House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Vic Althouse NDP Mackenzie, SK
Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the permission of the House to speak for eight or ten minutes, please, if that is possible.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Members have heard the request from the member for Mackenzie. Is it agreed?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I just want to make sure, at the request of the hon. member for Mackenzie, that he can share his comments with us for eight to ten minutes at most. Would there be unanimous consent?
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Will giving me the floor prevent a member who was supposed to speak from speaking on this point?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The period should end at 5.30 p.m.; we would have to add nine or ten minutes, and the minister's statement is scheduled for 5.40 p.m. So if a member speaks, someone else will certainly be unable to speak. The day must end at some point.
Is there unanimous consent?
Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak in the House today on this debate on agricultural issues. I am conscious of the fact that I represent an urban riding but I remind the members of the House that not only are the members of urban ridings consumers of agricultural products but we are all interested in a healthy farm community.
It is in the interest of all of us and there are many of us in Rosedale riding, those for example who work at the University of Toronto in the research area and others, who make in their own way a contribution to the health of the important agricultural community in this country.
Since the last election probably the single most important and dominant issue for our government for Canada's agri-food industry has been international trade. That is a matter of great concern to the foreign affairs and international trade committee of which I happen to be the vice-chairman. As was pointed out by the members for Haldimand-Norfolk, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Peace River this has been a very intense and challenging period in that area.
I think it is important for us to bear in mind that 1.5 million Canadians, that is one in five, depend directly on exports for
their livelihood. Trade in goods and services is equal almost to half our GDP and in the agri-food sector for every dollar that is earned at the farm gate exports generate about 45 cents.
Mr. Speaker, international trade in this sector has become increasingly important for the province of Quebec. In 1991, exports from this province amounted to 9 per cent of the Canadian total. Today they are 13 per cent, an increase of 49 per cent, for a total value of 1.8 billion Canadian dollars.
Exports to the United States are extremely important and new markets and new jobs will arise from our entry into new international markets. Although we are presently engaged in difficult negotiations with the United States over trade in some agri-food products which we hope to resolve over the coming months, the bulk of our trade remains free of dispute and continues to expand. Once a settlement with the United States is reached we will have a more secure environment in which all sectors can plan for the future.
I would like to take the opportunity today to look at some of the impacts of the new trading arrangements and how our government is working to assist Canada's agri-food sector with its market development activities.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has forecast that the new GATT agreement will give the Canadian economy an additional $8 billion boost by the year 2002. This government is determined to ensure that Canada's agri-food sector is a major participant in that economic growth.
The new development brings agriculture under effective trade rules for the first time in history and will ensure that these rules apply equally to all countries. Under the GATT as a result of the Uruguay round members have agreed to cut agri-food export subsidies by 21 per cent by volume and 36 per cent by value over six years. Export subsidy programs like the European Communities' CAP and the U.S. export enhancement program which the member for Haldimand-Norfolk referred to this afternoon are curtailed and international grains and oilseed prices will gradually rise.
It is hard to describe the importance of these changes. The anomalies that were created by agricultural subsidies in world trade were absolutely extraordinary. We had this crazy situation in the United States for example in which its export subsidies encouraged its farmers to export wheat to Turkey. The Turks, not being crazy, turned this wheat into pasta and sent it back to the United States which then competed with the pasta manufacturers in the United States which had to import Canadian wheat. Meanwhile Canadians were selling subsidized wheat to Italy which the Italians were turning into pasta and shipping back to Canada.
These anomalies created by subsides riddled agricultural trade. They have to some extent been brought under discipline under the new GATT rules. The importance of this cannot be under emphasized.
In that context we have to recognize that our supply management system which will be preserved as a result of our high tariffs came under attack under article XI, but this government was able to negotiate those high protective tariffs which will preserve the benefits of our farm management system.
As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out we do not live in an isolated world. We are one member of the GATT and 115 other members insisted that we change from the type of quotas which we had used up to this time to a new and different type of system.
This government recognizes that changes will be needed. Changes will be needed to help the sector. To this end, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is heading a six member federal-provincial industry task force on orderly marketing. Its mandate is to consult with all supply management stakeholders to identify the issues that need to be addressed and suggest co-operative decision making processes to deal with those in anticipation of the GATT implementation in 1995.
Amendment to the GATT rules will allow for more competition. But of themselves the rules will not ensure that we take advantage of those markets. We have to work for those markets and this government recognizes that. To help the agri-food sector capitalize on these advantages, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has a new branch, market and industry services, with offices in all of the provinces. This branch is specifically designated to work with the industry on enhancing its global competitiveness and increasing its share of domestic and international markets.
As well, the federal government has 55 trade commissioners and commercial officers working on agri-food trade and developing more than 150 foreign markets. This includes 18 agri-food specialists, five of whom were recently named to our diplomatic posts in Taipei, Seoul, Singapore, Osaka and Mexico City.
Here at home, an agri-food industry council will be established to advise on all matters related to improving Canada's market position, promoting economic growth and creating jobs.
In addition, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be working with other federal departments and the provinces to establish a single window marketing service for Canadian industry. This
will help facilitate access to programs such as the new getting ready to go global program, which gives cost shared assistance to food and beverage processors in developing competitiveness strategies and initiatives, and the agri-food industry marketing strategy program which helps agri-food associations develop and implement marketing plans.
The government's plan is to concentrate marketing on those areas of the globe which have the greatest potential for economic growth and market expansion in the future. In that context, the government is putting particular emphasis on the Asia Pacific and Mexican markets.
The minister of agriculture and the Governor General are presently on a trip to China and to Asia with industry representatives to sell our agricultural products. I hope, having heard the member for Peace River today speak of the importance of international trade in agricultural products, he may bring some discipline to bear on the member for Wild Rose when he questions the costs of these trips and the Governor General attending when important marketing initiatives can be made by such initiatives.
The Asia Pacific region is the fastest growing economic region in the world and it offers tremendous opportunities for Canadian agri-food exporters. This government intends to exploit that market and is doing so at this time. This represents a potential for jobs. They are good jobs, high paying jobs based on real markets in a growing part of the world.
