Joe Volpe

[Hazardous Materials, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for the government members here and elsewhere, obviously we would echo the kinds of praises the member for Burnaby-Kingsway offers to those in emergency response teams.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway concerning the establishment of a test site for "Operation Respond".

The motion stipulates that the federal government should establish without delay a test site for the "Operation Respond" program. This emergency response system, which was first set up in the Houston area, in the United States, is now in use in selected localities in that country.

"Operation Respond" provides basic information to people and organizations in selected areas, who have access to the appropriate software. The promoter is "Operation Respond Incorporated", a non-profit organization, which is marketing an emergency response computer system, that includes procedures, software and content.

The primary goal of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is to promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods. This dangerous goods program has two dimensions. The first is to prevent an accidental release. The second is to ensure adequate responses should there be an accidental release or should one appear imminent.

Accident prevention includes proper identification of dangerous goods, appropriate means of containment and proper markings on these containers. In addition, a shipping document describing the dangerous goods accompanies those shipments.

Adequate response to any accidental release of dangerous goods requires knowing what is involved, its properties and what should be done. Canada already has in place a comprehensive, national emergency response service called CANUTEC.

CANUTEC is equipped to handle these types of situations. Operation Respond is limited in its activities. Indeed I should point out that the response information provided by the Operation Respond program is essentially that which is contained in the "North American Emergency Responds" guidebook which was co-authored by CANUTEC and the U.S. Department of Transport.

My colleague opposite knows that this guidebook was developed to provide responders with immediate guidance at an accident and is only an introductory element in CANUTEC's program. As an aside, I would like to point out that Transport Canada has this summer provided sufficient copies of the recently released 1996 version of this guide for distribution at no charge to all fire department vehicles and to all police highway vehicles in Canada.

In addition, this year the department also distributed in the form of a video to all fire departments in Canada the results of research work on explosions associated with liquefied gases. The video makes reference to the tragic accident in Quebec where several firefighters lost their lives as a result of a boiling liquid expansion vapour explosion involving liquefied gas.

I make reference to these items and to the support CANUTEC provides firefighters to highlight the fact that the department has a great respect for firefighters. It recognizes that providing effective support to firefighters is one of the more important emergency response activities that the department can undertake.

I am certain the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is familiar with CANUTEC. The centre operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Its primary goal is to provide information, guidance and advice.

CANUTEC provides a bilingual chemical and regulatory information and communications service to emergency responders and industry at an accident. These responders may include volunteer firefighters, full time firefighters, police or industry response teams, such as teams from the major petroleum and chemical producers.

CANUTEC is staffed by professional chemists, trained in accident situations, who are capable of providing information and advice to any level of detail required by responders.

It gets around 30,000 phone calls a year, 600 of which are for serious accidents. Pursuant to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, any accidental release of a dangerous substance must be immediately reported to local police authorities. However, if the accident involves a train, Canutec must be the first organization to be informed.

In Transport Canada's continuing effort to provide for a safe and efficient transportation system, two officials from Transport Canada are currently observing the Operation Respond program in the United States. Their role as observers is to attend Operation Respond meetings and to identify any new activities which would be considered effective tools for responders in Canada.

Finally, let me assure all members that Transport Canada will continue to closely monitor the Operation Respond program and will consider any activities which are shown to be effective in assisting emergency responders.

My colleague opposite has already given an indication that there is support for these kinds of initiatives and for the Department of Transport's initiatives by members of the transport committee. I leave it to my colleagues on that committee to speak for themselves and to address this issue when it appears again during private members' hour. I do not presume to speak on their behalf, but I know they share with me the considerations that I have just outlined not only for themselves but for the department as well.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Why do you say that? Where are the members of the Bloc? We are here.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

My colleague who comes from the agricultural area of Essex-Kent will bear me out.

This new system keeps that goal front and centre while achieving efficiencies, savings and increased effectiveness for everyone with a stake in the process and most especially, consumers and taxpayers. The minister has introduced legislation that creates the foundation for a Canadian system, one with greater harmonization of both standards and inspection.

As the speech from the throne noted, the government is prepared to work with interested provinces so that the new food inspection system co-ordinates these activities at the federal and provincial levels.

In my comments today I want to speak about the role of Health Canada in the new food inspection system. Hon. colleagues should know that Health Canada has a strong and firm role in protecting the health of Canadians and this bill fits that role. It draws on the unique strengths of the department.

The legislation will first of all eliminate the overlap that has existed among Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Health Canada regarding food inspection. This is not a trivial matter. The agency will be solely responsible for the delivery of food inspection and related services.

