Debates of April 28th, 1994

National Sports Act

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Parliament approved Bill C-212, a bill officially designating ice hockey as our national winter sport and lacrosse as our national summer sport.

Both of these sports have a significant place in Canadian history and are an important element of our culture. Hockey and lacrosse are just as symbolic of Canada as the maple leaf or the Bluenose .

The passage of this bill is a good example of co-operation in Parliament and of how MPs on both sides should work together without the cross-checking, holding and interference that usually occur in the House as they do on the ice, on the floor, or on the field.

This bill brings all Canadians together, contributing to our national unity. I am sure that all Canadians will be pleased with the action taken by this Parliament.

Orthodox Easter

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Holy Week for Canadians of Greek Orthodox faith. In fact, it is Holy Week for all Eastern Orthodox religions. Sunday is the day we celebrate our Easter.

All over my riding of Saint-Denis, Canadians of Greek origin will be partaking in orthodox Easter traditions such as lamb roasting and dancing, along with traditional foods which will no doubt be in abundance. Families will be united and friends and neighbours of other cultural backgrounds will also share in this special day.

Saint-Denis is a riding where our differences, cultural and religious, are celebrated and exchanged in an effort to better understand one another. I am proud to represent such a riding.

I would like to conclude by wishing a happy Easter Day to all my constituents in the riding of Saint-Denis, and to all Canadians of Greek origin.

Kalo Pasha.

Safety In The Workplace

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, today, April 28, is a national day of mourning for workers who have been injured or died on the job.

Each working day, four Canadians are killed on the job.

Every seven seconds of every working day a serious injury occurs. Every year workers die from workplace diseases that too often go unrecorded and uncompensated. Health and safety standards and their enforcement continue to be weakened by governments nationally and internationally.

I call on this government to honour this national day of mourning as passed in this House of Commons by fighting for good labour standards for our workers and, in order to honour our workers, that the Prime Minister agree to fly flags at half-mast on this day of mourning for the workers of this country who have lost their lives at work.

Citizenship Court

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 14 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated: "As vacancies arise, new citizenship court judges will not be appointed". On April 26 the Prime Minister stated: "We are working at substantially reducing the deficit". He referred to the millions of dollars being saved by the citizenship court judge decision.

As a result of the attrition in these appointments the estimated potential savings for this year alone should be in the range of $300,000. However, all attempts to have the estimates in this one department reduced at all to reflect these savings to the Canadian taxpayer have been stonewalled by the Prime Minister's own caucus.

Similar to this government's first budget brought down in February, we continue to hear promises from this Prime Minister but see no action.

Patent Drugs

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance.

Reacting to the federal government's intention to reopen the drug patent law, the Quebec minister of industry accuses Ottawa of creating a climate of instability by threatening investments in Quebec. He says that a drug company established in Quebec has already postponed a $50-million investment in research and development because of the federal government's intention to review Bill C-91.

I ask the minister if he admits that the government's announced intention to review this law is already hurting high-tech investments. Does he confirm that, for lack of assurance from Ottawa about the law, a drug company established in Quebec has postponed a $50-million investment?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government has already announced its intention to keep our international commitments, as we signed the new GATT agreement and NAFTA.

Moreover, I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of the provisions of C-91 which he supported. These provisions include a clause to review this legislation. It is already in C-91. The Bloquistes supported this bill. It is more than a little hypocritical for the Leader of the Opposition to say now that the bill is being reviewed.

[The Speaker]

The word "hypocritical" is somewhat inflammatory. I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw this word "hypocritical".

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be rather difficult to understand if I did not use that word. I would never want to give the impression that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a hypocrite.

[The Speaker]

I would just like the hon. minister to take back that word.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that word.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the main thing is to determine whether or not this government will reopen the law before it is due for review.