Jobs, Mr. Speaker and other members of the House, I remind you, in the export area involve not only the farm marketers themselves but support services, banking and other areas, which those who live in urban communities benefit from as well. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in Asia today and 15 leaders in the agri-food sector thought it was important enough to be there with him.
With growing access to new markets around the world, it is clear that the future of Canada's agri-food industry is full of opportunities, the opportunity for growth and opportunity to contribute to economic activity and jobs in all parts of the country.
By working in close co-operation with the provinces, industry and other stakeholders, and by continuing to support the trade and marketing initiatives of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other federal departments I am confident that we can help the industry make Canada agriculture and agri-food number one in the world.
In so doing, we will be ensuring not only the wellbeing of our farm community but the overall economic health of our country which includes important interests in our urban community as well.
Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this unfortunate motion. However I would like to commend the opposition for raising this issue because the agri-food sector is such a strong contributor to our economy.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Mackenzie was not allowed to speak by the opposition. The member for Mackenzie, who is very interested in agriculture, often sits in on the standing committee. While I may not always agree with his comments or theories, I do feel sad that the opposition would not allow him to speak.
The rules of the road for business are government regulations. Regulations protect Canadians, ensuring them safe, nutritious food. Regulations also play a very important role. They are a way of setting standards. High standards mean quality and that can mean Canadian agri-food products are attractive to world markets because of their quality.
However times change and regulations that were helpful in the past become an obstacle to growth today. In some cases, new technology makes regulations obsolete as scientific tests replace manual inspections. In other cases, various levels of government have added layer after layer of regulation without co-ordinating their efforts and without counting the cost to industry.
We view regulations as a tool that can help the agri-food sector produce internationally competitive products. But to be an effective tool it must be honed and constantly sharpened to keep pace with changing world markets and technology. Regulations should be a tool which encourages innovation and entrepreneurship, not one that blunts industry's integrity.
That is why the government is dedicated to reforming regulations. Regulations are dry, technical and complicated. Done wrong, they cost too much to the industry and to the taxpayers but done right, they can create jobs.
As members know, the focus of the government's election campaign last fall was economic renewal and job creation. Building on this commitment in the February budget, the finance minister announced numerous initiatives to help improve the competitiveness of the Canadian industry.
One of the steps he announced was: "We will intensify and accelerate the effort to reform and remove regulations that create confusion and costs by putting in place a task force to provide on a fast track basis a better regulatory regime, one that will not compromise compliance but rather improve the competitiveness of business".
The government has already done a considerable amount of work in recent years to ensure that government regulations fulfil a specific departmental mandate and that they enhance, not hinder, industry's ability to compete. An interdepartmental committee of assistant deputy ministers on regulatory reform is
currently working to, first, provide departments with the means to use alternatives to reduce the regulatory burden; second, provide a greater variety of enforcement tools and options; and third, improve the process of the regulatory development.
At Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the first phase of regulatory housekeeping led to the elimination and amendment of regulations through an omnibus regulatory package passed in April 1993. This work is continuing. A second package of regulatory amendments has now been prepared involving the processed poultry regulations, livestock carcass grading regulations, fertilizer regulations and egg regulations. A copy of this package has been provided to the provinces for review and for their comment. It is anticipated that it will appear in part I of the Canada Gazette this summer.
As part of this federal regulatory reform process, the government, in co-operation with consumer groups and industry stakeholders, also reviewed the current regulatory requirements concerning best before dating and packed on dating and looked at the subject of food date marking in general.
Under the food and drug regulations the labels of most perishable and semi-perishable prepackaged foods with a shelf life of 90 days or less are required to show a durable life or "best before" date in a clear, non-encoded manner. Storage instructions are required if conditions other than room temperature storage are necessary. When packaged on retail premises, perishables and semi-perishable foods are required to show packed on date instead of best before date.
The intent of these requirements introduced back in 1974 is to provide consumers with useful information regarding relative freshness and potential shelf life of food. Foods which have exceeded the best before date are still acceptable for consumption but they may not be at their peak state of freshness.
During the reform process the government found strong, general support for retaining present date marking requirements for perishables and semi-perishables having a durable life date of 90 days or less.
Consumers and industry believe these requirements to be very effective and a useful way of informing consumers as to relevant produce freshness.
We also found support for the voluntary use by manufacturers of best before dating on foods with durable life of more than 90 days.
As a result of the review the following recommendations were developed. Support the use of best before dating on products with a durable life of more 90 days on a voluntary basis. Amend the food and drug regulations to revoke durable life date exemptions for donuts and commissary items. Review date marking in respect to products with modified atmosphere packaging. Review the need for date marking on low acid foods packaged in hermetically sealed containers and on refrigerated products and consider extending the requirements relating to the statement "previously frozen" to all products which have been frozen and thawed prior to sale.
In the last phase of the implementation process Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's food production and inspection branch, in co-operation with the Department of Health, will be consulting on these recommendations with food industry stakeholders, including industry associations, consumer groups and other federal and provincial government departments.
Central to these discussions is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's inspection and regulation mandate. The department's responsibility is to set and enforce standards to safeguard human, animal and plant health and facilitate international trade and to support the protection of the environment through sustainable agricultural practices.
In line with these departmental responsibilities, the FBI branch has been working in recent months to develop a business plan which will ensure that its resources are directed to the highest priorities, to ensure that only safe, wholesome food enters the Canadian marketplace and that our inspections program works to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's agri-food sector.
The challenge is to maintain and improve the branch's current food inspection programs while at the same time making the best use of the taxpayers' dollars.
I believe our efforts to reduce the unnecessary regulations of industry and to focus on our resources on a top priority of ensuring food safety will pay off handsomely in every province. Reforming regulations create new opportunities. It creates jobs. It is a way to ensure that the agri-food sector is profitable. It will remain a very important tool for making sure the agri-food sector remains competitive.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, just a short comment on what the hon. member said in his introduction, in which he reproached us for not letting another member take the floor.
