Dennis Mills

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I begin by congratulating the Reform Party for initiating the debate on comprehensive tax reform. I also humbly correct the member because he made a statement that the government had failed to address this problem.

I would like to clear the record because we have started the process of addressing this problem. We started it in the finance committee. Just yesterday the Prime Minister reiterated our election commitment that the GST was going to be killed. I think that is what he said. It is important for Canadians to know this. They cannot think, because we campaigned for three years for tax reform, that we came here and did not begin the process. We have not solved it yet but we have started.

I remind the member that I had the privilege of appearing before the committee last week on the single tax which many of us on this side of the House have been working on for the past few years. It is a very difficult and complex issue. The member announced that.

I have a question for the member. When a single tax is designed, or a proportional tax, one basic principle is flushing out all corporate loopholes, all tax preferences. Some would call them grants. Will the Reform Party be consistent on that and agree, as those of us who support single tax agree, that when we flush out all those preferences we will flush out all preferences that pertain to the energy sector in the province of Alberta?

[Recall Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, I did not want the member to think that I was all of a sudden becoming impersonal.

I believe that one of the unique qualities of the member for Beaver River is the fact that the member has always had the courage to go against the wind. I want to pick up from the member's speech where she talked about the Charlottetown accord and tried to bring the relevance of the Charlottetown accord experience to this recall debate.

I was elected in 1988 for a very specific reason in downtown Toronto. I ran opposing the Meech Lake accord. I believe in a strong national government. I was ideologically supportive of the Pierre Trudeau vision of this country and I still am. I was given the trust in 1988 by the people of Broadview-Greenwood, which had been an NDP riding for 25 years, because I took a very specific stand on that important constitutional issue. I also thank John Turner for his terrific debating skills. That was the other great reason I believe that I won.

Two years ago, when we had the Charlottetown accord, I was sitting in this House of Commons with a position on the Constitution, a strong national government. If I were to maintain the trust of my electorate, and the member for Beaver River always says listen to your electors, I had to sit in this House in opposition and I did not support the Charlottetown accord. I sat here and I did not support my party's position. It was a very painful experience.

I then went into my riding and I campaigned on the beliefs that I had. My beliefs were personally that I did not believe in dismantling or decentralizing this national government any more than it had already been dismantled. I campaigned, not vigorously, but I campaigned. I was not trying to get into a confrontation with my leader or my party colleagues. It was just something that I had been given a trust on in 1988 and I had to m maintain it.

During discussion of the Charlottetown accord I put my position forward. A majority of my constituents at that time did not share my view of the Constitution. Every night I gave my reasons. Our office was open seven days a week, 24 hours a day, for that period of time. It cannot be said that I hid behind the curtain or anything like that. People knew.

Because of the incredible thrust of advertising and because of the media, we were gobbled up by the big hustle on the Charlottetown accord. During that campaign period many people in the community went along with the pack. Those of us in my own community at the time of the election who did not share the view lost by 2 per cent.

I could have been at that moment in time, because of the Charlottetown accord, a victim of a recall action. My constituents could have initiated a recall action. They would have had the basis for getting a recall motion going.

It is important that we debate the issue, but the real test of our accountability does not come in the short term. It comes with our four-year actions in the House. That is when we get our recall test.

[Recall Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating the member for Beaver River for advancing debate on this very important issue.

Part of the reason why I will not support your motion is because I believe you have been an example-

[Prescription Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying how disappointed I am that the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve does not appreciate the British humour of the Minister of Industry. This is something we on this side of the House are all quite proud of.

I want to tell the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve that we are committed to carrying out our promise to assist defence industries in transition from high technology military production to high technology civilian production.

The member knows, because this member is educated and he is very close to these issues, that this is not like buying a can of soup, putting it in a microwave and 20 seconds later it is ready to eat. This is a very complex issue. The exercise of converting these defence industries into industries that are going to be viable in peacetime is very complex.

The member should know that we are committed and we are working with several organizations, especially in Quebec. As he knows, in the February budget the DIPP program was explicitly targeted for redesign and we are working with many companies such as Oerlikon and Paramax, so I would ask the member to please bear with us.

I think by the time we return from China along with the member and 100 small and medium-sized businessmen from all over Canada who are going there with us, there will be even more action on the DIPP conversion program.

