Debates of April 29th, 1994

Revenue Canada

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians heard the news this morning they were shocked, astonished, and by the end of the day they will be enraged. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada revealed that Revenue Canada is not serious about enforcing the Income Tax Act and other legislation.

They conducted a survey among the 4,000 employees who audit corporate income taxes for Revenue Canada and 75 per cent of the auditors surveyed believe that operations had been hindered by the level of politicization by the Liberal government. The auditors say that they get the word from the Liberal government to drop this file and move to another.

While Canadians are filing their individual tax returns, while small businesses are filing their tax returns and paying through the nose, we now find out from Revenue Canada that corporate Canada is once again getting off the hook from paying its fair share of taxes.

Bill C-18

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Liberal member for Vancouver East who stated in an interview in the Hill Times on April 28 that she realizes the provision in Bill C-18 for imposing a two-year suspension on the redistribution of ridings does not do her province any favours. In fact it would make it almost impossible for the process to conclude before the next election. The hon. member goes on: ``One year would probably be the right approach''.

If this is the case I wonder why so many Liberals, including the hon. member for Vancouver East, chose to defeat the one-year amendment when it was brought forward by the Reform Party in the House.

This is a perfect example of why Canadians are so cynical of the representation they receive in the Chamber and why democratic reform such as free votes are essential to restore the confidence of Canadians in their elected officials.

Patent Drugs

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Despite the unsettling effect that his hasty, irresponsible statement about reviewing the drug patent legislation has had, the Minister of Industry reiterated yesterday his intention of going ahead with a review of the legislation. Already, the review is jeopardizing important investments in Quebec.

Does the minister intend to follow up on the request of his Quebec colleague and put to rest his concerns, as well as those of the multinational which this week decided, further to Ottawa's hasty announcement to reopen Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation, that it was holding off on a $50 million investment in Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about this because the opposition is truly exaggerating.

It is really very simple. A bill was passed by Parliament and the pharmaceutical industry made a commitment to the Canadian public. It undertook to invest money and to refrain from increasing the price of drugs. The government therefore has a duty to ensure that the promised investments have been made.

If the industry believes that it has fulfilled the obligations set out by Parliament, then it has nothing to fear. However, if it has not fulfilled its obligations and made the investments, the opposition should be telling us to take steps to ensure that these investments are indeed made. But if we do not carry out a review, we will never know.

We have an obligation to carry out this review, pursuant to the legislation passed by Parliament. As the whip stated earlier, a industry spokesperson said he was not in the least bit worried and that this was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot whipped up by the Bloc Quebecois. On the one hand, Bloc members rise in the House and ask us to protect this industry, while on the other hand, they want us to go along with their plans for Quebec independence, which will create even more instability for potential investors in this country in the years to come.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, in response to serious questions, questions dealing with Quebec's economic interests, the Prime Minister and his ministers talk nonsense.

[The Speaker]

Some days are more trying than others and we had hoped not to hear words like the ones just used by the hon.

member and those I have already asked another hon. member to withdraw. I hope the hon. member can understand why I ask him to withdraw the word "nonsense".

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "nonsense", but I simply used it to indicate that, when we talk about vocational training for example, we are told that it is nothing but one of Quebec's whims, and when we talk about drug patents, we are told that we are getting excited over nothing. Just last evening, Minister Tremblay called for government intervention and I reiterate minister Tremblay's request in that respect.

Could the Minister of Industry deal directly with the company that reconsidered a $50 million investment it was about to make in Quebec? Do you not think this would be a good way to reassure the pharmaceutical industry as a whole? These companies are seriously concerned at present, Mr. Speaker, about the irresponsible remarks the minister has made. So, I put the question to him.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Did you hear that? He just described the remarks as irresponsible. As for the hon. member's own remarks, insult being the weapon of the weak, as the saying goes, it is only natural that he would want to insult everybody.

We have said, and the people in the industry themselves said yesterday that they were not concerned about what is going on right now. The industry itself said so. However, if the industry wants to invest, it should go ahead and invest! The legislation is in place, it was passed and investments have been made under it in past years.

Why is it all of a sudden that one of them has become more nervous than the rest? Those who made investments last year did so under the same legislation. I imagine that these people who have invested so far were familiar with the provisions of the legislation. This company should read the law and follow the same reasoning as the ones that invested last year and the year before. That is the way to do it. It is nothing to make a fuss about, and our position is that we will abide by the law in the interest of investment and in the interest of the patients who have to buy drugs.

That is one of the objectives of this legislation and we will enforce it because either the patients pay or the governments have to pay for them, when the pharmaceutical industry goes too far.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Prime Minister talking about a review of the prices charged and investments made by the pharmaceutical industry. It is also provided for in Bill C-91. We do not need to re-open that bill, a review is already planned. A body has been set up to monitor these things, so I put the question to the minister again.

