House of Commons Hansard #223 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Western Arctic Northwest Territories

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Liberalfor the Minister of Industry)

moved:

Motion No. 1

That the title of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 3

That section 1 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 4

That section 2 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 6

That section 3(1) of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 26

That section 43 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 27

That section 44 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 28

That section 45 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 29

That section 47 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 30

That section 49 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 31

That section 51 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 32

That section 53 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 33

That the Schedule to Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-91, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27, on page 2, with the following:

"3. (1) The Federal Business Development Bank is continued as a body corporate."

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Broadview—Greenwood Ontario

Liberal

Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this motion put to the House by the government wherein we name the Federal Business Development Bank the Business Development Bank of Canada.

I think it is only fair to give a little background on this issue, because it was quite a contentious issue in the industry committee. It is important for Canadians to realize that the industry committee over the last year has been seized with one issue primarily. That one issue has been access to capital for small business.

Most members of the committee would agree that we did not let a day go by when we did not explore and examine opportunities and ways in which we could put the small business community on the front burner in the House of Commons. Having worked in this city for many years, I must say that I have found the industry committee to be a united force on this issue.

There were times when we felt we were not the industry committee but really the small business committee. I think it would be fair to suggest that we all wanted to put the small business stamp on every issue we touched. Lo and behold, when the reform of the Federal Business Development Bank came along we decided as a committee to rename it the Small Business Bank of Canada. We became emotionally attached to the issue of small business, to the point where we would probably have wanted to name this institution the Small Business Institution. But reason prevailed and a number of people took the committee's recommendation and did a more thorough analysis of exactly how Canadians felt about that name in all regions of the country. A number of important facts came back to us.

By naming the Federal Business Development Bank the Small Business Bank of Canada we would be creating an expectation for that institution which in fairness it could not fulfil. We would have been suggesting that the bank had powers way beyond the powers this bill is giving it. Most Canadians probably do not even realize that the Federal Business Development Bank is not a deposit taking institution. Right off the bat that is an important thing for Canadians to realize.

Another thing we have discovered is that even though the bank is committed to the traditional sectors of our economy, we also want to give it a new type of energy and a new focus on the innovative economies, the knowledge based industries, et cetera. The small business categorization seemed to limit that group. These are new and emerging businesses but it does not take long before they become large businesses. To restrict the bank to the small business name would, in the long run, have created an adverse image and adverse impact on the bank. All committee members did not in any way, shape or form want to do anything other than make sure that this re-tooled, renewed bank with expanded powers got off on the right foot.

I realize that emotionally many of us, including myself, were attached to the name Small Business Bank of Canada. In light of the fact that all of this other information has been brought to our attention, I would ask members to support the government amendment with respect to the new name, the Business Development Bank of Canada, which better reflects the mandate of the bank.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the second time. Changing the name of the Federal Business Development Bank is a substantial change indeed, especially when there has been no real expressed need. It would appear that the parliamentary secretary's memory of what happened in committee differs from mine.

I would invite you to read again the report on small and medium sized business financing, put out last year by the committee, especially recommendation 19, if my memory serves me well, which came out of left field since the committee had not debate whether the FBDB should change its name. It was our very courteous colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, strong armed the committee into considering the results of the reflection which had taken place in the minister's office to the effect that the Federal Business Development Bank should change its name to the Small Business Bank of Canada. Strangely enough, there is no comment regarding this recommendation in the report. I believe that everybody understood that the parliamentary secretary had no other choice than to present certain proposals.

However, it was not enthusiastically received, since everybody agreed that the Federal Business Development Bank had a very good reputation and that changing its name to the Small Business Bank of Canada would result in extra costs and a waste of efforts, all the more as it apparently narrowed unduly the federal bank's mandate.

It would appear that cabinet continued to reflect on the issue. We are told that, during the past year, they consulted many Canadians, from coast to coast I suppose, and concluded that the Canadian public wanted the Federal Business Development Bank to change name. Whereas, last year, they had a very narrow view of the issue, now they have a wider view, and want to call the bank the Business Development Bank of Canada. The decision has already been made; that is what the bill proposes.

The name was too restrictive before, but now it is too presumptuous. I think that the development of a country like Canada does not rest on the name of a bank. This would mean that the only possible kind of development is a financial one when, in fact, there is also a social and cultural development in Canada.

This name change will bring about all the disadvantages we had anticipated right from the start, that is unnecessary spending, the costs of changing all business cards, letterheads and signs and a waste of energy. We also learned from the bank's representatives, during the proceedings of the committee, that in these times of economic recession and budget crisis, the bank has decided to move most of its branches, economic austerity notwithstanding.

So we ask where is the coherence in this government if it cuts seven billion dollars in transfers to provinces for social programs and allows spending of that nature which seems entirely unnecessary and untimely. We know just how capable of deep and logical thinking those people across the street, in the Langevin Building, are.

Unless the federal government sees in this Business Development Bank of Canada-and this is how we interpret the objective of the government-some special instrument for intervening in the post-referendum Canada which is coming, where the federal government, without any mandate and without consultation with anyone and especially not with provincial governments, is establishing-and we have said it many times and we hope Quebecers will understand what is involved, what is behind all this manoeuvring, truly the dark side of the moon-a whole system of instruments which will allow it to meddle more and more in the daily lives of Canadians and Quebecers. This is the new flexible federalism which, in fact, will turn provincial governments into regional governments.

What worries us is when we hear the testimony of well-known Liberals like Claude Castonguay and Jean-Claude Rivest, now a senator, and a former special adviser to Premier Bourassa, all articulate federalists. They declared publicly on the CBC that Canada is being fundamentally restructured. Quebecers should reflect on that, on what these people say.