[Prescription Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the member that I cannot speak on the minister's coming to his riding but one day I would love to visit his riding and I hope that one day he will come and visit my riding in downtown Toronto.

To the member I want to say that even though he looks after his people in a rural setting and I am in a downtown setting we both share and care in the same way. What the government is trying to do is take a number of steps that hopefully will put people back to work.

We are not just reforming the unemployment insurance system. We are also trying to urge the financial institutions and the banks of Canada to be more generous in their attitude toward small and medium size businesses, the businesses that the member described in his riding. With the support of his colleagues in committee we are beginning to have some success in that area. We are trying with our infrastructure program to get some activity stimulated in the member's community and throughout all of Quebec and Canada.

We are also trying to the best of our ability to reform the tax system in the finance committee. There are a number of things we are trying to do. We know that there is a great sense of urgency and we are doing our best to move these projects forward.

Make no mistake about it, the member's riding will get the same attention and the same care as any other riding of any other member in this House.

On behalf of the minister I want to say that we do care about the pain that the member's constituents are experiencing and we are going to do our best to make sure that some of that pain can be relieved in the not too distant future.

[Prescription Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that in the government's recent announcement of the youth employment and learning strategy we stated that we would work in close collaboration with all the provinces in the implementation of the approaches and specific programs for young Canadians. In saying this the government is committed to assisting Canada's youth through programs that complement those offered by the provinces.

Quebec has a very different apprenticeship program from those in all other provinces. In Quebec those who wish to learn a trade attend a CEGEP for two or three years and then seek out an employer. In other provinces a person who wants to learn an apprenticeship trade must find an employer who is willing to employ and to train him or her. As a result Quebec does not require nearly as many funds for apprenticeship as do other provinces. Therefore funds are allocated where they are most needed, such as for the forms of vocational training offered at CEGEPs.

In addition Quebec still receives more than its fair share for the province's youth through regular employment programs and services, as well as through special current initiatives such as the joint management of co-operative education and project based training courses which are jointly delivered with the SQDM.

We will continue to work with the province of Quebec to set priorities for our youth programs and, where possible, we will harmonize our programs with those of the province of Quebec.

[Prescription Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.

We share his concern over the impact of the amendments to the Patent Act that were introduced in the last Parliament. The laws that govern pharmaceuticals must balance many different interests. They must serve the industry, consumers and provincial governments whose health care plans account for about half of prescription sales in this country. As a result, I think it altogether appropriate that the government take a careful look at the results of the changes to the patent laws that were introduced by the last government.

We would like to remind this House that the compulsory licensing regime for drugs was first adopted in 1923 following the example of an act in the United Kingdom. Until 1969, however, few compulsory licences were issued because the act required that active ingredients used in the manufacture of the generic drug would be produced in Canada.

That changed in 1969. In that year the Patent Act was amended to allow generic companies to import active ingredients. This allowed a generic drug sector to develop in Canada.

Under the system that was established compulsory licence applications were filed with the Commissioner of Patents who determined the royalty rate to be paid by generic companies to the patentees. The royalty rate was generally set at 4 per cent of the sales of the generic product. This system continued for the next 18 years.

Some have argued that the system served Canada well. They would point out how the Canadian health care system benefited from cheaper pharmaceuticals. Because the results of their investment, hard work and innovation was not protected by our patent laws, the makers of brand name pharmaceuticals were reluctant to establish research facilities in Canada.

Back in 1969 this was not considered to be as important a cost in light of the benefits of cheaper pharmaceuticals. For one thing, it seemed unlikely that brand name pharmaceutical companies would establish research facilities in this country in any event. After all, most of the innovative pharmaceutical companies were foreign multinationals and they tended to set up their research facilities in their home countries.

Indeed, when a commission of inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry, chaired by Harry Eastman, tabled its report in 1985 it maintained that the innovative pharmaceutical companies were not hurt financially by the compulsory licensing regime. The profits of the industry from 1968 to 1982 were substantially higher than for total manufacturing in most other industries.

In fact, the Eastman commission recommended that compulsory licensing brought a competitive element to the industry. It estimated that it saved Canadian taxpayers and consumers $200 million in 1983 alone. The commission recommended that compulsory licensing be continued but that the royalties paid to patentees be increased to reflect the costs of research and development to the innovator. The report also recommended that patentees be allowed four years of market exclusivity before generic companies would be permitted to enter the market.

