Hugh Hanrahan

[Court Challenges Program, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in total disbelief that this government has reinstated the court challenges program. This program is nothing more than government funding of special interest groups, which more often than not exhibit bias or promote a view that is not in accordance with the majority of society.

Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that the Liberals managed to find almost $3 million floating in some abyss to fund this wasteful program. Yet this same level of government is contemplating raising personal taxes, implementing a carbon tax, taxing RRSP contributions and doing little to fight the debt or deficit.

Our national debt is rising by $1,743 every second and is now $538,860,511,635.87.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to discuss Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As a new member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have been looking forward to this time when I can stand before my colleagues in the House and have the opportunity to hold the government and particularly this department accountable for its actions and decisions.

Bill C-53 is a prime example of what is wrong with the country. It lacks leadership and direction. This was a perfect opportunity for the government to show Canadians that it truly does care about the future of Canada, not just in the short term but in a future which our children's children can enjoy.

Bill C-53 was an opportunity for the government to take the lead and make some hard decisions regarding funding practices. We are, as everyone knows, in rough waters. Canada is currently barely treading water. Our debt and deficit are reaching astronomical levels. For that reason federal spending must be controlled and ultimately reduced.

We are spending $110 million more each and every day than we are currently collecting in revenues. To make matters even worse, we are continually funding programs and activities that must be seen as low national priorities when the debt is considered. These would include multiculturalism, official languages and amateur sports.

In fact, in a survey conducted in 1991 Canadians were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that the government should stop funding multiculturalism and make these projects self-financed by multicultural organizations themselves. Over two-thirds of all respondents agreed and in fact 45 per cent of them strongly agreed that multiculturalism should be funded by multicultural organizations rather than the federal government.

Another area of contention is official languages. The Reform Party would eliminate the unnecessary federal funding and the divisive official language policy and would instead implement a policy of territorial bilingualism, maintaining official languages in key institutions such as Parliament, the Supreme Court and in federal institutions where demand is sufficient to warrant cost effective minority language services.

A final illustration of the program which I will describe as low national priority in the Department of Canadian Heritage is amateur sports. However, I want to make it clear that this list of three, multiculturalism, bilingualism and amateur sports is by far not inclusive.

There are presently 88 sports organizations that are solely funded by the federal government. This amounts to approximately $45 million plus an additional $12 million through areas such as major games hosting, athletic assistance programs and applied sports research. The overall consensus by these same 88 sport organizations is that there are insufficient funds available and that the current funds are spread too thinly among a large number of sports.

The federal government cannot be all things to all sports and the issue of core sports must be addressed. The concept of core sports financing should be supported in the short term with the criteria for eligibility of the core program becoming more and more selective until such time that the federal government no longer funds amateur sports.

The Reform Party has a commitment to balance the federal budget in three years and therefore the time of priority spending must begin. Therefore, the elimination of amateur sports funding over a three-year period would enable them sufficient time to find funding in the private sector. We feel that more emphasis should be placed on community based involvement regarding funding through such areas as corporate sponsorships, membership fees and volunteers.

Canada has also created a bureaucratic, top-heavy sports bureaucracy. It ensures that the majority of funding which we as a government are allocating is not going where it was intended, to the athletes. It is for these reasons that the only role for the state in amateur sports is the provision of sports facilities which would be accessible to all Canadians.

Bill C-53 attempts to give Canadians the illusion that the government is streamlining its activities. We in the Reform Party live in the real world and see that the bill is not streamlined but rather an ocean of overlap and confusion.

To illustrate my point, between the departments of heritage and industry there are overlaps in such areas as the Broadcasting Act, the National Telecommunications Power and Procedures Act, Telesat Canada Act, Radio Communication Act, Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commissions Act, and the Copyright Act.

It is incomprehensible to me that we need such an overlap and duplication in areas where for the most part government has no business becoming involved in the first place. The level of separation and degree of responsibility created through Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry, and Bill C-53, an act to establish Canadian heritage lack clarity.

On the one hand we have Canadian heritage which ultimately oversees overall regulations for the CRTC and the Department of Industry becoming more and more entangled in the overall direction of industries involved in the information highway and technological industries.

The questions that must be asked are: Why is the Department of Industry interfering in the natural progression and expansion of the private sector by over-regulation? Why is the department of heritage interfering with the natural progression and expansion of the private sector by over-regulation?

The answers to these questions are unclear. Perhaps it is because the government sees an opening where it can generate more revenues in the form of some sort of taxation, or perhaps it just enjoys over-regulating certain industries.