So, when we see how far the federal government is going in terms of the new mandate of the Business Development Bank of Canada, which will be asked, among other things, to promote entrepreneurship and support all programs developing entrepreneurship in Canada, we notice that these terms are unclear and undefined in the bill and will allow the government to intervene as it sees fit in any area that it finds interesting, as it will be able to do in another context, under Bill C-88 concerning internal trade that we will also comment on later today. Again, in clause 9, the federal government is giving itself huge powers, without any mandate, without consulting the stakeholders, even if nobody asked for this. It is again doing it on the sly.

We are also aware that there was a meeting on this issue in Calgary; no one had authorized the federal government to act as it did and the federal government did not inform its partners of its intention to pass Bill C-88 that we are going to study later on today or tomorrow.

Instead we propose that clause 1 to maintain the status quo regarding the name of the Federal Business Development Bank be dropped, for all kinds of reasons. It is a corporation which has an excellent reputation and with which Canadians and Quebecers are familiar. It has proven itself, it has played a useful role as a bank of last resort and we will come back to this concept later on.

If only to set an example and because of the costs and unnecessary efforts involved in changing the name of the Federal Business Development Bank to Business Development Bank of Canada, which furthermore we find presumptuous, we

are going to vote against the government's amendments. We are going to propose instead to cancel clause 1 which aims at changing the name of the bank.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, there are a number of principles I would like to adhere to when rising to debate on this first group of motions having to do with changing the name of the Federal Business Development Bank. A number of the principles I want to centre on are fiscal responsibility, democratic decision making, and some of the provisions in the bill itself.

My hon. colleague from the Bloc has illustrated so clearly and so well the additional cost that will be incurred because of these kinds of changes that I do not think are necessary. If on the one hand it would change the function of the bank by changing the name, then let us do it but it does not.

In the whole function of the bank the mandate has been expanded and the capitalization structure has changed. The capital that is available to be lent out has changed. In fact the current capital is about $3.2 billion and under the new provisions of this bill it rises to $18 billion. There are some points there that this bank now becomes a very major player in small business lending.

The parliamentary secretary made a big point about the fact that this is going to be the small business bank and that we all have an emotional attachment to small business. My attachment to small business is not on an emotional basis. My attachment to small business is very pragmatic and very hard headed. It is very simply that 85 per cent of the new jobs created in Canada are created by small business. That is the significant part. If we ever want to really build this economy, we have to pay attention to small business. We have to grow it and we have to develop it. It has to become larger and eventually has to graduate from a small business to a big business.

Those are all very desirable things. The big point here is that we are entering into a request to change the name of a bank. I really wonder what the result will be of changing that name.

What bothers me on the democratic part of this thing is that we entered into an arrangement in this House where we could get the bill to committee before second reading, a bill that was supposed to be discussed in the House. What happened? It meant that all the members in the House were not able to contribute to the debate on the provisions of the proposed legislation in the House.

The bill went to the committee and the committee worked on it. It worked fast. All parliamentary standing committees should take a lesson from the way the industry committee works. It gets co-operation. It works well. There is a lot of disagreement and fighting back and forth but there is no recrimination and that is very significant. We recognize a good idea. It does not matter where it comes from and that is wonderful.

When the decisions of that kind from committee are presented to the minister and he turns right around and says he is sorry about that committee but he is on his way, it will be the Business Development Bank of Canada and he does not care what we think, that calls for real criticism and begs the questions of how important a committee is. What has happened to the procedure?

If everyone in the House agreed to name the bank the small business bank of Canada, would the minister have said sorry, Parliament of Canada, but the name will be the Business Development bank of Canada not the small business bank? The minister exercised that kind of authority in committee, which he would not dare do in the Parliament of Canada. There has been an abuse of the intent and the spirit of bringing this to committee before second reading.

I also want to come to grips with the word complementary which was touted. This new bank is now supposed to be complementary. We could not get the experts, legal or anything else, to define complementary clearly. It was ultimately brought into the bill in a new kind of way. I hope the parliamentary secretary, the minister and all of the department officials will be able to administer this act so it is complementary and not in direct competition with the existing field.

I do not think it is fiscally responsible to incur costs of making all of those changes from the Federal Business Development Bank to the Business Development Bank of Canada. It is unnecessary and will change nothing. If we are to do it that way let us not change it at all.

Democracy needs to prevail in the House. We ought to recognize how important it is the wishes of committees have meaning. I must recognize at the same time, although it is not part of these motions, that in the committee there were some significant amendments made and the minister accepted them. We need to recognize the minister went the other way around, which I think is an abuse of his privileges.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

You cannot win them all.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, is it interesting how the parliamentary secretary gets so excited about this issue. That is to be a fundamental question not only for the parliamentary secretary but for all members on that side of the House. How well do they recognize democracy and the wishes of the people when it comes to voting in the House?

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I totally agree with what my friend from the Reform Party said about committee proceedings. In committee there are ideas exchanged, some serious work done. However, we get the impression that, in spite of all

the work that is done, when the government wants to impose a direction or a decision, a committee does not carry much weight.

As regards this grouping of amendments, I would like to remind members that with this bill, the government aims at streamlining and modernizing the Federal Business Development Bank. These are words that are really suited to the market situation as this century comes to an end. But they do not fool anyone about the primary intention of the federal government, which is to interfere even more in regional development. Knowing as we do that this element of regional development is extremely important to Quebec, it is obvious that the government intends increase its presence through this structure, this bank, to interfere, to play a role in the most important processes of the economic development of the state of Quebec. We can feel that very clearly.

The government is introducing totally new legislation, the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, which is the new name of the bank, and thereby revokes the Federal Business Development Bank Act. The Bloc opposes any amendment to the current act instituting the Federal Business Development Bank. The bank must continue to provide last resort bank services to small business. Why? Because this is its basic mission, which is to support small businesses having difficulty obtaining financing.