Health Canada will focus its attention on the food safety policy, standard setting and research necessary to support the system. It will assess the effectiveness of the agency's food safety activities. In short, Health Canada will focus on the science that is the foundation of a credible and effective inspection system.

You will forgive me if I applaud the initiative because this new approach makes sense. It fits with the government's emphasis on addressing the key determinants of health and few things are more important than good, healthy and nutritious food. It also fits with the other health protection functions of Health Canada has and the scientific resources it uses to carry out those functions.

These policy development and standard setting functions will draw on the strengths and resources that the department has built up over the years. We are going to apply both experience and expertise.

It will continue to use an approach that is based on good science. It will continue to use risk assessment as a framework for our activities so that our food inspection priorities are right.

These functions will continue to draw on the substantial laboratory infrastructure of Health Canada. Our national network of facilities and experts will allow the food system to identify hazards and assess them effectively through toxicology, disease surveillance and human health impact investigations. These facilities will form the practical basis of the department's abilities to set standards and create appropriate policies. This kind of work is the foundation of any modern, credible food inspection system.

Health Canada's staff deals with a wide range of food health hazards. Its scientists and analysts track chemical risks as a threat of allergens. They go after biological threats such as salmonella and they deal with physical issues such as the occasional presence of metal fragments in food products. That is not a very pleasant thought.

These experts are connected to Canada's broader public health intelligence system. They are linked to a network of people and places such as the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. They are linked to physicians and public health specialists across Canada. That means that our national disease surveillance system includes the capacity to quickly assess and check if an emerging health problem is food related.

As Health Canada's scientists and researchers work in their labs, they are not working in isolation. In this new model they will be in constant touch with the agency. They will work in a way that recognizes industries' interests in sound standards that earn the trust of Canadian and international consumers alike.

Health Canada brings together another advantage to the new food inspection system, its international contributions and contacts. In a world where trade is increasingly open and where our food products find buyers around the world we need consistent and fair standards, as identified in our debate earlier this morning on the bilateral agreement with Israel. My colleague, who comes from a very vibrant farming community in southwestern Ontario, Essex-Kent, will affirm that.

The department will see that Canada plays a full role in this process. Health Canada has a long and respected tradition of results in helping Canadians to enjoy one of the safest, healthiest food supplies in the world. Under this legislation that tradition will continue. Canadians will have a strong, credible team of medical, scientific and research professionals at work in labs and in the field to ensure solid standards and sound policies backed by the very best of research.

With this bill Canadians will get food of the highest possible quality and an inspection system which will be efficient and well organized. I believe that is has the support of the provinces and the stakeholders. I believe it deserves the support of all members of the House.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this legislation along with my other colleagues.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, as members know, has tabled a bill which is a fine example of the government's commitment to protect the health of Canadians. That bill introduces a new food inspection system. It is one that is built on the same overriding priority that we have always held high, good health for Canadians through the safest possible food sources.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member from Peace River. He and I sat on the international trade committee and on the foreign affairs committee for about two years. He has been insistent and persistent in his approach in defending the interest he feels he was elected to defend. I say that with no disrespect. It is important that members keep their minds on the issues.

In the course of those debates in that committee he pointed to this issue on more than one occasion. In fact, he was part of a series of studies that the committees undertook and participated in to bring just such issues forward.

The question of adjustments is not one that is going to be answered immediately in one debate in the House, nor dare I say, as we both found, in one committee. He pointed to the fact that Canada found itself isolated but that is part of the negotiating process. We entered into GATT, we entered into the World Trade Organization precisely because we wanted to ensure that the world recognizes certain standards, certain rules for dealing, for trading. We had to defend our own interests until we can find an alternative way to defend those interests.

In the context of those two organizations, we had to negotiate and we continue to negotiate for the interests of Canadians. I do not think we need to apologize for that, notwithstanding the philosophical positions other people have.

If farmers in Canada feel unhappy about the fact that we have defended their interests I would like them to say so. If what the member is saying, that defending our interests runs counter to the philosophical positions espoused by other countries and promoted by other countries to their own interest, that is a discussion that we can have a little later on. However, that is not what I am going to apologize for.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not accustomed to his phrase flip-flop. It is not part of the thesaurus that I read.

I thank my colleague for pointing out why Canadians decided very decisively in the last election that they could no longer brook the kinds of people that were administering, in fact misadministering, the country.

I am pleased that he realized that this government, this administration, my party, has taken all the appropriate steps to ensure that bad decisions were redimensioned, that adjustment programs were provided, that the direction required for trade deals be appropriately moved so that the benefits to Canada could accrue in an accumulative fashion.