The Eastman commission tabled its report at a time of profound change in the worldwide pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Eastman could not have anticipated some changes in the global environment for research and development that were taking place.

The major multinational drug manufacturers were beginning to invest their research and development dollars in countries other than their home country. One of the assurances that they sought in return for this investment was adequate intellectual property protection for their products.

Around the world other leading industrialized countries abandoned their compulsory licensing regimes for drugs. Canada became increasingly isolated in trade discussions and subject to pressure to repeal the compulsory licensing regime.

Many members of the House will recall the bitter debates that took place over the amendments to the Patent Act that were passed in 1987. Pharmaceutical patent owners were guaranteed a period of market exclusivity of seven to ten years instead of the four years that had been the case previously. In exchange, the brand name pharmaceutical companies made a public commitment to increase its research and development to sales ratio from 4.9 per cent, which is where it was in 1987, to 10 per cent by the year 1996.

In fairness to these companies the House should acknowledge that they have been increasing their R and D. The House will recall that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board was created under Bill C-22 to control the prices of patented medicines as well as to report on R and D investments.

As the House knows, the previous government was not content to leave the patent legislation as it was amended through Bill C-22. In 1993 after another very bitter debate further changes were introduced through Bill C-91.

These amendments abolished the compulsory licensing regime entirely. They did so retroactively. The amendments rendered inoperative any compulsory licence not granted by the Commissioner of Patents as of December 20, 1991. That was the date the so-called Dunkel text of the GATT was made public. The NAFTA also requires implementation on that date. These two trade agreements, the GATT and the NAFTA, limit the possibility for change in patent laws in Canada. Compulsory licensing specifically for drugs is not allowed.

However some changes introduced in Bill C-91 went beyond what was required by these agreements. The government is taking a very close look at ways where it can harmonize the interests within the pharmaceutical industry and among consumers, provincial governments and drug companies.

I also remind the House that Bill C-91 strengthened the powers of the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board. For example, failure to comply with the board's orders now carries a fine of up to $100,000 a day for a company and $25,000 a day for an individual. Although the price tests applied by the board were not changed, new price control factors can now be added by regulation after consultation with stakeholders.

Another aspect of the act to amend the Patent Act should be mentioned here. Regulations were adopted that prevent the health protection branch of Health Canada from approving a generic product before the expiry of the Canadian patents on the brand name equivalent. These regulations have led to many lawsuits within the pharmaceutical industry and the volume of litigation arising from this provision is being reviewed.

These are matters the House must take into consideration when dealing with the motion before us. It would not be appropriate to look at just one side of this very complex issue as the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has done.

I understand the Minister of Industry has met with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. He is reviewing carefully the current drug policy and its effect on investments in Canada, job creation and drug prices. He will ensure that consumers are treated fairly.

The challenge is to ensure that drug patent legislation supports the development of Canada's pharmaceutical industry while making patented drugs available to Canadian consumers at affordable prices.

The government will not take the side of the pharmaceutical industry over the side of health care objectives. It will take all interests into consideration. That is what the government is committed to doing. It is what Canadians expect of us. The government is weighing very carefully the various issues at stake and acting upon its commitment to review the drug patent policy.

[National Sport Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I guess today would be one of those days that you wish you were involved in this debate having been a player not only of the Memorial Cup team you played on but a coach and referee in the NHL. We are certainly all aware of your participation in this national sport.

I begin by quoting from The Game which Ken Dryden and Roy McGregor put together. I think it summarizes most of the spirit and the theme that the member for Kamloops is putting forward in his bill today:

Hockey is part sport and recreation, part entertainment, part business, part community builder, social connector, and fantasy maker. It is played in every province and territory and in every part of every province and territory in this country.

Once a game for little boys, now little girls play hockey as well and so do older men and women, so do the blind and the mentally and physically handicapped, and although its symmetry is far from perfect hockey does far better than most in cutting across social divisions, young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural, French and English, east and west, able and disabled.

It is this breadth, its reach into the past, that makes hockey such a vivid instrument through which to view Canadian life.

I believe that Roy McGregor and Ken Dryden have captured what the member for Kamloops is trying to put forward today in this bill and I stand here in full support. I would like to talk about a couple of experiences that I have had in dealing with hockey as our national sport since I have been a member of Parliament and how I feel that it really pulls us together, not only as a House of Commons but as a country.