But now, the government wants to set itself up as a banker. We all know very well that Quebec's position is very clear as regards financial support to business. The Quebec premier said clearly that Quebec does not want to act as a banker but that it is ready to implement numerous measures to support small business.

The federal government has just given itself a means to act as a banker and to compete directly with banks. This group of amendments on the new name of the Federal Business Development Bank is particularly important. The intent of the government is to turn it into a genuine bank.

If we look closely at the very centralizing bill put forward by the Liberal Party of Canada, we understand the reason for this name. It comes from a very clear federal Liberal tradition that goes back to the Trudeau era. A very centralizing tradition with tentacles everywhere.

From now on, the central government will not be involved in regional development, and even less in local development. It is developing, using a global strategy, all over the map. In other words, what is good for Canada is good for Quebec, what is good for Newfoundland is good for Quebec, what is good for Ontario is good for Quebec, what is not good for Ontario is not good for Quebec. We know that Ontario has the final say, because the Minister of Industry is from Ontario.

We oppose this group of government amendments relating to the naming of the Federal Business Development Bank. I refer to the motion of my colleague for Trois-Rivières that says that the Federal Business Development Bank is to be maintained as a body corporate. We propose that the bank retain its primary mission, the current one.

The dissenting report of the Bloc Quebecois members sitting on the Standing Committee on Industry concerning small and medium size enterprises says, and I quote: "That the Quebec government is in a better position to recognize the funding needs of small and medium size enterprises, to develop programs and to implement them".

I will go further into other groups of amendments later on and list the tools Quebec has in this field of activity. By moving into this field, the federal government is once again creating a lot of costly duplication.

As we have said on many occasions, Quebec does not accept that the central government can apply Canadian industrial development plans throughout Canada, with national standards and objectives established by the Department of Industry.

We have to acknowledge something that is very obvious: "Quebec's control in this field of activity must be recognized by its Canadian economic partner, that is Quebec must have sole control over access to small and medium size enterprises and regional development".

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-91 and emphasize the very positive work done by the critic of the Bloc Quebecois on this matter, the member for Trois-Rivières, who, as you know, has extensive experience in financial assistance to small business.

I think it is worthwhile to repeat what others have already said, that such a bill worries the Bloc. We do not understand how the Minister of Industry could waste his time reviewing the Federal Business Development Bank, since this institution was and still is an instrument much appreciated by small business.

We are convinced that, if the Minister of Industry is really hard-pressed for work, he could have reviewed the assistance programs for the defence industries, with some help from the secretary of state for science, research and development.

I see that the secretary of state is eager to participate in the debate, whether directly or indirectly. Essentially, we are concerned about the fact that this bill is sanctioning a concrete and immediate interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction, that is regional development.

Madam Speaker, you certainly know that Quebec has been demanding that regional development be recognized as a provincial jurisdiction, in accordance with the constitution, since 1974-in fact probably since 1968, but at least since 1974, when the Industrial Development Bank was established. That was the first real interference by the federal government.

I could very easily demonstrate that, certainly as far back as 1974, the federal government has used regional development as a pretext to meddle in a lot of areas that are not under its jurisdiction.

As for ERDAs, or Economic and Regional Development Agreements, why is it that we are debating in June 1995 a bill put forward by the Minister of Industry, when he did not even deign to negotiate and sign ERDAs? Why is the government making this a priority, but did not feel concerned and compelled to get involved in the renewal of these agreements? One can only wonder.

In fact, this needs to be said. Our friends opposite are consistent in their ways; they are using regional development as an excuse to move into areas over which they have no jurisdiction under the constitution. That is what this interest in regional development and ERDAs is all about. Let me back this up with a few facts and figures.

The second batch of ERDAs, those covering the 1984-94 period-I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry should listen, because even if he is from Toronto, he could learn a thing or two-were on cultural products, fisheries, transportation and tourism. Can you think of an area that is more obviously and explicitly a provincial responsibility than tourism? Regional development was used to step into areas of jurisdiction not assigned to the federal government.

That is the kind of trick that should make us see clearly that the federal government will never play fair and square at the game of federalism and abide by sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. It had been amply demonstrated that this many armed, one track and rule bending government is trying to encroach on areas of jurisdiction that are not its own.

It must be said that the Federal Business Development Bank, in the present state of affairs and because of the way it operates, is something small and medium size businesses in Quebec appreciate because it had a well-defined mandate limited to providing last resort assistance. I think that every member of this House has had the chance at one time or another to deal with officials of the Federal Business Development Bank. I know that often, when as an MP I had occasion to refer people to the FBDB, it was because traditional institutions such as chartered banks had refused to help. As stated in its enabling legislation, the FBDB was a last resort lending institution.

Why review the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank? At whose request? Why is this a government priority when we have so many other fish to fry, particularly I might add in the area of science and technology, about which the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology published a report? I do hope we will get to discuss it in this House, as it would provide me with an opportunity to share views with my good friend, the parliamentary secretary. Over the weekend I read the report, which was tabled recently and found it quite enlightening.

This report of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology talks about growth, and wisdom, and it proposes four courses of action, but it gives no real indication that this government wants to work to make science and technology a priority. It would have been much more useful for the government to work toward that goal than to review the Federal Business Development Bank Act that no one, in the end, wished to review.

Once again, we must keep in mind that the Federal Bank, established in 1974, was appreciated, and still is, by small and medium size businesses in Quebec and perhaps even in Canada, because it offered consulting services, financial services which were mostly self-financed. For no apparent reason, the Federal Business Development Bank, under a new name, is being asked, as my colleague for Trois-Rivières pointed out, to become a rather traditional lending institutional and to compete with existing institutions. I know that some witnesses raised this as a concern before the Committee on Industry. We fail to understand why the government is bent on stiffer competition in an area that did not need it.