I simply wanted to say that, for the opposition day we requested on agriculture, we need all the time we are allowed to voice the concerns of Quebec and those of farmers across Canada, and we are prepared to consider the possibility of having the hon. member speak when we have finished. All members who expressed an interest in speaking in this debate, members from the rural ridings who want agriculture to have its rightful place in Canada and Quebec, should be able to speak,
and that is why we felt this was important, because the treatment of agriculture in Quebec has left much to be desired in the past.
Agriculture in Canada is to a large extent western agriculture, and we want to say there is an agricultural industry in Quebec as well, and that is why we want all our members who have something to say about their ridings and certain expectations they want to express on behalf of their constituents, to be able to do so. We want to ensure that the concerns of the agricultural industry, in Quebec and in Canada, get the attention they deserve, and that is why we want to ensure that the entire debate is used to discuss those concerns.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
As you know, I have been in the Chair all day for this very important debate and I understand, as the hon. member just mentioned, that there are still a large number of members would like to speak to the issue.
As some members have pointed out when the hon. member made his presentation, there is a tradition in this House to the effect that we do not reflect on a decision which has been made.
I imagine that we all learned something. I am convinced that the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte will take note, as I will, and I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his intervention.
Maybe the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte would like to respond.
Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the member for Mackenzie certainly has tremendous experience in the field. I also indicated that while I may not always agree with his comments or his theories, I do feel he deserved an opportunity to make those comments.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Order. Of course the House is always the master of its own destiny. It is a tradition of the House that once a decision is taken, we carry on the business of the day. It is not the tradition to reflect on a decision taken.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could assist the Chair and the House by indicating that I have had informal conversations with my colleagues of all represented parties in the House at the present time and they have unanimously agreed to extend the hours to allow the member to speak.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
We are getting ahead of ourselves here. I know that there are other members who want to speak to the issue of the day.
Maurice Bernier Bloc Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debate should normally end around 5.40 p.m.
Consequently, since I will in all likelihood be the last speaker on this motion, I would like to first congratulate again the hon. member for Québec-Est, who is the Official Opposition critic on agriculture, for tabling a motion which, as pointed out a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Témiscouata, is the first one on agriculture since the opening of the 35th Parliament.
We, members of the Official Opposition, are justifiably proud to be the first ones to table such a motion and to show to all Quebecers, and farmers in particular, that we are here to protect their interests in every field and especially in the agricultural sector.
Today, members from the Bloc have spoken brilliantly and eloquently on the issue, and they have clearly demonstrated the nonchalance of the Liberal government regarding the agricultural sector since it took office. This lack of vision, policy and decision is hurting agriculture in Canada, and particularly in Quebec.
I want to take those few minutes to emphasize the importance of agriculture. I will use my own constituency of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead as an example, since it is essentially a rural riding where agriculture is the number one industry. I have here some figures which I am pleased to communicate to members and to Canadians, so that we can see the impact, on this industry, of the measures taken by governments, particularly the federal government.
There are close to 2,000 farms in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. According to Statistics Canada, in 1991, expenditures and revenues related to the agricultural industry in my riding were somewhere around $123 million and $156 million, respectively. These two figures alone show how important that industry is for our riding and for all of Quebec also.
Moving on, 2,500 jobs in my riding are directly dependent on agriculture. Imagine, 2,500 jobs. One would have to travel to several municipalities and to several ridings to find industries which employ such a large number of workers. And for every direct job, we can count on six indirect ones, which means that farming in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead accounts for an additional 15,000 jobs in the eastern townships.
The agricultural sector in Quebec has evolved rapidly over the years. I listened to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who tried to get my colleague from the Bloc who serves as agriculture critic to admit that agriculture has flourished in Quebec because of federal government policies. May I remind this House and point out for the benefit of my colleague that agriculture underwent a remarkable period of growth between 1976 and 1985, thanks to the vision and energy of a government, but more especially, thanks to one man, the MNA for Lévis, Mr. Jean Garon, who in many ways sparked the development of the agricultural sector in Quebec. Many people considered the MNA for Lévis to be a dreamer. Some even thought he was a
little crazy when he said his goal was to increase agricultural self-sufficiency in Quebec from 50 per cent, the level it stood at when the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, to over 70 per cent. Within four years or one term of office, Quebec had already achieved a level of self-sufficiency greater than 70 per cent, all because of the government's policies. Since then, the Liberal government which came to power in 1985 has managed to bring the level back down to about 60 per cent.
On the subject of agriculture, we should also mention certain initiatives that were taken and the benefits that accrued to show, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the impact of agriculture on a region. I would like to point out three initiatives that I am particularly proud of in my riding. First, the Centre d'initiative agricole de Coaticook, which is basically a group of farmers who not only put a lot of effort in their own farming enterprises, but also provide training to other farmers. They have just set a precedent by approving an agreement concluded with the local school board to invest in farm training for our young people. This deserved to be pointed out. They have been praised by all socio-economic stakeholders in l'Estrie for this initiative.
There is also the agri-food table, la Table agro-alimentaire, in the Haut-Saint-François RCM, which brings together-somewhat like the group in Coaticook-a number of farmers who have set out to develop the agricultural industry by encouraging new farms to locate or get established in their region and, to that end, by meeting students in our agricultural colleges, in Saint-Hyacinthe and in the Quebec area, as well as by inviting them to invest in the most beautiful riding in the province, the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.
In conjunction with all economic stakeholders, they are also setting up agricultural products processing industries to ensure that our farm products can be processed locally, thus creating employment.
One last example, before closing: farm tourism. It was barely mentioned today, but its is nonetheless an important industry. Let me give you one figure. In 1993, in my riding and the Coaticook region, thanks to the concerted efforts of the municipalities, the agricultural community and the tourist industry, 4,000 European tourists, mostly from France, came to visit us and were able to appreciate the state of development of our agricultural industry as well as enjoying, of course, the warm welcome Quebecers are renowned for.