About the time when we were celebrating the 125th anniversary of our country a group of us from all parties got together. At that time most of us who were working on this idea were in the opposition. We went to the then minister responsible for national unity, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, and asked him to support us in bringing to Toronto 58 hockey teams from villages, towns and cities from all across Canada. From coast to coast, every region of our country, they all came to Toronto in April of that year to play in Maple Leaf Gardens in a 10-day tournament.

There were a few things that inspired me to believe that hockey truly is the sport that pulls us together as a country.

First I have to talk about the evening that the Dartmouth Whalers played in Maple Leaf Gardens against a team that most people thought would dominate the Dartmouth Whalers, a team in a AAA league in Toronto at the peewee level. At the end of the game the Dartmouth Whalers were victorious. They had beaten this Toronto championship team.

The following morning in the hotel I ran into the captain of the Dartmouth Whalers and I said to him: "Boy you had a pretty good game last night. We were all surprised that you did so well". He said: "Well, Mr. Mills, it was a funny experience. We walked into Maple Leaf Gardens. First of all when we looked up and saw those stands we felt the magic in the place. We felt good. But then when we got on the ice our energy quadrupled, our spirit was so great no one could beat us".

Those young peewees from Dartmouth said it all. Hockey provides an energy, a feeling and a spirit of pulling us together that I do not think any other sport in this country has. I am not

putting down any other sport, but I do believe it truly is our national sport.

I know you can relate to this, Mr. Speaker, because we both have sons who play in the Ontario Hockey League. Your son is a terrific player with the Kingston Frontenacs and I have had the pleasure of watching my son play this year with the Belleville Bulls. It is an experience going to these local rinks. I am amazed at the way it pulls the community together. It becomes the local event. The radio stations and the local TV stations and the whole community experience happens around hockey. There is a whole family experience that happens around hockey. This same experience is in every rink throughout our nation.

I am happy to stand here today in support of hockey as our national sport. I believe that hockey will be one of the things that ultimately keeps us together as a nation. I just cannot imagine the Montreal Canadiens being changed to the Montreal Blocs. It just does not work.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member. I want to make it perfectly clear that we have taken a policy position. Not only was this particular airport contract flawed but the privatization approach that was used was not in keeping with our thrust.

We are not just cancelling this contract to walk around the curtains and give it to some other private sector group. We are looking at all types of options to make sure we get the best contract for Canadians, not just in the short term but in the long term.

That means that it may not be run out of the Department of Transport but maybe it could be quasi-crown organization. In no way, shape or form have I ever heard from anyone on our side that we are looking to shut this contract down so we just turn around and give it to some other private sector contractor.

I personally believe that the officials in Transport Canada have been doing a very good job in managing the Pearson International Airport. Is the member asking me can they do a better job? We can all do a better job. It does not matter what we are doing. Does it mean that maybe we should go outside and get some private sector advice on how we can increase the profits or do a better job to raise funds? I have no problem with that. What I am saying is: give the contract to the consultants. Let us not give away the farm.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on Bill C-22 because as members know, this was an issue I was quite active on when in opposition and also during the campaign. Pearson International Airport is not directly in my riding but it is located in the city that I represent with many other Liberals.

I want to go back to the days when we opposed the privatization of Pearson International Airport and make it perfectly clear that when we told the then government we were against this particular project, the privatization of Pearson, we were very specific about our reasons.

One of the reasons we put forward was that Pearson International Airport is probably the largest profit centre the Government of Canada controls. I was just looking at some figures that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, handed me during question period. These numbers are taken from years 1991-92 and 1992-93 where the positive cash flow after operating expenses and capital expenditures was over $50 million. That was during a period of time when revenues and travelling were down. In 1992-93 it was $67 million and in 1993-94 the revenues were close to $68 million again.

If we go back to the mid and late 1980s there were a couple of years when the Pearson International Airport was generating

close to $100 million a year. We heard from the Conservative government at that time that if we let the private sector take over Pearson it could do a better job than the bureaucrats and the officials.

The position we took was that if there were management people out there who could do a better job than the bureaucrats who were at that time generating $100 million a year, and even during the depression over $50 million a year, that was interesting. Why not introduce us to these management experts and let us give them a contract as management consultants?

