House of Commons Hansard #58 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sport.
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I have no interest in lobbyists' efforts. What I care about the most is Canadians' interests.
We promised during the election campaign that we would review Bill C-91, and that is what we explained again yesterday. We are interested in drug prices and in the investment and R and D track record here in Canada.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Minister of Industry and Commerce stated this morning before a parliamentary committee in Quebec City that the mere mention of a review of Bill C-91 caused the immediate postponement of a $50-million investment in Quebec's pharmaceutical industry.
Does the Minister of Finance, who is also responsible for regional development in Quebec, admit that a review of the drug-patent legislation would be disastrous for the brand-name drug industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, this is the same kind of exaggerated hyperbole that we have heard on both sides of this debate for too long.
We are trying to deal with the facts and we are going to determine what the facts are. The facts will indicate what policy direction the government should take in the future.
I want the hon. member to understand, because he was not here when Bill C-91 was passed, that law contains within it a statutory review that would occur within four years of its enactment in 1993. That is already in the bill. There is nothing new about saying that we will review legislation passed by the previous government.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Recently the Minister of Human Resources Development was forced to cancel a federal-provincial meeting on job training because several of the provinces objected to the federal government's approach.
Now it appears the Minister of Health may scuttle the planned forum on national health care with her ill-advised tax on provincial health care initiatives in Alberta and British Colum-
bia. National health care reform requires more co-operation, not less, between federal and provincial governments.
Will the Prime Minister instruct his Minister of Health to stop antagonizing and start listening to the provinces on health care reform?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear law of Parliament that medicare in Canada is free for everybody.
We have a law in Canada that says there will not be a two tier system of medicare, one for the rich and one for the poor. We also have a law in Canada which says that if one province is engaged in that direction we shall cut off funds to it.
The minister is doing what is right. She is making sure that the laws of Parliament are respected.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the root of the financial difficulties of health care lies in the fact that federal transfers to the provinces in support of health care have consistently declined over the last 15 years. Just last week the finance minister promised further cuts to federal transfers.
If the Prime Minister is really committed to health care, will he commit today to maintaining federal transfers to health care at present levels and to making deeper spending cuts elsewhere required to support that commitment?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this is another good day. Now the leader of the Reform Party is pleading with us not to cut. I hope the Minister of Finance will note that.
In our platform we said that we were to maintain the level of transfers to the provinces, that they were not to be reduced, and they were not reduced in the last budget.
We say to the provinces that we want to sit down with them. The Minister of Health is organizing the conference that I will be presiding over in June wherein we will make sure that free medicare is portable for all our citizens whatever their financial means, respected and operated efficiently. We will have that meeting to do that and I hope the Reform Party will support this process. In fact, yesterday when I said that we should keep that system in Canada I saw many of his members applauding.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is avoiding the issue. When national medicare was introduced the federal government made a solemn commitment to carry 50 per cent of the cost to the provinces.
Today federal transfers in support of health care in provinces like British Columbia cover only 36 per cent of the cost. Yet the federal government continues to use the Canada Health Act to tell the province how to finance and operate the system. In other words, health care is being choked between reduced federal transfers and an outdated national health care act.
My question to the Prime Minister is very simple. Will he stop the choking? Will he promise that federal transfers in support of health care will be maintained and instruct the health minister to give the provinces more latitude, not less, in developing solutions to their health care needs?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, of course there are some problems in the administration of medicare. We have said that and we have said that is why we need a conference.
It has been a good system. It is a system the Canadian people want to maintain. We have to sit down with the provinces to make sure that it is revisited at this time and that it is operating properly. It has been a great service to Canada since it was established. I think all Canadians want to keep it.
We want to work to maintain it. I am happy to see the Reform Party supporting the notion that we should have free medicare and not two types of medicare for people in Canada.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. After 22 months of waiting, BioVac has still not received approval for its BCG cancer vaccine, while Connaught of Toronto obtained such approval after only a 14-month wait. I reminded the minister yesterday that her department was applying a double standard.
My question is this: Now that she has had the time to do the necessary checks, can the minister tell us when BioVac will receive its authorization?
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, an application for the BCG therapeutic product used in treating cancer of the bladder was filed by Connaught Laboratories on March 2, 1989. The notice of compliance was issued on April 25, 1990. The approval process thus took 13 1/2 months.