I am glad that he has noted that it has worked. He has pointed already to the impact of increased trade on the domestic economy. For that I thank him. He has pointed to the impact of this administration's approach to world trade, liberalized trade and its impact on the nation's finances. He has pointed to the importance of this kind of growth to the fiscal policies and to the impact on the interest rates which have accrued to Canadians, which is a very immediate and very profound financial impact. For all of these things I thank the member opposite.

I want to thank him as well for recognizing that the country is run by an administration that realizes the importance of a changing world, the dimensions of that kind of change, the impacts of implementations of measures to deal with those changes and to bring them to a point where Canadians are very much an integral part of a globalized economy, of a globalized political economy, one in which they can look forward to a future with prosperity and growth.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my colleague opposite is in complete agreement with the initiative put forward by the Minister for International Trade. It shows great foresight.

I do not mean any disrespect by this, but the hon. member, who sits on the international trade committee, has for the last three years applauded all moves which liberalized trade and that increased Canadian business opportunities abroad. Generally speaking, he has been very supportive of the kinds of initiatives that the bill presents. He is unlike many of his Reform colleagues in that regard. We have actually seen eye to eye.

I want to stress some aspects of the bilateral relationships between Canada and Israel and remind members here in the House of the speech the minister made last night.

For some time now, Canada and Israel have had an excellent relationship based on shared values and strong bilateral and social ties. Given the current critical situation, we are supporting the efforts made by Israel and its neighbours to achieve a legitimate, global and durable peace in the Middle East.

While Canada was negotiating NAFTA with the United States and Mexico, Israel was increasing its commercial ties by signing free trade agreements with the United States and, more recently, with the European Union, Turkey, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

While that may have been a great idea for the Israelis, for the Europeans, for the Americans, it put us and our businesses at a slight disadvantage.

Trade between Canada and Israel was, however, stagnating. In November 1994, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, decided to do something about it. The leaders announced the beginning of negotiations that would hopefully lead to a free trade agreement between their two countries.

Last January, Canada and Israel reached a tentative agreement that both governments kept trying to improve upon.

While it would be my intention to applaud not only the foresight of the Prime Minister in this case and the diligent work of the Minister for International Trade, I would be greatly remiss if I did not acknowledge the focus of the individuals involved in the genesis of this idea, the generation of energy that led to its fruition, if I did not also underline the democratic process that led to this deal.

As my colleagues on both sides of the opposition have indicated, this trade deal is one to be lauded, not so much for of its grandeur because it may have some limitations in relation to the kinds of business we do with the United States and other countries, but it is an important and crucial first step. Quite often many of us feel dwarfed by the magnitude of government and by what appears to be the inaccessibility of the decision making process.

If members will allow me a personal reflection, this trade deal was really born out of a desire of entrepreneurs in Canada who saw opportunities emerging in the Middle East, and Israel in particular. They noticed that, notwithstanding all the difficulties that the area was having, because of the enormous influx of immigrants into Israel and because of the initiatives of the Israeli government to reach out and make peace and at the same time establish economic ties with its partners, there was a mini-economic boom.

The Europeans were the first to notice this. Their companies, with the support of their governments, were able to develop a niche market that had started initially with the growth of tourism. It may come as a surprise to most members, but the tourism industry and related industries are at their most potent right in the Middle East, most particularly in and around Israel.

That boom in the tourism industry allowed for enormous demand, much more than the area could supply for such things as furniture, for example, or textiles and clothing but also in the petrochemical and chemical industries.

Our entrepreneurs in the Toronto-Montreal area found that, notwithstanding the competitiveness of their product and the quality of their materials they could not compete with the Europeans or the Americans because of the free trade agreements they had struck with Israel. They asked the then leader of our party, now the current Prime Minister of Canada, if he could address this at a public meeting. The soon to be Prime Minister was asked if he would address this vacuum in Canadian international trade policy. Notwithstanding the dangers that address might put the party in, he promised he would do it. This he did immediately on assuming the

mantle of Prime Minister. We have seen the results. After two years of negotiations we finally have a deal.

As well, many of my constituents who were involved in the initial genesis, the push toward getting government foreign policy and international trade policy to respond to the interests of entrepreneurs in Canada, took every opportunity to remind me as their local member and other members from Toronto and Montreal that this treaty needed to be signed. Not only would it benefit Canadians economically, it would give us indirect access to the European Union. I know my colleague from the Reform Party would appreciate that.

It took a while for people to respond because obviously the details of such a deal had to be worked out. It is a credit to the people who were involved in this. I met them last July when the Minister for International Trade signed with his counterpart, Natan Sharansky in Toronto. Obviously there was some assiduous work to ensure that the deal would take place so that the new bilateral relations between Canada and Israel would work to the advantage of both parties.

