Columbia, let me observe that the reason we are after the registration of all firearms and the reason the House has now approved that in Bill C-68 is that information available to the police to better enable them to predict such tragedies and take remedial steps to remove firearms will be available to all police across the country. That is what we achieved with Bill C-68.

Algerian Nationals
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

A report released on March 14 by the American secretary of state confirms that atrocities and human rights violations are on the rise in Algeria. However, the Government of Canada continues to refuse to suspend the deportation order hanging over the heads of Algerian nationals who have taken refuge in Canada.

Will the minister finally acknowledge that a climate of violence prevails at the moment in Algeria and that Algerian nationals should, like nationals of other countries selected by her department, benefit from a suspension of deportation measures?

Algerian Nationals
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Saint-Henri—Westmount
Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee looking at conditions in countries where people are deported meets regularly to assess situations in various countries, because, as you know, when we decide to send someone back to his country, the risks are always evaluated.

Obviously, we will not send someone back to his own country when there may be reprisals or his life is at risk. We are very careful on this. We study each case, each file, when individuals are to be deported. For the time being, we are continuing deportations to Algeria.

Algerian Nationals
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be totally unaware of the rise of fundamentalism in Algeria, and her advisory committee is meeting behind closed doors.

How does the minister explain that decisions on whether deportation orders are to be suspended for a given country are made in conditions of secrecy, according to criteria known only to her officials? Why is Algeria not among the countries presenting a risk?

Algerian Nationals
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Saint-Henri—Westmount
Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, each situation is considered on its merit. For a given country as a whole, various factors are taken into consideration. We are well aware of what is going on in each country. We also know what has happened to people after we sent them back to certain countries. We have consulted various authorities internationally as well.

I will repeat what I said. Each time we make a decision regarding a particular individual, we evaluate the potential risks they run in returning to their country. For the time being, we will continue to send people back to Algeria and continue to study each case in detail.

Blood System
Oral Question Period

April 29th, 1996 / 2:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Murphy Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health met with his provincial and territorial colleagues last week to discuss reforms to the blood system.

Justice Krever said in his interim report that our blood system was already one of the safest in the world. However, reports indicate a low level of confidence by Canadians in our system.

Can the minister tell the House what steps he plans to take to make our blood system better?

Blood System
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Cape Breton—East Richmond
Nova Scotia

Liberal

David Dingwall Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, last week there was a meeting of federal-provincial ministers of health where the blood system and its management was the major topic of discussion.

All provinces agreed it was important that we move collectively to try to restore public confidence in the blood system. All ministers of health agreed that we do have a safe blood system but we want to make it safer. As a result over the next number of weeks we have directed our officials to come back with a plan whereby we can have a system of governance where the lines of accountability and responsibility are very clear, transparent and open. By way of a working relationship, officials are directed to do meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, not just government representatives, but consumers and various activist groups across the country.

Somalia Inquiry
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was stunned to learn that a government lawyer appearing in front of the Somalia commission opined that the commission had no mandate to look at the alleged cover-up of information from the Department of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence day after day and week after week has been telling us to relax and take it easy, that the Somalia commission will give us all the facts on this. What is his story today?

Somalia Inquiry
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the issue to which the hon. member refers involves a request by counsel for some of the parties to look at hours and hours of videotape in respect of which as I understand it production has already been made with respect to summaries of the evidence that was recorded thereon. The position taken by counsel for the department on that request is that the commission's time is better spent looking at other issues than at looking at hours and hours of videotape which may not be germane or relevant and the substance of which has already been disclosed.

I can say that the position taken by counsel is based on the premise that this is a collateral matter. May I also say my understanding is that counsel has offered to the commission that it should look at the hours and hours of videotape and decide for itself whether there is any purpose to be served in taking time to display it.