In conclusion, in the weeks and months to come, the federal government must concentrate on an issue of major importance not only to my riding but also to Quebec as a whole and even a major part of Ontario. I am referring of course to the negotiations scheduled to take place as a result of the GATT agreement, particularly to set tariffs for milk.
Someone on the government side said earlier-and I will close on this-that deals had already been made. We want, we insist that the efforts made by our farmers over all those the years not be compromised by negotiations, the outcome of which are not known. We in the opposition will be extremely vigilant in that regard.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the sitting hours by 10 minutes in order to permit the hon. member for Mackenzie to address the House, and subsequently of course to add 10 minutes to private members' hour to ensure that it is not shortened and that the full hour be allotted to private members' hour as is customarily the case.
Motion To Extend Hours Of SittingGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?
Motion To Extend Hours Of SittingGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Vic Althouse NDP Mackenzie, SK
My thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for extending the session for 10 minutes. I am sorry that we had a misunderstanding a few minutes ago when we tried to do the same thing and failed.
Being from the riding of Mackenzie, which is located in northeastern Saskatchewan, we are very concerned about agricultural policy and the terms that the government imposes on agricultural policy in this country. We were faced with local conditions that are quite unusual this past year such as flooding and extra rain which has meant harvesting not completed from last year and it means that many producers will not be able to seed a crop this year because last year's crop is still in the fields.
There was a great deal of hope that a third line of defence would be worked out given this circumstance in northeastern Saskatchewan and northwestern Manitoba. However, no such thing happened. The minister and his counterparts across the country simply said that the crop insurance and the GRIP programs that are in effect are going to have to be used.
We urge all farmers in the circumstance of perhaps losing two crops to make certain they take advantage of that part of the crop insurance program that covers inability to seed in the coming year.
There have been other problems that these people have been facing. They face the same problems that all Canadian farmers have faced: low incomes due to low grain prices because of the
grain wars that have erupted between the United States and Europe; the United States' insistence upon using export enhancement funds to depreciate the value of export prices to the point that the only place Canadians can get a decent price for durum wheat is in the United States, which is the only country that has not been targeted for export enhancement funds.
In effect the market is $40 or $50 U.S. per tonne higher in the United States than it is in any of the markets that we normally sell to because the United States has been paying our old customers $50 to $60 a tonne to take their durum wheat instead and their other grains as well.
As well, for a short period of time a small window of opportunity opened up in the U.S. market for barley and that became the high value market. Canada sold barley into the United States which has triggered a short skirmish in the continuing skirmishes along that border in agricultural trade to the point at which one of the senators from North Dakota-although he says it was in jest-actually suggested to one of the committees of Congress that the 300 Minuteman missiles located in silos in North Dakota be reprogrammed to hit Canadian wheat farmers.
Those problems will pass and they will be resurfacing again from my experience in free trade with the Americans. We have had free trade, I might add, in meats for over 50 years and there have always been times when border access was very difficult even though we have a program of free trade in pork and beef between our two countries.
The challenge I want to speak about today in the short period that I have is the global challenge that arises now that we have had Canada-U.S. trade agreements, the North American free trade agreement, followed by the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade.
All of these agreements have substantially limited the power of national governments to impose or to have their own programs for agriculture or for production of any kind of product whether it is manufactured products or a raw product like most of the agriculture products that we export.
This has been assessed by various world trade experts and economists who have concluded that in Canada's case Canadian agriculture is going to have to get used to a lower level of export, lower incomes and this means that we have a great challenge ahead in rural Canada and at the federal level as well to find new ways of reducing production costs.
Where I live our ability to export is highly dependent upon the continuation of the crow rate which was there to entice us to settle that region in the first place. We are a long way from tidewater and cheap shipping. We are relatively close to Churchill but none of our purchasers of raw products seems interested in picking up products at Churchill so we have to ship to Vancouver, Thunder Bay or Prince Rupert, very long distances.
We are located about as far from those ports as it is possible to get on the prairies. Yet the government has continued to pursue the policy of the previous government of reducing the benefits to the crow rate.
The panel has looked at who should receive that payment. Though it has not made any recommendations the study shows that there is very little to be gained by paying the payment to the producers. It shows that if you paid the producers rather than the railways barley exports would disappear. There would be very little change in the production of meats, beef and hogs, which has been the contention by those who wanted the payment made to producers rather than to the railways. The government has what will probably be a difficult decision because there is so much politics behind the feeling among some farm groups that they could do a better job of spending the money by paying the railways themselves than the government paying the railways in order to keep the rates down.
We are left with very few options in government policy for the federal government. Under the new GATT arrangements it will have to reduce its subsidies. We have a challenge of trying to identify the subsidies of other countries so that we can make certain that we are operating on a fair basis. The previous government did not do a good job of that. It did not identify the subsidies the United States has even though it spent a lot of time negotiating the agreement with the United States.
We have some positive things we can look at. I am trying to hurry because of the time. We can still use marketing boards. There are great advantages to producers in gaining regulated control of the products they wish to market. That has been proven through the wheat board, the hog marketing boards, the Ontario Wheat Board, as was mentioned, various milk marketing boards, and the chicken and egg marketing boards across the land.
These agencies do an excellent job of making certain that a product finds a market, that it gets to market with the least possible cost without running trucks and trains back and forth across the country. It is the most efficient way to work.
Therefore I would urge the government to pursue those options, particularly putting more grains under the Canadian Wheat Board and expanding the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board to go into eastern Ontario and the rest of the country as it chooses as well.
I note that there is a need for revitalization. I was at a committee meeting this morning at which the department officials talked about rural revitalization. I note that there are a lot of things that need to be done in this area and that can be done even in spite of the GATT rules.
We have taxation policies that favour the relatively wealthy, medium and high income people, relatively old people, but we do not have any RRSP treatment for the young which would permit them to invest in their farms and businesses at a young age to get some tax benefits. Instead, we wait until they get into their middle years and older and then the tax system encourages the investment in RRSP. We actually lose taxes as a result of that.