Both of these explanations are plausible. It is my obligation as a Reform member of Parliament not just to criticize but to be supportive where warranted and to always present an alternative.

I would like to tell my hon. colleagues that both over-regulation and overtaxation stifle business growth so stay out of the private sector as much as possible.

From my research and dealings with the information highway every expert I have talked to has told me the same thing, that the government is for the most part one or two years behind the private sector and their involvement only impedes the growth and productivity of firms involved. I reiterate we must stay out of the private sector.

Specifically, looking at Bill C-53 the government has in its ultimate wisdom left the cable industry in heritage while transferring the telecommunications industry to the industry committee. Have the Liberals read the CRTC telecommunications decision 94-19 which deregulates the telecommunications industry which, in short, opens competition to local telephone markets and means the cable companies will now be able to compete with phone companies for local home and business service. If comments coming from the chairman of the CRTC, Mr. Keith Spicer, are any indication there will be more deregulation in both cable and telecommunications industries.

Yet these two similar industries are now under two different ministers. I feel therefore I have to give the Liberals credit here as they are truly looking as if they know what they are doing, even though nobody on this side of the House, or the business sector, or the Canadian public knows what they are doing or why they are doing it.

What the Liberals have to understand is that less government will ultimately mean more freedom and more prosperity for all Canadians.

We as parliamentarians have an obligation not only to our constituents but to all Canadians. We must start to make the right decisions which will enable our country to lower our deficit.

It is for these reasons that I am opposed to Bill C-53. It does nothing to reduce government spending or waste, government mismanagement or incompetence, government overlap or duplication. It does not set an example for other ministries nor does it have the direction needed to lead this country.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions on behalf of Arlene Carlstrom and Lillian Panylyk, president of St. Nicholas Church in Edmonton.

The two petitions are signed by 189 constituents. These constituents would like to draw the attention of the House to section 241 of the Criminal Code to ensure that Parliament does not repeal or amend section 241, and to ensure that Parliament uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of December 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide.

It is my pleasure to submit these petitions and to also inform my constituents that I concur with these petitioners.

[Tobacco Taxes, October 20th, 1994]

Why did anybody not report him?

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member if she could be specific. She referred to replacing civil servants with technology, but that does not tell me in any way that there will be savings or how much these savings will be.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested a number of times in her

speech that these changes would achieve a much lower cost in terms of administration of the program.

How much are these savings and how would they be achieved? I would ask her to be specific if she could.

[Prescription Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the motion introduced by my hon. colleague. Motion 167 allows us to discuss the possibility of repealing Bill C-91 which was passed during the 34th parliament.

I believe that in all fairness to both the generic and to the brand name manufacturers we should hold off on this debate until such time is allowed to determine whether Bill C-91 has had a positive or a negative impact on research and development spending in Canada, employment and health care costs.

In fact, it is already explicitly stated in sections 14(1) and 14(2) of Bill C-91 that a review of this bill will be done in 1997. We should allow the Patent Medicine Price Review Board and the drug manufacturers time to adjust to this new legislation. However, I would like to make a few comments on the motion.

First, I think that it would be useful to examine why we need patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. Patent protection is crucial to this innovative sector. These companies require a certain amount of market exclusiveness guaranteed to them in the form of patents in order to recoup their research and development expenditures and finance the development of new products.

I believe like other inventions pharmaceutical products are entitled to patent protection. Unlike other products, however, the pharmaceutical industry must undergo a strict regimen of tests and evaluations to determine a product's safety and efficiency before it can be sold commercially. This testing process is rigorous and time consuming, involving animal and clinical trials.

Essentially Bill C-91 allows patent extensions to approximately three or four years. This extension still does not bring us in line with the rest of the world. In fact, the European Community averages 15 years, the U.S. 14, while Canada is at 10. It is little wonder that Canada has also one of the lowest research and development spending levels compared with the rest of the developed world.

Since 1987 when Bill C-22, the previous amendment to the Patent Act, was introduced R and D in Canada also increased. It was through Bill C-22 that multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers agreed to spend 10 per cent of Canadian sales in R and D in Canada. As a result R and D in Canada has increased approximately 250 per cent between 1988 and 1992. However, as mentioned earlier, it is too soon to determine just what impact Bill C-91 will have on the R and D spending in Canada in the long run.

Yet I do know that since the passage of Bill C-91 the pharmaceutical industry has spent over $600 million in research and development in Canada. This is a large capital output which has been a benefit to all regions of Canada.