There is cause for concern here, and I think that we will never give enough attention to the real threats for Quebec which are included in this bill, especially under clauses 20 and 21. Are you aware of the Liberals' old tactic? The bill will allow the new bank to do business with organizations or persons directly, over the head of the Quebec government. This is the same old unhealthy, obsolete tactic of divide and conquer, and it fools nobody.

They want to divide and conquer by making funds available. The government whip is a well informed man generally, but obviously, his somewhat Canadian naïvety can sometimes lead him to support principles that are unhealthy for Quebec. As we know, under clause 20, the bank will be allowed to do business directly with organizations or persons, without taking into account the will of the Quebec government.

I know the government whip would surely not have wanted the official opposition to support such principles that obviously-and this cannot be said too often-are very disrespectful to Canadian federalism.

As I have stated, Madam Speaker-and I will conclude with that since you indicate that my time is up-if the government is really serious about regional development, it should transfer tax points or make direct payments to the Quebec government, because we have plenty of projects.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this House on Bill C-91. This bill seeks to do many things, including changing the name of the Federal Business Development Bank, which will become the Business Development Bank of Canada. As they say, what is in a name? What does that name change involve? Let me explain a few things, particularly as regards clause 21, which reads:

The Bank may carry out duties or functions that may be assigned to it by the Designated Minister in relation to the administration of any program supporting Canadian entrepreneurship, to the extent that it is able to recover the costs of carrying out the duties or functions.

The clause says "to the extent that it is able to recover the costs of carrying out the duties or functions". As you know, when a bank lends money, it takes a risk. Here, the level of risk is not defined. We have reservations about that.

The minister responsible for implementing the act can ask the Business Development Bank of Canada to support Canadian entrepreneurship by carrying out duties or functions currently assigned to other federal departments or agencies.

Bill C-91 seeks to ensure that the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, better known as the FORD-Q, will be the provider of federal services and programs to small and medium size businesses.

I have several objections regarding this bill. First, this legislation is another centralizing measure which will create unnecessary and costly duplication. Bill C-91 completely eliminates the role of the provincial government in terms of helping small and medium size businesses.

As you know, this contradicts the Liberal government's claims that it wants to abolish duplication and overlap with the provinces. This centralizing attempt is obvious in clauses 20 and 21, which will allow the Business Development Bank of Canada to enter into agreements with other federal departments to deliver assistance to small and medium size businesses directly.

The agreements signed, including with the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, will allow the federal government to interfere more in regional development projects. I did not say "to get involved", but to "interfere", which is definitely not the same. "To get involved" is to act like a partner, while "to interfere" is to usurp a place when you are not invited.

Clause 20 of the bill provides that the Business Development Bank of Canada may enter into agreements directly with any other body or person. That means that it could have agreements with regional development councils, which is precisely what the FORD-Q would like. In Quebec, the Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif does not allow agencies under provincial jurisdiction to enter into agreements with the federal government without the minister's approval. We can see here the difference between partnership and interference.

Consider the context of clause 20, which is far from innocuous because the Quebec legislation could be bypassed. Given the present budgetary restrictions, if the federal government wants to fund projects advocated by a regional development council, the council will strongly pressure the Quebec government for an exemption. Unfortunately, this is already a common occurrence. The federal and provincial governments are on a collision course because of legislation that does not foster partnership, but interference in a local process.

Once again, we have the federal government blatantly disregarding the very existence of the Quebec government and securing the legislative authority to act without prior consultation with Quebec or, for that matter, any other province. I am referring to the Quebec situation because I am familiar with it, but all provinces will suffer from the adverse impact of this bill.

My second misgiving concerns regional development and more particularly the federal government's centralist attack that is in direct contradiction with Quebec's regionalization policy.

I had the honour and the privilege to sit on the National Capital Commission-and I am talking about Quebec City and the future of Quebec-and I heard the presentations made by many stakeholders who believed that regionalization in the province of Quebec is crucial. However, the federal government has never recognized that regional development is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

During every round of constitutional negotiations, Ottawa has ignored our demand. Instead, Ottawa promised the government of Quebec to limit its presence in the regions to what is provided for under the Canada-Quebec framework agreements. However, ERDA, the Economic and Regional Development Agreement to which my distinguished colleague referred earlier, came to an end, that was in December 1994 I think, and the federal government has refused to renew it. The Canada-Quebec agreement has expired.

Without joint programs with the government of Quebec, the mandate of FORD-Q becomes practically obsolete. So, to maintain its visibility in the regions, the federal government has found nothing better than to redefine the mandate of FORD-Q.

Nowadays, FORD-Q is known as the delivery arm for all the small businesses assistance programs set up by the federal departments and will be able, on the one hand, to provide assistance services to small and medium size businesses through a single information window and, on the other hand, to develop new programs, particularly for exporting SMBs, through federal departments.

A third concern of mine has to do with the fact that the federal government prefers to withdraw from social program funding. It is well known. It takes the taxpayers' money to create useless overlaps with Quebec agencies which support small and medium size businesses.

The 1995 federal budget, as we know, cut more than $7 billion from social programs. The federal government is asking people to make sacrifices because it has no more money. It even uses the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund-of all things-which is financed by employers and employees. And what does it do with this money? It finances new child care programs, new programs to fight against poverty, new manpower training programs, which, it must be said, all infringe on provincial jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, the federal government is in no hurry when it comes to responding to Quebec's demands, which are that it withdraw from the fields of manpower training and regional development and reduce this costly and useless duplication. However, Ottawa continues to ignore Quebec's demands, even though this waste of money affects taxpayers and creates an administrative mess, because the beneficiaries of these programs no longer know where to turn. Moreover, it creates unproductive and unhealthy competition between programs that are not even based on the same strategies. And that is where the problem lies. These programs are not based on the same strategies. Strategies which are useful, necessary and beneficial to Quebec are not necessarily the ones chosen by the federal government.