Why do we not invest the tax treatment in the younger people so that they can revitalize local communities and maybe back off a little bit the tax advantages that we are giving to the medium and high income people? We should be pursuing these and a whole host of other things that I had on my list. Perhaps some other time the House will grant me the privilege of presenting the rest of those ideas.
Motion To Extend Hours Of SittingGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
It being 5.49 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(19), proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden, SK
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider repealing the Patent Act Amendment Act, Chapter 2, Statutes of Canada, 1993, to make prescription drugs more affordable to Canadians and to encourage the creation of jobs in Canada by generic drug companies.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to move this motion in the House of Commons. Bill C-91 in essence ended Canada's compulsory drug licensing system in place since 1969 which helped make medicines more affordable.
Bill C-91 increased patent protection for the large multinational pharmaceutical corporations. What that means is that those drug companies were able to extend the monopoly pricing for periods of up to 20 years for their prescription drugs. Canadians are deeply concerned about the consequences of this bill. What Bill C-91 has done is increase the cost of some prescription drugs by about 120 per cent in the past three years.
As a result of this bill, for example, the Saskatchewan drug plan, a government funded plan, has had to diminish its coverage for Saskatchewan citizens quite significantly but still pays about $10 million more a year for the plan because of increased prescription drug prices.
The boost in the cost of provincial drug programs ultimately means you pay more for drugs and increases Canada's dependence on the most powerful pharmaceutical companies. Bill C-91 also weakens Canadians generic drug companies at the expense of foreign multinational pharmaceuticals. It also sharply deteriorates our own pharmaceutical trade balance, making Canada a warehouse for drug imports. The biggest impact is on the consumer, in particular those people who require prescription drugs, the sick, the elderly, people from all walks of life.
The Eastman committee which studied drug patents and costs in 1983 claimed that across Canada at that time the public saved $211 million per year in drug costs from generics. In 1986 the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, which is the organization of companies that manufacture generic drugs in Canada, estimated that compulsory licensing saved us about $500 million a year.
We do not have an updated figure but for health care plans in this country which total about $70 billion in costs to the government the components of the pharmaceuticals in that $70 billion cost is about 17 per cent, which means it costs Canadians abut $13 billion or $14 billion a year. Estimates today indicate that we would be saving between $1 billion and $2 billion a year if Bill C-91 did not exist.
Not only do we save on the generic price but whenever a generic equivalent is introduced to the market the brand name product falls about 20 per cent to compete with it.
The Eastman committee at that time recommended a maximum monopoly of four years. The government legislated seven years for some drugs and ten years for others. Someone from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said we did not give them a nickel more than they asked for. Now it is not just seven years or ten years or even seventeen, but Bill C-91 gives these pharmaceuticals 20 years of protection.
There is a well know drug, an antibiotic, that is marketed as Septra by a company called Burroughs Wellcome and there is Bactrim by another company called Hoffmann-La Roche. This medicine is composed of two constituents that work together to produce their effects in the urinary tract and in the respiratory system.
One of these components is owned by the British drug company Burroughs Wellcome and the other component is owned by Hofmann-La Roche of Switzerland.
Not only do the components work symbiotically, so do the companies. Wellcome makes enough of its product to supply its own needs and that of the Roche company while the Roche company makes sufficient of its own product to supply itself and Burroughs Wellcome.
Then each company advertises its own product as superior to that of the opposite company and will produce research material to even prove it. Yet the only difference is that the one company markets this tablet in green and the other is coloured white. There is a slight difference in shape but they both contain the identical amounts of the same two drugs that came from the same two companies. They come from the same machinery in the same factories. Not only that, but they each thereafter supply these components to generic drug companies who could produce them under compulsory licensing at a cheaper rate and then these pharmaceuticals have the cheek to call themselves ethical pharmaceutical manufacturers.
An article in the Globe and Mail of January 20, 1993 cites the chairman of a company that administers many private drug benefit plans in Ontario. He told the Senate committee investigating this matter that the average cost of a prescription drug in Ontario in 1987 was $12.52. Five years later it was $21.12, an increase of 75 per cent over five years for the average prescription drug. He projected that by the year 2000, six short years away, the average would be about $34.
Of course the federal government's rationale for C-91 was that great big bogeyman GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Bill C-91 was retroactive to three years prior to the GATT's being implemented before it took effect. My concern is why should Canada have internal matters decided by foreign governments?
As a matter of fact, Canadian drug manufacturers have indicated in their research that under the present Patent Act Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturers are prohibited from producing for export products that are under patent in Canada, even if the product is not under patent in the country we wish to export to.
For example, given that many patents are granted in the United States before they are granted in Canada, patents will expire in the U.S. before they expire in Canada. The Canadian generic pharmaceutical industry must now locate manufacturing facilities in the U.S. when a patent expires there before it expires in Canada.
This means we cannot continue to create jobs and produce our export products here in Canada. In effect we are being forced to export Canadian investment and jobs which we prefer to locate right here. Unless this problem is quickly rectified we will be forced to curtail more jobs in Canada and invest and create jobs in the U.S., Mexico and other export markets.
The repeal of Bill C-91 would demonstrate to Canadians that the Canadian government still has control over its domestic affairs rather than the multinational foreign drug manufacturers. If this bill is not repealed it will prove once again to Canadians that the Liberals are no different than the Conservatives.
We have often heard in many jurisdictions in this country the phrase "Liberal, Tory, same old story".
My sense of it is that unless the Liberals who voted in opposition against Bill C-91 repeal this legislation they will be no better than their sisters, the Conservative Party. I think actions speak louder than words. It is incumbent upon the Liberal government to take action on this bill and repeal it so that we can save a whole lot of jobs and a whole lot of money for our drug plans and for Canadian consumers in the end.