The Biochem file on BCG cancer, a product intended to treat bladder cancer, was received on June 10, 1992. The hon. member must realize that we receive a growing number of submissions of new research drugs and new drugs that qualify for priority evaluation; this increase is mainly due to progress in the biotechnology industry.
These priority applications take precedence over regular ones that are already being processed in order of receipt. Many physicians wishing to obtain the product from Biochem in order
to treat patients in their care can do so through the Emergency Drug Distribution Program.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I personally met with the minister. I wrote to her. I asked her a question in the House yesterday. I ask her the same question again today: When will BioVac have its approval? When? Is that clear?
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that my function is to ensure that any medication which receives a notice of compliance is safe and efficacious.
I will only issue a notice of compliance when my department and scientists are absolutely sure it is safe for the people of Canada.
That is the process we follow. It is the process we will continue to follow.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
It has been revealed that one of the individuals arrested in Toronto in connection with the Just Desserts killing had an ongoing involvement with Canadian immigration officials and the minister's department.
This individual had been ordered deported in 1992 but had been given a stay of proceedings on that deportation order again by the minister's department in 1993. Had this individual been deported on time he would not have been charged in connection with the murder of Georgina Leimonis.
Why was this individual given a stay on his deportation order in 1993 by the minister's department?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult situation. We should be careful and try not to be in contempt of court so as not to prejudice this very important case many Canadians are looking at. Let me say this tragedy moved more than the city of metropolitan Toronto. It moved the whole country to think about that senseless killing.
Let me also put into focus this department moved on the basis of inadmissibility grounds to deport that individual. I can tell the hon. member and this House I believe when we moved to deport that individual the case was made before an immigration appeal member. This is not controlled by my department but is a quasi-judicial independent tribunal.
I will say the system failed us on this case. That strengthens my convictions that the amendments I have been discussing with my officials to strengthen the criminality provisions and to close the loopholes are the right course.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the individual in question was issued a stay on his deportation order in 1993 despite the fact he had a criminal record as long as his arm, and that was with the knowledge of the department.
When will the minister finally acknowledge that his department's system of background checks and enforcement is not working? How many more lives are going to be lost before the minister takes action to ensure the safety of Canadians?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, this member of Parliament does a disservice to the facts of the issue and to the concerns both of us and both sides of this House share. You do not have a monopoly on concern-
ImmigrationOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would remind hon. colleagues to please address the Chair.
Sergio Marchi Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, my department wanted and pushed for deportation. An independent quasi-judicial body stayed the deportation. The adjudicator who made that decision was not reappointed to that board. She was not reappointed by this minister. Therefore we need no lessons from the hon. member.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the past, the Liberal government has recognized on numerous occasions the need to set up a reconversion assistance program for the defence industry Indeed, the situation of these companies is very precarious and no specific assistance is currently provided to those interested in restructuring their operations.
Does the Minister of Industry recognize that the defence industry productivity program, or DIPP, does not provide any specific assistance for conversion purposes, and that the defence industry wants a fund to be set up, using money from the current DIPP budget to support conversion initiatives? Indeed, the budget of this program should be used for that purpose.
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. member refer to that project, because the rules regulating DIPP will be expanded so as to include conversion projects for the defence industry.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister is referring to the future, because right now this program cannot be used to support conversion initiatives by these companies.
Consequently, why does the minister not give us a concrete and specific schedule regarding his conversion support strategy?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I do want to assure the member that as was announced in the budget, the broadening of the terms of the DIPP is being worked on at the present time.
The member is aware of the financial limitations the government has. That is why we are also looking not only at making the DIPP contributions repayable in their entirety, but creating a revolving fund. Therefore not only do we aid projects that are directed at defence conversion presently, but we build a fund based on commercial viability that will sustain such projects and those companies that are involved in those sectors of our industry into the future.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is with a heavy heart that I once again must ask the Prime Minister why he continues to waste tax dollars, this time on a sun and fun holiday among the palms of a Caribbean island.
It is reported the Prime Minister not only used a Challenger jet for a personal vacation, at a cost of slightly more than $250,000 using the Auditor General's formula, he allowed his hangers on and his flight crew to enjoy 10 days in the sun as well.
When will this Prime Minister realize Canadian taxpayers will not accept his free spending ways?