I will conclude by saying that I regret that this bill has been proposed in this form by the government and that I fervently hope that, this fall, Quebec will take control of its destiny and that we will no longer have to engage in these pointless negotiations cap in hand, with Ottawa, but rather will be able to negotiate as equals with the goal of a happy and healthy prosperity for all.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Réjean Lefebvre Bloc Champlain, QC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-91, an Act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada. The purpose of the bill is to replace the Federal Business Development Bank by the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The Liberal government has decided to introduce a totally new piece of legislation, creating a new body, the Business Development Bank of Canada, instead of amending the existing legislation governing the Federal Business Development Bank. We must not delude ourselves. This new legislation is fundamentally similar to the present legislation although it makes some major changes.

As for the mandate, it is changed in such a way that the Federal Business Development Bank will no longer offer only last resort financing, but will now have the power to offer financing to complement that available from other financial institutions.

It will also be easier for the new Business Development Bank of Canada to enter into agreements with private and public partners, at both the federal and provincial levels, to form lending consortiums. The new bank will therefore be able to establish subsidiaries and to use a greater number of financial tools to fulfil its mandate. Clause 20 of the bill gives the bank great flexibility to negotiate agreements with other federal departments as well as with provincial and local agencies in order to fulfil its specific mandate.

By giving the bank greater leeway, the federal government will be able to develop an integrated approach to interfering in every aspect of regional development, in Quebec in particular, where the Federal Office of Regional Development has become the delivery arm for all federal programs.

In this context, Bill C-91 constitutes another centralizing offensive from the federal government, resulting in costly and needless duplication. It completely negates the role of the Quebec government in providing assistance to small business. This is in contradiction with repeated statements by the people opposite, who said they wanted to eliminate duplication and overlap with provincial programs. On the contrary, this a perfect way to perpetuate the problem.

As I said earlier, this is a centralizing offensive based on clauses 20 and 21 of the bill. These two clauses enable the Federal Business Development Bank to enter into agreements with other federal departments or agencies in order to deal directly with small and medium sized businesses, which will allow the federal government to interfere even more in regional development projects.

Clause 20 of the bill also enables the Federal Business Development Bank to enter directly into agreements with a person or agency, which means that the bank could enter into agreements with regional development councils for example. In Quebec, however, the Executive Council Act prohibits provincially regulated agencies from entering into agreements with the federal government without ministerial consent.

One could think that this section is harmless, since it is governed by a Quebec provincial statute. However, in the present context of fiscal restraint, if the federal government offers to fund projects put forward by a RDC, the latter will press the Quebec government to allow a departure from the law, which is common practice.

Once again, Ottawa dismisses Quebec's role in the matter and shamelessly gives itself the power to act without consulting the provinces. This centralizing offensive in regional development runs directly counter to Quebec's regionalization policy. The federal government has always refused to recognize regional development as an exclusive provincial jurisdiction, dismissing this claim in every constitutional negotiation, while implicitly making a commitment to the Quebec government to limit its action in regions through Canada-Quebec agreements.

However, the Economic and Regional Development Agreement, or ERDA, expired in December 1994 and the federal government refused to renew it. This government can never claim to support regional development by replacing essential components of a social plan with direct assistance to small and medium size businesses. By dismissing Quebec's achievements in terms of assisting exporting small and medium-size businesses, the federal government is trying to make Quebec look like the one responsible for the overlapping which it is creating with this bill.

The FBDB is a successful regional development tool which is greatly appreciated by small and medium size businesses. By and large, Quebec's small and medium size businesses get one third of the loans from the FBDB, but they definitely do not rely as heavily on the bank's extension services. Since the bank has no exclusive commercial objective, such as maximizing profits-it only seeks to recover its costs-, Mr. Rémillard, of the Canadian Bankers' Association, says that it helped develop new financial tools which were often used later by commercial financial institutions. The bank acts as an innovator by proposing new forms of financing which other financial institutions can apply when dealing with small and medium size businesses.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will make sure that the bank remains first and foremost a tool for economic development, that it does not compete with other such tools used by Quebecers, including the caisses populaires, the solidarity fund and the CNTU fund, and that it has the means to support Quebec businesses.

The effect that the bill could have on the bank's role in economic development is very worrisome. In fact, two provisions in the bill, when combined, cast doubts on the bank's ability to maintain its role as a tool of economic development: the broadening of the bank's mandate and the bank's ability to obtain private capital financing through hybrid instruments, contingent on certain conditions.

Firstly, the bank would no longer be just a last resort lender: it would be able to offer complementary financing which would be a little different from what existing financial institutions offer. The danger is that the bank could target its activities more towards complementary financing than last resort financing. Since there is less risk involved in complementary financing, naturally the bank will tend to favour this type of financing.

Bill C-91 is another move in the federal government's centralizing offensive, as I mentioned earlier, which only causes costly and useless duplication. Bill C-91 dismisses totally the provincial government's role regarding assistance to small and medium size businesses. It goes against the Liberal government's claims that it wants to abolish overlaps and duplication with the provinces.

Furthermore, clause 20 of the bill allows the bank, the FBDB, to enter into agreements directly with individuals and with organizations. This means that the FBDB could enter into agreements with regional development councils, for example.

But in Quebec, the Executive Council Act prohibits organizations which are governed by provincial law from entering into such agreements. Regarding regional development, the federal government's push for centralization runs counter to Quebec's policy on regionalization.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the report stage of Bill C-91.

When the bill was tabled on first reading, I had the impression it would simply change the name of the bank and increase the amount of capital available. In other words, it would make a certain number of adjustments, considering the fact that the legislation establishing the bank was at least 20 years old. At first glance it seemed quite logical and understandable that the minister responsible for the bank should want to update the legislation.