When the Tories passed the drug patent legislation, Bill C-91, New Democrats predicted it was a prescription for problems. The legislation gave brand name drug companies a 20 year monopoly to charge basically whatever they wanted for prescription drugs. New Democrats said that the granting of generic drug licences would be eliminated and that consumers would bear the brunt of decreased competition and increased prices. Without competition big name pharmaceutical companies would be able to set the price of being healthy.
According to a 1986 Ontario report on drug competition when five versions of the same drug were on the market the cheapest generic drug was almost half the price of the original. Since Bill C-91 was passed this type of saving to the consumer is a thing of the past.
I have here some brand name-generic price comparisons for the top 25 genericized products. For example, for the drug Cimetidine which is an ulcer drug-that is the drug name, the brand name is Tagamet-the generic price is about 80 per cent less expensive than the original brand name. We are actually paying 80 per cent more for the brand name of a drug which produces the same ultimate result.
For Naproxen which is an arthritis drug, the brand name of which is Naprosyn, the per cent savings if we use a generic is about 76 per cent. There is a whole list of examples. Every one of these examples is at least 15 per cent cheaper, and in many cases up to 80 per cent cheaper by using generics.
What we can conclude from this is that the consumers in Canada are being gouged by Bill C-91 which allows the pharmaceutical corporations to gouge consumers. New Democrats in this country, New Democrats in this House of Commons, oppose this kind of gouging of consumers.
Even provincial drug plans will not be able to shield Canadians from the high cost of being healthy. Cash strapped provinces will be forced to delete more and more drugs from the list of the products they pay for, creating a situation like that in the U.S. where people are dying because they cannot afford brand name drugs and they do not have an option to purchase generic drugs.
Saskatchewan was convinced that Bill C-91 was a severe blow to health care in Saskatchewan. At that time it estimated it would cost its drug plan between $6 million and $10 million more each year. Not only has it proven to cost $10 million a year more, but it has had to reduce the coverage because of the massive increases in drugs.
The Tories argument in favour of Bill C-91 is that without patent protection Canada is in danger of losing research and development investments. In support of this claim Judy Erola, former Liberal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and president of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, resorted to using blackmail as a rallying cry. She claimed that the brand name industry would pass us by if patent protection was not extended. While Bill C-91 is in effect the promised drug jobs have not materialized and in fact layoffs have occurred.
As recently as April 26, 1994 in the Globe and Mail it was stated: ``Earlier this month Eli Lilly Canada Inc. of Toronto scrapped a plan to add 150 manufacturing jobs and a major expansion first announced at the time of C-91's passage. The company says it still plans to pump more money into R and D but shelved the $170 million expansion because of cuts dictated by its U.S. parent, the Eli Lilly Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota''.
Here is one of many examples of this wonderful Bill C-91 falling short from every single promise that was ever made by the former government.
The problem with the arguments put forward by Ms. Erola is that the drug companies are not legally obligated to use their increased profits to conduct research and create jobs in Canada and past experience points to the contrary. When Bill C-22 was passed by the Tories in 1987 the same promises were made. However, Stats Canada figures show that only 500 new research jobs were created and these were offset by more than 1,000 jobs lost in drug manufacturing. In addition, Canada has no large drug companies with basic research facilities headquartered here.
We have some very serious problems in our health care program in Canada. We have increased prices in drugs which have skyrocketed since the implementation of Bill C-91. I have chosen this motion because it is important not just to me but to millions of Canadians.
I have presented in this House petitions from thousands of people who are opposed to Bill C-91 and want generic drug companies to produce lower cost drugs for their use in terms of addressing their health problems. I have letters from a number of organizations. I want to read one into the record. This was sent to me by Mr. F.J. Lancaster, the immediate past national president of the Federal Superannuates National Association, which represent about 70,000 retired federal civil servants in its 74 branches across the country. He says regarding Bill C-91: "It is insidious legislation and more so because one 10-year extension of patent rights on new drugs had already been granted, I believe in the 1970s, and Bill C-91 was a further sellout to the international drug companies. The costs of prescription drugs have risen dramatically. That is hurting the poor and aged on small incomes and causing some provincial government medical plans to virtually remove from their health care plans benefits related to prescription drugs because the plans cannot afford the coverage".
He continues: "As a result, the users of prescription drugs have had to assume an additional and very heavy financial burden. While our organization is strictly non-partisan, we will fight the government of the day on any legislation inimical to our interests and we will support the efforts of any of our parliamentary representatives who oppose such type of legislation". He represents 70,000 superannuates.
I received a number of letters, one addressed to the Prime Minister from one of my constituents, urging the government to immediately review Bill C-91. This was dated January 5, 1994. I have not yet heard whether the Prime Minister responded. I am sure he responded to this constituent. These are examples of people across the country who are concerned.
Another example is on April 5, 1994 a motion was passed in the Saskatchewan legislature, the province that I represent in this House of Commons, which was unanimously supported that read as follows: "That this assembly urge the federal government to repeal Bill C-91 because it provides excessive profits to foreign drug companies, causes severe financial hardships to prescription drug users, particularly the elderly, and makes provincial drug plans economically impossible".
The entire legislature, which is composed of 54 New Democrats, 3 Liberals and 10 Conservatives, supported this motion unanimously.
Not only is this evidence I provided important, but a poll taken recently conducted with about 1,100 Canadians was done by Insight Canada Research for the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association. In this poll they found that 63 per cent of Canadian respondents are concerned about the high price of prescription drugs. Seventy-nine per cent of those people reside in Quebec. They say that 79 per cent of the Quebec population are concerned about it, 71 per cent of the population in the prairies are concerned about it and 77 per cent in Atlantic Canada. It also found that 75 per cent of Canadians believe the federal government should control the price of prescription drugs. Eighty-seven per cent of Quebecers believe the federal government should control the price of prescription drugs. They believe they are too high.
I was curious to note in the House of Commons during Question Period today the Bloc Quebecois member who stood up and said: "We oppose repealing Bill C-91. We want to see this bill protected and actually enhanced and strengthened". They believe it is a good bill. That is not surprising because
when they were in the previous Parliament they supported this legislation.