Statistics were related by the Minister for International Trade yesterday and repeated by my colleagues from the Bloc and the Reform Party this morning. Trade has already picked up in some areas by as much as 37 per cent and in others by 49 per cent over last year. Such is the impact of the discussions of such a deal. We can anticipate that much more will happen as soon as the agreement has been inked. I am hoping that the House will approve this today following the debate.

In a crucial area like the Middle East, the presence of Canada whose reputation for altruism as seen through its peacekeeping efforts everywhere throughout the world would be a welcome addition. It has no interest except as one that would introduce expertise in the areas of the region that need it most. I pointed to petrochemical industries. The minister pointed to the electronic and agri-products industries.

When we speak of Israel we are speaking of relations with a country which is not much larger than Prince Edward Island and half of it is desert. Most people can develop policy by shouting from one city to another, in the same way that we shout at each other in the House. The place is intimate, the proximity of one market to another is such that most of us would not appreciate the impact for economic secrets.

However, the presence of Canada, not only as a peacekeeper but as a nation of entrepreneurs, that is willing and ready to provide not only its products but also its expertise will provide Canada, the Middle East and particularly Israel an opportunity to see how things can and should work.

Both opposition parties have indicated that they recognize the import of Canada's initiative of strongly promoting that such a deal also be made available to the Palestinians in the area. I think it is marvellous that the Israelis saw an opportunity for a lasting peace with a Canadian presence on an economic and political basis.

The bill is one that reflects not only what entrepreneurs wanted because it was generated in part by entrepreneurs who saw an opportunity and seized the chance to apprise their government of it and then follow it through together with the bureaucracies of both countries to ensure that legislation would come forward which would cement the ties both were willing to establish.

We have already seen some of the product of that. We have seen some of the flower of that activity. I look forward to a greater, more blossoming economic activity and political participation on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and colleagues for their attention. I thank them in particular for their support.

[Patent Act, October 8th, 1996]

There may be people who share a different opinion, but in our view the regulations under the PMPRB are strict. The prices of existing patented drugs cannot increase by more than the consumer price index. Introductory prices for new drugs are limited to the range of prices for other drugs which treat the same disease, unless the new drug represents a breakthrough or a substantial improvement. In that case, its price cannot exceed the median of prices charged for those drugs in other industrialized countries.

The evidence, notwithstanding the objections opposite, indicates that the PMPRB is doing its job in controlling patented drug prices. I ask members to consider some of the facts.

The member for Regina-Lumsden will note that in 1995 patented drug prices actually decreased by 1.75 per cent. That was the second year in a row that prices actually declined. By comparison, in that year the consumer price index actually rose by 2.14 per cent. My colleague may not be impressed with that but the fact is that there was a decrease.

Price increases for patented drugs have consistently been below the consumer price index ever since the PMPRB was created in 1987. Before that the member will know that drug prices were increasing at rates well above the consumer price index. As I said

earlier, I want to address the element of this bill that takes issue with health expenditures and drug costs.

In 1994 for the first time, patented drug prices in Canada were on average below the median international price. In 1994 the prices of new breakthrough drugs in Canada were on average 11 per cent lower than the median international price.

The reason I highlight these facts is to show first, that even in the absence of compulsory licensing, patented drug prices have remained under control and second, to show that influencing patented drug prices will not necessarily lead to reduced expenditures on drugs. The reason for this is not that difficult to see.

Overall drug prices and overall drug expenditures are influenced by additional factors such as the price of non-patented drugs, pharmacy dispensing fees, and the rate of utilization. All of these are factors which provincial governments are finding much to their dismay are contributing to a very large extent to the overall health costs. No matter how low prices are, the more drugs people take, the more drug expenditures will increase.

Federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health have recognized that action on drug costs can and must occur on many fronts. In April 1996 they directed deputy ministers of health to review and to report back on six pharmaceutical issues: price; utilization; marketing; consumer education; research and development; and waste.

Current estimates of wastage would astonish even the members opposite. They are well over 10 per cent of the overall costs. I am confident the work by the deputy ministers will lead to collaborative initiatives that will have a real impact on drug costs, the effective use of medicines and the health of Canadians. Working together with provinces and territories to discover and address the root causes of increasing drug costs is the way to achieve results.

We need to encourage pharmaceutical investment and research and development in Canada. It is in these kinds of jobs and these kinds of job creation opportunities that we can bring Canada's economy into the 21st century and make substantial contributions to the health and well-being of Canadians.