However, after considering the bill and reflecting on the scope of certain clauses, I feel I must condemn this legislation and, as my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have done, point out to the House that a number of clauses are potentially dangerous.

In fact, the bill would change the mission of the Federal Business Development Bank and allow the bank to be used for purposes which may be questionable and even unacceptable to the provinces and to certain regions in the provinces.

First, a few words about the bank's mission. As you know, the Federal Business Development Bank continues the tradition of institutions that were established after the war to help small

businesses raise the capital they needed. In the case of defence conversion, they were to help Canada build a thriving civilian industry that would contribute to the country's prosperity.

The institution was well received by Canadians and Quebecers. It has excellent credentials and has proved its worth.

The bank's mission was, more or less, to provide last resort financing, in other words, to help developers who found it difficult to get financing from traditional financial institutions. The Federal Business Development Bank was set up to ensure that the necessary capital would be available to entrepreneurs so they could start small businesses.

It is clear that this bill will change the mission of the bank. It is now described as providing complementary financing not customarily provided by traditional financial institutions. Complementary financing is not the same as last resort financing. Last resort financing is needed when the institution or the developer goes to the institutions and although the banks agree the project is worthwhile, they cannot provide the capital, while complementary financing does not have quite the same connotation.

It is clear that if the bank is described as providing complementary financing, it is directly competing with institutions across Canada that were set up to help entrepreneurs find capital. An example is the venture capital fund which has become an institution in Quebec. It seems that in Canada, Quebec is known for its institutions that specialize in providing venture capital for entrepreneurs.

I am thinking as well of the solidarity fund of the FTQ, the industrial development corporation and the Innovatech companies. In short, the Federal Business Development Bank, by abandoning its purpose of providing last resort capital, will now be competing with institutions that make attractive capital available to promoters.

This change in the bank's purpose is regrettable. In my opinion, the aim of the bank was to provide last resort funds. It was good at that. By changing its purpose and allowing it to subtly change its objectives and the type of capital it will provide, we may be putting Canadian business seriously at risk.

Perhaps we of the Bloc could have viewed somewhat positively the purpose of providing complementary funding, but I think the bill should have provided that the purpose of the bank was to continue to provide last resort funds.

Two clauses are also cause for concern. Perhaps there are others, but I think my colleagues will look after pointing them out to the House. Clauses 20 and 21 raise problems, in my opinion. Clause 20 provides that "the Bank may enter into agreements with -any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province or any other body-". The reference here is perhaps to cities, educational institutions, regional development councils-any other body in order to carry out its purpose.

If clause 20 were adopted as it stands, the bank could intervene directly with bodies that come under provincial jurisdiction.

I think this is potentially dangerous, given Canada's economic history and even its political history. One realizes that over the years one of the major problems with Canadian federalism has been that, given its spending power, the federal government has been able to interfere in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The most obvious and striking example is education, an area which, under the constitution, clearly comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces but an area where, over the years, the federal government, with its spending power, has been able, first directly with the universities, and also directly with some school boards for certain programs, to step in and often, to a certain extent, divert these bodies from their goal because they had to meet the federal government's funding requirements.

I am myself an educator by profession. Over the years, I have often seen federal programs proposed. It was a little difficult for the local administrators to refuse. They were afraid that if they did, they were going to be turning down large amounts of money, maybe $10,000 or $100,000. Administrators therefore did what the province of Quebec did in the fifties with respect to university funding.

Local or provincial governments must, in such a situation and as a last resort, accept the interference of the federal government because large sums of money are at stake.

In clause 20, the federal government provides itself with the necessary means to interfere, again, in areas that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. It is probably also ensuring that there is yet more duplication so that federal, provincial and municipal agencies compete, which is very harmful. The history of the Canadian federation since day one shows that this was a serious flaw in the Canadian federal system, where different levels of government can compete in major areas.

I would have liked to say a few words more on clause 21, which mandates the bank to support entrepreneurship. This is an extremely vague term that could be made to mean just about anything. Again, this could be another excuse for the FBDB to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Perhaps we would see less cause for concern or suspicion if the whole regional development policy had not changed so drastically these past few months. But since it did change, we suspect that the Federal Business Development Bank could be the federal government's way of making up for what it is no longer investing in the area of development and ensuring that there is more and more duplication in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-91, which seeks to change the name of the Federal Business Development Bank, as well as its purpose.

The Federal Business Development Bank is a long-standing institution which has played an important role in economic development, as a bank of last resort. That was and should continue to be its mandate since that bank should not compete with other financial institutions.

The bank gets a new name which is of strategic importance for the federal government. It will become the Business Development Bank of Canada. What does that name mean exactly? Will it strive to develop business and the economy or Canada?

It reminds me somewhat of development banks in Africa. I guess the government now recognizes that it is running a developing country. We must look like a developing country in the eyes of the international community. The federal government just confirmed that the state of its economy is appalling, that its debt is staggering. It just said so. It will probably get foreign money through the Business Development Bank of Canada, just like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development gets money, even from Canada, the United States and Japan, to develop eastern countries which have problems.

By using such a name, it should be easier for us to go to Japan, even China, and to richer countries, since Canada has become a developing country. In fact, we are among the 65 or 70 poorest countries of the world if you look at the national and foreign debts. Canada is on the same level as developing countries. This new name is a pretty smart idea. It will probably allow Canada to borrow more money abroad to promote its own development, before it goes bankrupt, assuming this is not already the case.

In Quebec, we took control of our financial institutions a long time ago. In Quebec, we already have control over a few hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to our caisses populaires , the Fédération des caisses d'économie Desjardins du Québec, the provincial charters we control ourselves, as well as over our priorities in terms of our activities, and we want to keep it. We also want very much to continue to cooperate with our financial institutions.