What I cannot find a rationale for is that they really are supporting the international pharmaceutical corporations at the expense of gouging their own Quebec French Canadian consumer. They have in essence betrayed their own people. They got elected on a policy of so-called social democracy and the first opportunity they have to protect their people, they knife them in the gut. I think it is disgusting. All I can say is shame on them for that kind of performance and that kind of stand on this very, very important issue.
Bill C-91 is a threat to medicare, it is a threat to our Canadian generic drug manufacturers, it is a threat to consumers of prescription drugs. Bill C-91 is a threat to our provincial drug plans and it is a threat to the sick and the elderly.
It helps no one except the large multinational corporations. It does not help anybody else in this country. That is why I believe the government of the day has to support this.
I might say that in the previous Parliament many members opposite who are now in government, including the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Health, opposed Bill C-91. I am asking them in their positions in cabinet and controlling the government to follow their instincts and their position in the previous Parliament and to repeal Bill C-91.
I end by saying that I was very pleased to hear from many members of Parliament who support this motion, including the member for the riding of Ontario and, of course, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
I know my time has ended. I reiterate by saying that I am urging the federal government to repeal Bill C-91 for the sake of our social programs, for the sake of medicare, for the sake of the sick and the elderly in our country.
Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
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.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes, I intend to share my comments and concerns about the motion tabled by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, who is asking the House to repeal the Patent Act Amendment Act passed by the House in 1993 and better known as C-91.
I must tell you right away that I strongly oppose this motion and I will now explain to my hon. colleagues the reasons behind my position.
To understand all the elements of this debate, we must go back to the past to see what the situation was like in Canada before Bill C-91 and its predecessor, C-22, were passed in 1993 and 1987 respectively.
In 1960, a royal inquiry commission found that drug prices in Canada were too high and recommended establishing a procedure to issue compulsory licences to import and sell patented pharmaceutical products. That is what Canada did in 1969.
This reform led to the creation of a number of pharmaceutical businesses which, after obtaining the compulsory licences, produced and sold generic drugs at lower prices than brand-name drugs. Although the purpose of the reform, namely to control and reduce drug prices, was achieved, it also had a very negative impact. Research in the Canadian pharmaceutical sector dropped dramatically.
To promote research and the growth of the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government created the Eastman Commission in 1984. In its report made public the following year, the commission proposed a major reform which was approved by the government and led to C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act.
This reform had an ambitious goal: to stop the exodus of Canadian researchers to the U.S., convince pharmaceutical companies to invest more money in research, and put Canada back on the list of industrialized countries where high-tech medical research is done.
Now that we know the background, we understand better the various elements and the reasons that led to this trench war still being fought between generic-drug manufacturers and innovative companies. After supporting the former for over 25 years, the government lived up to the challenge of helping innovative and research companies while ensuring that drug prices remain under control.
We can identify three real consequences of this reform. First, innovative companies made a public promise to increase significantly their investments in pharmaceutical research. These companies kept their word. So these two pieces of legislation resulted in the biggest research and development expansion program ever undertaken in the medical research sector in recent history.
Before 1987, brand-name drug makers spent only 3.5 to 4.5 per cent of their sales revenues on research and development activities. After C-22 was passed, the ratio of research and development spending increased to 6.1 per cent in 1988 and to 9.7 per cent in 1991. The latest figures available, for 1993, show a ratio of 9.9 per cent.
We see that investment on research and development has practically doubled since the two bills were passed, from less than $100 million to more than $400 million invested in medical research, within less than seven years.
Just on this point, we can see that these two laws were a success, but we must hope that drug makers will continue and raise R and D spending to over 10 per cent of sales, to come closer to American innovative companies that invest 14.2 per cent in R and D and their British counterparts, who invest up to 20 per cent.
A second major consequence of this reform was to maintain the price of patented drugs. That was the biggest concern of opponents of C-22 and C-91. Even today, we see in this House that it is still this aspect that seems to give the greatest concern to opponents of this reform.
We must admit that drug prices account for much of the health spending of various governments. An aging population, greater consumption of health care and increasingly sophisticated research affect the kind and amount of drugs consumed and the funds allocated for drugs.
To avoid sudden increases in patented drug prices, the prices review board was created with the mandate, which it still has, of ensuring that innovative companies do not jack up above their actual value the price of patented drugs leaving the factory. The board must therefore take into account the price of drugs sold in other countries, the price of other medication in the same therapeutic category and other factors to determine whether the drug price is excessive. The Minster of Industry and the provincial ministers have the right to intervene at the board's hearings.
From 1987 to 1992, the price of patent drugs increased at an annual average rate of 2.9 per cent, compared to 4.2 per cent for the consumer price index. Since 1988, the price increase has remained lower for patent drugs than for drugs as a whole. We must therefore conclude that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, with the added power delegated to it by Bill C-91, was able to fulfil its role and prevent undue price increases for patent drugs.
The third consequence of the reform is mainly the result of Bill C-91, which is the legislation we are now being asked to revoke. Yet, this consequence, which I would call global realignment, is absolutely normal and was unavoidable. In these days of trade liberalization and free trade zones, Canada must provide its industries and its economy with a legislative framework that will allow them to be competitive at the international level. The two acts were passed with that objective in mind.
It is interesting to make a comparison with other industrialized countries. While, as a rule, patents for drugs are granted for 20 years, some countries have gone even farther by extending that 20-year period so as to absorb the marketing period, which can sometimes be up to ten or twelve years. This is the case with the EEC which, since June of 1992, may grant a five-year extension, depending on the length of the marketing period, so as to guarantee exclusivity to patent holders for 15 years.
Japan and Australia have also granted extensions of five and four years. It is in Canada's interest, given its limited market, to ensure that intellectual property laws are governed by GATT proposals. Indeed, the primary objective of Bill C-91 was to align the Canadian legislation on intellectual property of patent drugs with the laws and regulations in effect elsewhere in the world.
