Debates of Oct. 25th, 1995

Grandparents Day

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to call it6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is cutting costs and reducing services in our medicare system. In the last budget it drastically cut transfer payments to the provinces and will continue to do so each year over the next three years, reducing health care services further.

Why will the Liberals not enact cost cutting measures that would not reduce services to Canadians yet save taxpayers a billion dollars a year or more? This could be done by repealing Bill C-91, the Drug Patent Act, passed in the last Parliament. Bill C-91 catered to foreign drug companies that wanted to make more money by extending drug patents to 20 years for prescription drugs, in essence a 20-year monopoly to charge whatever price they want for certain prescription drugs.

In opposition Liberal members of Parliament, such as the current Minister of Health and the Minister of Industry, were present in the House on December 10, 1992 to vote against Bill C-91. Now that they are in government they support the legislation, which is a very major flip-flop.

Bill C-91 has had the effect of costing Canadians billions of dollars in their prescription drug costs. In the past eight years drug prices have increased 13 per cent every year for an accumulated total of 220 per cent. For example, the cost of Tagamet, a drug to treat ulcers, is 78 per cent cheaper when a Canadian generic drug is used instead of the brand name product. This is why our prescription drug costs are skyrocketing. Bill C-91 prevents the generic drug companies from producing cheaper cost copies of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies have a 20-year monopoly on their patents and a monopoly pricing situation exists to the detriment of the health of Canadians.

Prescription drugs represent over 15 per cent of the total cost of health care in Canada. This amounts to over $11 billion every year. It is a fact that drugs are the fastest growing cost to medicare. It is also one of the most controllable costs to our medicare system because Parliament has the power to put forth legislation that will control the cost of drugs and end price gouging by pharmaceutical drug companies.

Pharmaceutical drug companies employ roughly one sales representative for every three doctors in Canada and spend $10,000 per doctor on promotions. Canadian taxpayers are paying for these promotions while hundreds of millions of dollars of profits are leaving the country and jobs are being cut by the drug companies. These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the past eight years due to Bill C-91.

While in opposition the Liberals opposed the bill. While in government they are now supporting it. The government must immediately abolish the automatic injunction clause of the patented medicines regulations. The automatic injunction clause adds two more years on top of the twenty years that a drug pharmaceutical company can charge rates and prevent the generic industry from competing. This clause, if abolished, would save Canadians $750 million right off the top.

By repealing Bill C-91 in its entirety Canadians could save $3 billion to $5 billion each year on health care costs through reduction in prescription drugs, equivalent by the way to the Liberal government's cut to medicare funding over the three years proposed in its budget.

Why will the government not do this? Why is the Liberal Party allowing pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to set the agenda? It is a fact that the Liberal Party receives thousands of dollars in donations from foreign drug companies. Is this the reason?

The Liberal Party's inaction to rein in the outrageous brand name price increases is costing Canadians and threatening our health care system. It is time for action. The Liberal government must act immediately to abolish the automatic injunction on prescription drugs and make a commitment to abolish Bill C-91.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the member is absolutely right. In opposition we opposed Bill C-91. I not only opposed it in the House, I set up a display in my office on the Danforth pointing out the difficulties with Bill C-91.

We lost that vote, and the mechanism for Bill C-91 was put in place by the previous government. In many respects it is not unlike the GST. We campaigned vigorously against the GST and we lost in opposition, but the entire infrastructure and the mechanisms for the GST were put in place. When we were given the trust two years ago today, one of the things we had to face was the challenge of doing something about the GST. This bill is in many respects similar to that challenge.

The minister has said that we are currently evaluating the impact of Bill C-91. There is a parliamentary review process that will be invoked in 1997. The challenge presented by the drug patent policy is to ensure that it conforms with all the international trade obligations and supports the development of our pharmaceutical industry while making patented drugs available to Canadian consumers at non-excessive prices.

I want to reassure the member that we are not running away from our concern about what takes place with Bill C-91. He should know that not only the government but many members in the House share many of his views. We are very wise to the marketing in this industry. He will just have to be patient a little longer so that when we attack this issue we will do it in a rational and totally constructive way so that we will not upset the infrastructure that has been put in place and the investment that has already been started.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members will probably recall, in June the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act entitled "It is about our Health". It is a parliamentary study that aims at pollution prevention in the interest of public health. It was made possible because of extensive hearings with over 100 witnesses from all walks of life in all parts of the country. As a result of that, the committee recommended major changes to the existing act, commonly known as CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The changes to the act, which in essence deals with toxic substances, are necessary because at the present time the legislation is too slow in protecting the public from toxic substances. For instance, the complete toxicity assessments for 13 out of the 44 substances placed on the priority list in 1988 have not yet been done. In addition to that, of the 26 substances found to be toxic, only three, those related to chlorofluorocarbons, chlorinated pulp effluents, and PCBs, have been subjected to regulation.

In addition, problems related to enforcement, problems related to biotechnology products, problems related to the role and lifestyle of our aboriginal people, in particular in relation to environmental protection, and problems related to the management of Canada's coastal zones have not been resolved by the act as it exists at the present time. To address these problems, the committee called expert witnesses, scientists and native people, industry, professional organizations, et cetera, to ensure their recommendations would have sound expert support.

The committee's recommendations reflect the principle of sustainable development as set out in the red book, Creating Opportunity , which was produced in 1993 during the federal election. In addition to that, the committee's report builds on three cabinet documents; namely, the government's toxic substances management policy, the strategic framework for pollution prevention, and the guide to green government. The last one was signed and endorsed by all members of cabinet. Therefore, the report of the committee has as its foundation three substantial documents produced by the present government, and quite rightly so, in support of sustainable development objectives.

To conclude, the report is based on the concept of pollution prevention. The accepted norm for environmental protection policy

in industry and governments in the western world is therefore in that report. Every witness before the committee urged that the government adopt pollution prevention, shifting away from the costly approach of reacting and curing to the more efficient approach of anticipating and preventing.

I see that my time is up. I thank you for your indulgence.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say through you to my colleague from Davenport, who has led the way for so many of us on environmental issues in this House, that as a government we must pay attention to his words right away.

When I was working on the Hill as a young assistant back in the early 1980s and the member for Davenport was Minister of the Environment, he helped put us on the international map with his campaign on acid rain. I have experienced his passion and his commitment. I have been exposed to his knowledge on this issue on a thousand different occasions.

I can only say to the member for Davenport that his words will be communicated directly to the minister and to the cabinet. With the trust that we as a government have in his advice, I am sure we will be moving on his recommendations in the near future.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.)