Does the minister not agree that his intention to review the law has already hurt investment in research and development in Quebec and that his intended review has a much broader purpose than checking the prices of patented drugs or investments, which are already controlled by a body reporting to the Department of Health?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I already indicated in the House yesterday that we intend to conduct a review, as the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign, but as the Prime Minister just said, the proposed review is not what is causing uncertainty. I can tell the hon. member that I have two press releases here, the first from Merck Frosst, issued yesterday, announcing that they have completed their engineering study and have begun the design work for the plant in question, and I quote: "We will honour our commitment because we are sure that the Canadian government will honour its commitment".

Also, I have a letter from Astra Canada.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is having-

[The Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. Minister of Industry could bring his answer to a close.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc is genuinely concerned about assurances on these things perhaps it could listen to the assurances I can offer.

This is Astra Canada: "I understand there has been some indication that an unnamed pharmaceutical firm has indicated that their $50 million investment has now been cancelled. I have had some calls inquiring as to whether or not that company is Astra. Please be assured that we remain fully committed to the establishment of our basic drug discovery facility in the city of St. Laurent. This is a very significant investment involving about $33 million in building and equipment and an annual investment of over $10 million in research".

It is the Bloc Quebecois that wants to create instability by pursuing its political goal of separation for Quebec.

Manpower Training

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Prime Minister says that the Bloc Quebecois is stirring up a tempest in a teapot. Yet, he seems to refuse to listen to several comments and interventions made by Quebec ministers.

The Quebec minister of employment has been trying unsuccessfully for several months to convince the federal government to reach an agreement on the manpower training issue. Yesterday, he sent out a real alarm over the state of relations between Quebec and Ottawa. Speaking of malaise, the minister said that several of his Cabinet colleagues have been coming up against Ottawa's centralizing designs.

Are we to understand from that statement, and contrary to what the minister said in this House, that the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa over manpower training are more than ever in a deadlock because of Ottawa's refusal to give anything to Quebec?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, since I have been involved in interprovincial relations for several dozens of years, I evidently do not have the same blood pressure as the hon. member when it comes to a problem such as manpower training, which has been going on for many years.

Our position in the negotiations is clearly not the same as the one of Quebec. We are pursuing our discussions with Quebec; it is possible that we will come to an agreement, but it is also possible that we will not come to an agreement on this issue at the present time. That is part of the way federal-provincial relations have been working for many years in this country, and there are not more problems today than there were at any other time in our history.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, so the minister is confirming that the negotiations are deteriorating and that we are in a deadlock.

Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs confirming, and will he have the courage to admit, that relations between Quebec and Ottawa have been deteriorating in several areas, particularly in education, youth programs, readjustment programs for fishermen, the review of Bill C-91, health financing and the high-speed train, to name just a few, and that, finally, Ottawa's intentions are aimed at centralization?

[The Speaker]

I find that questions and answers are perhaps a bit long. I would ask everyone to please make it shorter.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Health Care

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday the Minister of Health said that the government would not reopen the Canada Health Act "in the short term". She said: "There is no question that there will have to be some changes and change is always difficult".

In light of these comments, could the Prime Minister tell the House exactly when the government plans on reviewing the Canada Health Act?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government is planning a conference with all the people involved in health services and I will be presiding over it.

We said we were having this review. We are holding discussions with the provinces at the moment and the first meeting of this continuing conference on health problems in Canada will be held in the middle of June.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister was quite clear yesterday in her comments. She said there would be changes to the Canada Health Act and that those changes were necessary.

Yesterday the health minister also said that health funding was holding steady under this government but the fact is that federal funding as a portion of total health spending has dropped from 50 per cent to 23 per cent and continues to drop. As a result the provinces, handcuffed by the Canada Health Act, are being forced to cut health services.

I repeat, when and how will the government amend the Canada Health Act?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the financing of these programs is done by through a formula. Sometimes the figures that are used are confusing because the money transferred has been reduced, but there has been a transfer of tax points to be used for the financing of these programs.

Over a period of years people have stopped thinking that. In fact we have made more room for the provinces to collect more money. The transfer of cash has diminished but the participation of the federal government has not been reduced, as some people say.

What I was very pleased with yesterday was seeing the Reform Party asking the federal government to spend more, more, more.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

This is a good day, Mr. Speaker, a good day.

The actions and inactions of the government amount to a total abdication of responsibility toward the health care system. The Liberal government keeps telling us about the sanctity of medicare but cannot answer as to how it will be preserved.

Why is the government now trying to snuff out creative attempts by provinces, doctors and patients to preserve the health care system when the government appears to have no answers at all?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I question that statement. We have one concern that is very important to this party. We do not want to fall into the trap of finding so-called new solutions, new approaches that very soon in Canada it would be like in the United States: good service for the rich and poor service for the poor. We will never let that happen in Canada.

Income Tax

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard that a number of auditors with the Department of National Revenue complained about political interference when auditing Canadian companies.

The president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada said, at a press conference this morning, and I quote: "Auditors received instructions to back off from certain files".

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to investigate these very serious allegations and could he give us the assurance that all provisions of the Canadian Income Tax Act apply to all companies in Canada, without exception?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the survey that was released today is very general in nature. There are no specific allegations revealed whatsoever.

The department is very committed, as is the government, to fair taxation for everyone. If concrete evidence of political interference is provided, the department will definitely investigate.