The factors that have helped Canada to attract this investment in R and D, and I refer to our excellent university structure, a competitive tax regime, and a supply of eminent scientists, would not be able to overcome the negative impacts of this bill. I refer back to Bill C-91 because what the member's bill does is it pre-empts what is required by Bill C-91 and that is a parliamentary review four years after royal assent, i.e., in 1997.

As I said in my opening remarks, it is one thing to propose an item of legislation and it is another one to pre-empt a process that is already in place and to try to predict and influence its outcome when it is going to be open for all members of this House.

Only when that review is completed and only when we have struck the appropriate balance between industrial objectives and health issues in Canada can we look at the patent policy to examine how it should be adjusted.

As I said earlier, this bill would pre-empt the process of that parliamentary review and presumes that change is needed without giving stakeholders a chance to participate and without allowing the evidence to be considered.

My minister has already indicated an openness and a willingness to ensure that the process works and works properly. In fact, he has already asked the national forum to speed up its work and to produce the work on its consultations for the benefit not only of that review but for the benefit of other reviews on health.

[Patent Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate on behalf of the Minister of Health.

I would like to correct a couple of misperceptions and misinterpretations that have been brought forward by my hon. colleague who presented the legislation for our consideration today. If we want to be fair and sincere about the issue at hand, and I believe all members in the House do, then we cannot begin by misrepresenting what the minister has said outside this Chamber.

The Minister of Health has said repeatedly that he is committed to a parliamentary review as is mandated by Bill C-91 and identified by my colleague a moment ago. It is unfair to suggest otherwise. Not only is he committed to that, he is not engaging in the kind of rhetoric that my colleagues opposite enjoy by trying to predict what the parliamentary review will produce or by trying to influence it. It is important to understand that the minister is going to abide by the regulations and by the legislation as presented by Parliament. We would all do well to honour the same thing.

My colleague from Regina-Lumsden presented the legislation for two basic reasons. I would like to focus attention on the issue of addressing drug costs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry has already addressed the licensing component. I would like to focus for a few moments on drug costs and health expenditures.

Make no mistake. The government is concerned about both the level and rate of increase in expenditures for pharmaceuticals in this country. Expenditures for drugs make up 12.7 per cent of Canada's total health expenditure. It is the third largest component of health expenditures behind only hospitals and physicians.

Not only are drugs the third largest component in Canada's health expenditures but these are increasing faster than any other component in health spending. In 1994 drug expenditures grew by 3.8 per cent. Even factoring in the population growth, the rate of growth is 2.1 per cent. Other speakers have already pointed out that in the late 1980s and early 1990s the situation was worse than it is currently, with increases in drug spending of well over 10 per cent per annum, year after year.

If we are really serious about addressing drug costs, then we must look much deeper than these facts and figures. We must consider the extent to which patented drugs contribute to the overall drug costs.

The federal government currently regulates patented drug prices through the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of points raised which need to be addressed.

First and foremost in the hon. member's presentation, we ought to be clear on the lines of communication and the lines of responsibility. If it is his intention to have the department report directly to the House of Commons, that is an innovative way for establishing lines of accountability.

The reason the minister has been charged with certain responsibilities is that he is always accountable to this House and to the hon. member in debate. That is a mainstay of our democratic process. I do not think we can dismiss that as being somehow anti-democratic. It is a very important element in the lines of accountability. The Minister of Health is always accountable, not only to the House but to the electorate.

Second, I am a little concerned that the member would take umbrage with the fact that there is an industrial application of hemp that the department is leaving open. It is a little bit of a problem because members of his party, members of the other opposition parties and the general public have been suggesting for quite some time that we ought to at least give it an opportunity to demonstrate its value.

The member quite rightly reads the amendment. It is not sneaky nor is it some surreptitious, vague wording. It deals specifically with the stalk of hemp and with its fibres. It does not deal with anything else. It is the element that is the least likely to contain hallucinogenic qualities.

If we open the door for the industrial use of a product that has been used by others in what many might suggest is a fashion not so far tolerated but at least proven to have some merit, that is consistent with what the Reform Party has been asking for all the way along. It is not an amendment that has been sneaked in. It is one that has been debated publicly for quite some time.

In that regard as well, the House should know that what the members of the official opposition and the Reform Party have suggested, that there be a health committee review of Canada's drug policies, that is being undertaken. In fact, the health committee has already set in place a schedule for reviewing the entire process starting in September when the House resumes sitting.

I take what the member has said in a positive fashion, but I do not think that members of the House should be confused as to the direction, purpose and openness of the bill as it is before the House. I encourage concurrence.