We do not want the federal government to interfere through a financial institution which will have a much broader mandate and will prevent Quebec from working hand in hand with its own financial institutions as it has always done.

We had to build our financial institutions ourselves because the federal government was not very useful in helping us to keep our money and invest in our industries. Again, I understand very well why the very centralist Liberal government wants to control everything. It wants to control our priorities, it wants to collect our tax revenues and spend the money according to its own priorities. Not only does it want to impose its priorities in terms of manpower training, but it also wants to do so in the trade area.

Let me give the House some examples which have led me to believe that the federal government is trying to increase its control. It says that it will be able to sign agreements with other financial institutions and with other private companies in order to defend some industries. For instance, we know, and I often come back to this issue which I find important, that the federal government never supported Quebec's hydro development programs. The province of Quebec was the sole investor in Hydro-Quebec. It invested tens of billions of dollars, while the federal government never spent a penny on these projects.

Again, the federal government will want to be the one to decide which industries should be given priority for development purposes. This means that the federal government could favour businesses in the uranium, natural gas or oil industry, for example, over businesses in the electric power industry. That is what it means. When we say that the federal government wants to control industrial priorities in Quebec, it does it through the Federal Business Development Bank by interfering even more and by making decisions regarding economic development priorities in that province. It is terrible.

Do not think that we are fooled. We can see very clearly what is going on. We know the history of Quebec. We have lived through it. I come from Quebec, I was part of the business community and I know full well that Quebecers had to work twice as hard to achieve the equivalent of what Ontario was able to achieve. Why is that? Because the federal government was working against us.

The federal government has always worked against us. Just look at what is happening in Ottawa with regard to research and development, for example. Three or four years ago, I conducted a study to see who was getting research and development contracts. Well, in 1990, research and development contracts awarded to businesses and universities by the federal government totalled 1 billion-

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

It was done previously.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Yes, it was done previously under the Liberals and it continued a little under the Conservatives. It cannot be done overnight; it takes time.

In 1990, the federal government gave $1.2 billion more in contracts to businesses, universities and research centres for research and development in Ontario than it did in Quebec.

We are not totally blind in Quebec. I can assure you that this new financial institution which is coming to Quebec has gotten Quebecers quite worried. This worries not only the sovereignists, but also Quebec's other financial institutions. The reason we are protesting this new kind of bank which will in a certain way change the order of things in Quebec's financial system is that we are totally against any change in this system.

To reply, in part, to the hon. member who is muttering over there, back when I was a Conservative, we simply wanted to scrap the Federal Business Development Bank. We came very close to scrapping it precisely because we really do not need this financial institution, especially now with its new vocation, which will be to rock the boat when it comes to the agreements between our financial institutions, our businesses and our universities. If we could gain control of job training, we could close the loop and bring lasting prosperity to Quebec, and be rid of the federal government that is stifling our growth. We are really looking forward to becoming sovereign.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-91, whose purpose is to provide a new name for what was referred to as the Federal Business Development Bank and will now become the Business Development Bank of Canada.

As usual, and as has been going on for a long time, the federal government took advantage of this opportunity to change the mandate of the institution, so that from now on, as other Bloc members have said so eloquently, it can be used as an instrument, and it is indeed an instrument, to put the finishing touches on this contemptible encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, disguised as regional development.

I would like to elaborate somewhat on the monster the government is creating with this legislation. In this bill we sense the minister's involvement in the bank's administration. The minister appoints the chairperson of the board and the president. Speaking of instruments, the government seems to be creating an instrument for dispensing patronage. According to clause 21, the minister will be able to control the bank's functions by using his influence with the people he appointed, perhaps by persuading them to approve loans in cases where they would have been reluctant to do so. That is a real danger.

In Quebec under the Liberals, they gave $950 million over ten years to the Société de développement industriel as a political favour, which often happens just before an election. The Premier intervenes and says: You are going to approve this loan.

People appointed at the pleasure of the minister or the Prime Minister do not dare refuse and so grant the loan, which they would not otherwise have done. Gradually, Quebec was left with a bill for $950 million because of principles just as laudable as those our colleagues opposite were talking about: helping development and helping small and medium size business become big business.

This new mission does not come about because of popular demand. We saw no one come before Parliament demanding a change in the purpose of the Federal Business Development Bank. The whole idea came from ministers' offices, the Privy Council, old friends who got talking and decided to change the vocation of the bank. We are creating an instrument of patronage.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am sorry, it being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical DevicesPrivate Members' Business

June 21st, 1995 / 5:25 p.m.

NDP

Audrey McLaughlin NDP Yukon, YT

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should begin consultations with the provinces and territories to establish the parameters for a national registry of drugs, medical devices (implanted in the body for more than one year) and various forms of biotechnology.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move this private members' motion today calling for a national registry of drugs and implanted medical devices.

Many Canadians assume that any such drugs or medical devices that are used are safe and have been well tested. I am sure that in the majority of cases this is true, but there are some glaring exceptions which I will discuss later in my speech.

The motion under discussion today is taken directly from a 1992 report by a House of Commons subcommittee on the status of women entitled: "Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions". While at the time the motion was meant to address the problems associated only with breast implants, the subcommittee recognized that a registry of many other medical devices would be a great step forward in protecting Canadian consumers. L'Association coopérative d'économie familiale du centre de Montréal made a call for a similar type of registry at that time.

I would like to say at the beginning that a national registration system would have to be voluntary and that privacy laws would have to be respected. At this point, we would be looking at something that both physicians and patients would have the choice to participate in.

Why do we need to consider such a national registry? What would it do for Canadian consumers? There are two issues. The first is that a national registry of medical devices would allow men and women who experience problems to notify a central data bank and document their complaints. The 1992 subcommittee suggested that Statistics Canada might be used to house such a registry.