In other words, if they said that they could improve the cash flow at these airports from 51 to 60 or put some specific targets in place, let us give them a base salary and a percentage of what they would pick up as they increased the efficiency or the cash flow from what the officials or the bureaucrats were doing.

We thought that we could probably achieve everything that the government wanted to achieve: a better cash flow, renovate or renew the airport and clean up the parking lots without giving it away. That was the position we took.

I know that during the election campaign several people were involved in the airport transaction. They had actually come to me in my campaign office and said: "Dennis, listen, I hope you aren't as rigid on your view of Pearson". I would tell them: "I am as rigid today as I was then". I am not against giving people a contract to renew or construct new construction at the airport. I am not against using the private sector to do the food services, the parking lots, the cleaning services, all these things that the private sector can do better. However the thought of handing over a crown asset, a jewel in the crown, that essentially had the potential to pay for all of the renovation and renewal required in about a 10-year period out of the existing cash flow.

Again I felt that our position was constructive in opposition when we said: "Look, if there is room for efficiency we will accept that. There is always a possibility, but let's hire these so-called experts who can operate it better. Let's give them a contract but let's not give away the whole franchise. Let's not give away the whole store". If a business was doing well and somebody came along and said "I can improve your profits or your cash flow by 10 per cent or 20 per cent", it would say: "Sure, let's do it". However, if the person said: "No, no, no. I want to own the business. I want to take your business", there is not a member of Parliament who would go along with that deal.

Therefore the Prime Minister made the right decision during and after the campaign when he shut down this contract because it was not good in the long term interests of the Canadian public.

The thing that makes me feel bad about this contract is that we could have had that airport under construction right now if the people who had all of this expertise and all these plans on renewal and renovation had come in with a proposal that did not say we need to own it. It is a fact of life that we have to clean up the parking lot and we have to do the renewal and renovation there and we could have had people working. It is too bad they did not take the compromised approach that many of us suggested. Hopefully we can get through the bill today and maybe get back to this with a fresh approach.

There is another part of this contract that I did not like. I want to credit my colleague from York South-Weston for bringing this up. My colleague from York South-Weston as everybody in Canada knows really led the way on the debate on the merits of why we should not proceed with the privatization on this deal.

I will never forget one particular evening when we were in a meeting. It is like any family, some people in the room are for or against and take different positions on an issue. I remember the member for York South-Weston turning to someone in the room who had an awareness of certain contents related to the contract and he asked: "Is there a flip clause in this particular Pearson privatization contract?" The person said yes, at year 10 the owners have the opportunity to flip this. That is exactly what was said.

I remember all of a sudden the lights went on with all of us. We said: "Imagine if this contract had gone through, 10 years from now with the private owners of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Can you imagine what the people of Canada would have said if we had basically sold this airport to the Libyans or sold it to some other offshore group?" I remember we said jokingly that night that 10 years from now it will be called Gaddafi International.

Just the thought of selling the Pearson International Airport to an offshore group-if there were ever a piece of good, positive contribution to our community and our country as Pearson airport, to think that we would be so stupid as to construct a deal that would allow it to be given away ten years from now, there is just no contest on that point alone.

I am happy to stand in the House today in support of the bill. I want to say to the members of the Bloc Quebecois who put forward an amendment today proposing that this go to a royal commission of inquiry that I know exactly where the Bloc members are coming from. They want to do a detailed analysis of the players, the participants, and who constructed this deal. If that is put into a royal commission mode that would go on for months and months and perhaps years, and it would cost literally millions of dollars.

The basic objective the Bloc members are trying to achieve could be done when we do the lobby registration bill. We need speedy passage of the bill so that we can start from scratch in renewing and renovating Pearson International Airport. Not only do we need it for creating immediate jobs but because Toronto is a major access point for tourism, trade shows and all kinds of other activities. It is not just in the greater Toronto area

but in every other region of Canada. It is really important that we get on with that.

I hope when we come to the table the next time with the private sector it will understand that we respect its skill in terms of giving us advice on how we can manage the place. We would certainly want it to do the construction and everything else because that is not government's business. It also has to understand that in the long term interests of Canadians it is best that the Lester B. Pearson International Airport stay in the hands of the Government of Canada.