Other key issues that must be considered are the mandate and powers of the Patented Medicine Price Review Board. This body was created under amendment to the Patent Act enacted in Bill C-22. The board was also amended in Bill C-91 during the last Parliament. The board is a quasi-judicial body which has the power to issue corrective orders when at the outcome of a hearing it is determined that the price of a patented drug sold in Canada was excessive. The board's jurisdiction extends to all patented medicines sold in Canada, whether they be prescription or non-prescription.

The mandate of the board is threefold: first, to ensure that the factory gate prices of patent medicines charged by the drug companies are not excessive; second, to report annually on the activities and pricing trends in the pharmaceutical industry; and, third, to report annually on research and development expenditures by the patented medicine industry.

The board's pricing guidelines ensure that no medicines exceed the international range regardless of the category in which the drug falls. These guidelines also ensure that price increases do not surge above the estimated consumer price index.

Since the creation of the board the prices of patent medicines in Canada have increased on average less than the consumer price index per year. Prior to the establishment of the board prices of the patent medicines rose on the average twice that of the consumer price index.

The principal amendments to the Patent Act brought about by Bill C-91 include new remedies for firms that charge excessive prices. These remedies include ordering price reductions, ordering a monetary payment in the amount of the excess revenues, and the extension of the patent life of patent medicines by approximately three years.

With the adoption of Bill C-22 the pharmaceutical industries in Canada increase both their patent protection life and the amount of employees hired. In fact employment increased by almost 15 per cent from 1987 to 1991. Again I believe we should have had a longer time period in order to assess the impact Bill C-91 will have on the employment rate in the pharmaceutical industry.

Another key area that must be examined is whether or not the extension of the patent life to 20 years has increased health care costs in Canada. Again the jury is still out. There has not been sufficient time to do a realistic study of the prices of medicines in Canada that relate directly to the patent life. Bill C-91 allows the board to be an effective control and watchdog that has some real teeth to it, which ensures that drug prices do not become an albatross to the health care system.

According to the executive director of the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association, the boards have brought the pricing back down and companies have made large settlements. The Drug Prices Review Board seems to have done some very positive things which have brought companies into line.

As mentioned earlier the board has a new mandate which is ensuring that those manufacturers that wish to break the pricing standards will be financially accountable.

If we look at the total costs of health care the pharmaceutical industry's portion of these costs is approximately 2 per cent of health care expenditure in Canada. Therefore I am not overly convinced that allowing these companies an extension in patent longevity is the driving force behind our increasing health care costs.

A comparison between the generic industry in Canada and the United States illustrates a few interesting points. There are two Canadian companies that control 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the generic market in Canada and their prices average 60 per cent to 80 per cent of the brand name product. In the U.S. there are 200 to 300 companies that compete in the marketplace and the prices of the generic manufacturing there average 25 per cent to 35 per cent of the brand name product.

I must state we are premature in discussing the pros and cons of Bill C-91 because it has not been enacted long enough to make a well informed, unbiased decision. I would think we would be better suited to discuss this issue in the future, allowing both generic and brand name manufacturers to have sufficient time to make changes and work within the new bill.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my anger in regard to the term ethnic cleansing in terms of linguistic ethnic cleansing used by the hon. member.

I have been accused because I am a Reformer of supporting such atrociousness. We do not support that. I would like to go on the record as being an Albertan who has a daughter in grade eight. She has been in French immersion since day one of her education. We are proud as a family that this is an opportunity that she has as a Canadian.

I would also point out that it costs the taxpayer of Alberta an extra $450 per student to be educated in French. I believe that extra amount should be paid by the individual who is receiving the benefit, the student involved or the parents.

I would like to ask the hon. member for his comments on that situation.

[Environmental Secretariat, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to express my concern regarding the appointment of the environmental secretariat to Montreal. How can a government that claims to be fair, honest and open on the one hand turn around and admit openly that a major government decision was made through partisan politics of the past?

I would like to state in this House that the city of Edmonton would have been an excellent host for the environmental secretariat. The city of Edmonton met the original requirements and therefore should have been a front runner, yet it was not.

The west wants in. We want the federal government to stop pandering to the wants of one region over another and start treating all provinces as equals.

I call on the government to reconsider the decision to establish the environmental secretariat in Montreal.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Edmonton-Strathcona it is geographically located in south central Edmonton. We are losing part of the southern tip and gaining part of the eastern section of it. In terms of socioeconomic changes, they are minimal. I do not see that it is going to be of major significance to my riding. We are studying that now.

As I suggested there is a process in place at Hotel Macdonald on April 28. If we have problems with it we will submit them to the commission.