The fact is that before Bill C-91 became law, Canada was the only industrialized country which did not treat drugs like any other invention. There is no doubt that in 1993, when it decided to abolish the compulsory licence program for pharmaceutical products and harmonize its policy on intellectual property with the rules governing its major competitors on the international scene, Canada gave itself one of the best tools to get the investments it needs.
The motion asks us to repeal the 1993 act, better known as Bill C-91, to make patent drugs more affordable. Clearly, the provisions contained in the federal act can ensure the protection of consumers against price increases for prescription drugs, while at the same time promoting research and development, as well as the creation of highly skilled jobs.
The protection provided by Canada to pharmaceutical patents before Bill C-91 became law kept product manufacturers from being competitive. While Canadian companies had a seven-year protection, their American and European competitors were being granted exclusivity for 14 years.
Canada and Quebec cannot overlook the favourable conditions offered by our foreign competitors.
I think I have shown that Bill C-91 also provides an adjustment mechanism in this era of freer trade. This legislation enables Canada to adjust and to harmonize its laws and regulations with the international agreements to which it is a party. Bill C-91 was the outcome of a reform which has had positive and desirable consequences on the economy of Quebec and Canada, and this is why I firmly oppose this motion.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important today to put this whole debate into context. First of all, the hon. member moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider repealing the Patent Act Amendment Act, Chapter 2,-
This is all very well but what will we replace it with? You know as well as I do how difficult if not utterly impossible it is to undo an omelet. This debate reminds me a little of the one we had on free trade a few years back. Even though I was one of those who voted against the free trade agreement then, I think it is impossible to go back, considering the investment decisions that have been made since. Going on with the free trade analogy, I think we should undoubtedly take into consideration, for example, the fact that plants that have closed in my riding because of free trade would not reopen if the agreement were cancelled. And those that opened since would surely close their doors. As you can see, when the eggs are broken, that's it! This is what I am trying to explain to this House.
Today we are faced with almost the same situation. An hon. member tells us we should cancel a measure which was approved a year ago. And with what would we replace it? What is the point now that investment decisions have already been made? Will that lower the price of drugs? We do not know. There is no proof of that. Will that encourage other industries? Probably not. Will this make us lose investments which could or should have been announced? This is quite possible. The problem with that kind of motion is that it does not take into account the constant evolution of things. Situations change. Moreover, as parliamentarians, we must realize that the situation changes not only in our country but all over the world.
I must say that, when we were debating Bill C-22 in this House seven years ago, I did not give much thought to the possibility that a GATT agreement would be signed in Marrakesh on April 15, 1994, and even less to the provisions of such an agreement. The same thing is true of Bill C-91.
I come back to Bill C-91 because there is something important about it. A little earlier today, during Question Period, the hon. members opposite said, and that is the other extreme: How dare you say that there will be a review of Bill C-91? You do not have to be a lawyer from Baie-Comeau-to use one of my favourite expressions-to understand that under, section 14 of Bill C-91, the present Act, there must be such a review. It is not optional, it is compulsory, it is written into the law. And guess who voted in favour of that bill? The hon. members of the Bloc who where here during the previous Parliament. They never proposed any amendment to remove that provision from the bill. So I say to them: Do not get carried away.
Do not tell me that this legislation will never be reviewed. You voted for a bill that provided for such a review without proposing an amendment to delete this provision. I have here a copy of Hansard for December 10, 1992. I have looked at it carefully. No such amendment was moved by members of the Bloc in 1992.
Members opposite, do not come and tell me that you are against a review of the act in 1997. If you do, you are a little late, like the rainbow. The rain has already fallen.
So, the act provides for a review to be conducted no later than in 1997. That is reality. Since the members opposite voted for the bill without moving an amendment to delete this provision, we can assume that they were not against it.
Of course, members of my party, including myself, proposed a series of amendments at the time. My amendments were rejected, but that is unimportant. It is water under the Perley Bridge, as they would say in Hawkesbury.
Nevertheless, Bill C-91 became law and that law still exists today. It is unreasonable to suggest that we should repeal it
completely, as the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden does in his motion, without offering any alternative to replace it.
I wonder what the hon. member would do if, God forbid, we had to vote on this. It is almost like watching a dog running after a tire, and wondering what would happen if it caught it.
Would he vote for it, knowing what the result would be the day after the vote? It is all very well to propose something, but one should always consider any proposal in the light of the following question: What will happen if it is agreed to? Because, should what he is proposing today get agreed to, the members opposite might face a deplorable situation.
It is easier to propose something, knowing very well that it has no chance of getting agreed to, than to propose something that just might be agreed to by other members of the House. Fortunately, the chances of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden being agreed to are almost nil. I think I have clearly shown why a little earlier.
In 1992 we had a full debate here in this House of Commons on that piece of legislation. At that time, members of various political parties publicly stated their point of view on the bill, and then Parliament, in its wisdom, no matter whether I agree or not with what it did, passed the legislation, but with a provision for a review which must take place in or before 1997. This was provided for in subsections 14(1) and 14(2) of the bill. I am sure you remember this clause very well, Mr. Speaker. You must have read it very carefully yourself.
Repealing this act today is not a solution to be considered, because it does not give us any assurance that prices would drop, that jobs would be created, or that research needed to find new drugs for various illnesses would be conducted.
Mr. Speaker, you know my 16-year-old daughter Julie, who is asthmatic. She must use a pump made by one of the large pharmaceutical companies based in Kirkland. Other similar products, albeit generic products, were recommended to her at one point. In her case, and I do not consider this trivial, the supposedly equivalent generic product did not prove to be effective. Her condition deteriorated. She leads a normal adolescent life, very active, but when she has a bronchitis attack, the situation is quite alarming at home. We must then immediately fetch one of these pumps. As expected, there is one pump in her school bag, and others scattered around the house. When we come across a pump that does not have a well known brand name, we avoid it, because we know the results, or rather, the lack of results that we can expect to have.
Research is crucial. I say this personally, based on my own experience. The member's initiative does not guarantee any improvement, any research, and any reduction in prices. Again, when the eggs are broken, that's it.