I have here in front of me a Canadian Press article published in La Presse , according to which the minister said on April 26 that he would review the drug patent law. We know very well that this law is not to be reviewed until 1997. We in the Bloc are very proud to have voted for a law that will give Montreal an extremely important pharmaceutical research centre-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

-prouder no doubt than the Liberal Party, which waged a fierce battle to prevent a real pharmaceutical research centre from being created in Montreal.

I ask the minister to tell us today in this House if he does not think he should reassure the pharmaceutical industry and if he is considering announcing once and for all that he will not call into question the 20-year patent protection, whereby a drug developed and patented by a company cannot be copied by others. I ask him to make that commitment here in this House today.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we are very aware of our commitments under GATT and NAFTA. That is the basis of our position.

I want to make perfectly clear to the House and to Canadians that this government is not going to be blackmailed by threats. We made one simple commitment during the election campaign on Bill C-91 and that was that we would review it.

As I explained yesterday both here and to the media, that review consists of looking at the impact on prices of prescription medications and on looking, second, at the fulfilment of obligations made to the previous government with respect to investment and research and development.

If the Leader of the Opposition considers it to be inappropriate for governments to monitor performance resulting from the passage of important pieces of legislation like that, why does he not get up and say that companies no matter what kind of companies they are can do whatever they want? We believe that the best interests of Canadians need to count first. That is what the government is endeavouring to do.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing worse in politics, as in other fields, than ambiguity, and I would like to give the minister the opportunity to clarify specifically any ambiguity there might be.

Bill C-91 contains a statutory requirement for a review of the provisions and application of the law in 1997; a statutory review is planned for 1997.

I understood the minister to say that he will reopen the law before the 1997 deadline. If so, let him tell us clearly: Will he wait until 1997 or will he review it before then by a decision of the Liberal majority in this House?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be very nervous about this. At least he is now acknowledging that he supported a review of the legislation. It is indeed as he says scheduled to take effect no later than the fourth anniversary of the passage of the bill which would be the spring of 1997 as he indicates.

I think it would be fair to say that it is appropriate for the government to monitor the results in the areas I have mentioned in the course of performing this review. Perhaps we will have a look at the results of that monitoring and will be able to give a precise answer to his question later on.

Let me say this as well. If anyone wants to talk about what is causing instability in the investment climate in this country, one does not need to look beyond the Leader of the Opposition.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we gather from the Minister of Industry's response that he intends to review the legislation immediately and that is why he has made that announcement. That is what his response leads to believe.

My question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. You will get a chance to respond. Just hear the question, then you will get to answer it.

Reacting yesterday to remarks made by the Quebec minister of industry and commerce, Mr. Gérald Tremblay, who was outraged to see the federal government create a climate of instability detrimental to Quebec, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that, instead of getting all excited, Mr. Tremblay should have contacted him and he would have put his concerns to rest.

In light of the statements made by the minister of industry and commerce, should the Minister of Foreign Affairs not take this opportunity to make a reassuring statement in this place for all of Quebec and Quebec's pharmaceutical industry to hear?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, every time I hear a question from the hon. member for Roberval it calls to mind the words from Macbeth : ``a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing''.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I would appeal to all hon. members to sort of lower our tone in the questions and also the words we use.

I would appeal to all hon. members both in the questions and the answers to please tone down our voices and possibly not crank up the rhetoric. I would appeal to all hon. members so that we can get the questions and answers in today.

I take it that the hon. Minister of Industry is finished with his answer.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the public can see for themselves. These proceedings are televised and widely broadcasted. They know what we are getting at. We know why the Minister of Industry is nervous. He has nothing better to do than to respond by insulting Quebec's legitimate demands.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to put his question through the Chair.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs answer out of order and then fail to respond when questioned. Can the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Finance, one of the them, respond and tell us why the people of Quebec should trust ministers of the government that guided Bill S-31 through the House, a bill which tied the hands of the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund and curbed Quebec's growth? Why should we trust these people? We want an answer from the minister.