The second value of such a registry is for those who might have some complaints about a drug or device to simply note who is on such a registry and do not necessarily have complaints. That would increase the long term safety of consumers by putting in place mechanisms to notify patients of potential problems or complications that arose or knowledge that came forward after the use of such drugs or devices.

As well, a registry could assist physicians in tracking those patients who may have experienced problems. It would open the door to more expansive research studies that could help to protect consumers.

At the moment, one of the problems is that there is no central data bank for researchers to collate information on people who may have had either devices or drugs. This kind of information is extremely important to consumers. It is an opportunity also for physicians to pass on new information to patients that may come to light and to better access long term risks and advantages of such medical practices. A national registry could certainly help Canadians to make more informed choices about their medical treatment and the options available to them.

If we look at the Canadian experience with medical devices and compare that to other consumer practices, it is clear that the Canadian system for medical devices lacks some basic resources. Canadian consumers can register complaints about automobiles, business transactions and the houses they buy. However, there is still no comprehensive and central system in place for things like breast implants, heart valves, pacemakers or other medical devices and drugs people use.

With new technologies and new drug products coming on the market all of the time, it is increasingly important that consumers have an opportunity to access information on the possible complications and risk factors associated with these new devices and drugs. As it now stands the monitoring of medical devices in this country is based on the notion of voluntary compliance by the manufacturer. In other words the manufacturers will comply voluntarily with both health and welfare regulations and the parameters of their own health standards.

Ultimate responsibility for the safety and efficacy of medical devices rests on the assurances that manufacturers provide to Health and Welfare Canada. The role of Health and Welfare Canada is still largely an auditing role to ensure that market tests and studies have been carried out by the manufacturers.

Many Canadians probably assume and not necessarily correctly, that there are independent studies done by Health and Welfare Canada on the whole range of medical technology, but on the whole its role has been to monitor and to assess. It is the role of Health and Welfare Canada to ensure the safety of Canadians. The government obviously has to have responsibility for giving Canadians confidence in the kinds of medical devices and medications they take.

Although there are many successes in the Canadian system for monitoring such medical procedures, there are some instances and some very serious ones that clearly indicate how the system has broken down. One issue that is currently in the news is that of breast implants which has been discussed in the House many times.

Members will know that just yesterday a settlement against the American manufacturer of the Meme implant was reached on behalf of Quebec and Ontario women through a class action suit. It has been a long time in coming and of course it is still one more step in the battle of Canadian women for compensation. What is important in both the Dow Corning decision in the United States and the Bristol Myers decision is the fact that settlements have been made. This indicates that the manufacturer is accepting some responsibility and admits that these medical devices did cause problems to some of the women who used them.

My office spoke to a lawyer involved in the case just recently settled. He pointed out that one problem is that only the women involved in the class action suit benefited. There is no way of knowing if other women in Ontario or Quebec might have benefited who might have been a part of that case if there had been some way to contact them and make the resources available to them.

It is estimated, and it is just an estimation, that there are about 150,000 women across Canada who have received a breast implant since their introduction in the mid-1970s. They made that choice on the advice of physicians, governments and manufacturers that the implants were safe. Women were routinely told not only that they were safe, and I am talking now specifically about the silicone gel implants, but that they would also last a lifetime and there would be no problems.

I might also add that there are now options to those silicone gel implants. The same assurances are being given and with the same lack of real data on the health risks associated with these implants.

For many women unfortunately the safety factor has not met the reassurances given by the manufacturer. For many it has been a nightmare. If members had been at many of the meetings I attended, they would have heard about women who had suffered a number of medical problems from outright rejection of implants causing massive infections to scarring. In some cases, women are reporting a variety of physical symptoms from chronic fatigue to autoimmune diseases. Even more, women are having difficulty in having their symptoms recognized as being legitimate symptoms. Many women were referred for psychiatric and psychological services. Their complaints were not taken seriously.

It was only when women came together that they began to realize their experience was not unique. Finding out there were other women who had similar experiences, they were able to approach physicians to tell them that there was a common thread and a problem. However, as in many areas of women's health, often the symptoms women present are not taken seriously. Looking at this simply in financial terms, the cost of multiple operations, the psychiatric and psychological counselling, apart from the personal devastation to these women who have had problems with the implants, is phenomenal to the health care system.

As the research has continued it is clear there are many symptoms including fatigue, skin lesions and neurological dysfunction that many women have experienced.

Just last month an Alberta study of 2,500 women with silicone gel implants reported preliminary findings showing a link between the implants and the way that a woman's body processes fat. I believe later this summer a report is expected on the association of implants and autoimmune diseases.

There clearly is a demonstrable connection between the implants and the complications reported by women. These court cases which we have seen successfully settled in favour of the women underline that there clearly was a problem. Long before we had to prove a problem this is where we come to the importance of adequate research being done, adequate data being kept and the responsibility of the federal government's health protection branch to ensure that Canadians are adequately protected in these areas.

In the case of the breast implants, there are still a lot of outstanding questions. There certainly is some dispute among physicians and researchers as to exactly what the effects have been. Of course there are women who have not had any symptoms. Having said that, I think this is one of the reasons that a national registry is so important. It could be useful in helping women to answer some of the questions they have about this issue.

Despite all the evidence women have had countless symptoms. Those symptoms while being increasingly recognized are still by no means accepted by all physicians and all of those involved in the field. To the personal and family lives of those women, the trauma they have suffered both psychologically and physically is very real.

We do not really know how many people have experienced complications because adequate mechanisms are not in place to monitor complications or long term effects of these and other implanted devices. Consequently, there is no way to adequately and specifically identify the number of implants done and those that are in use at this time, the possible range of problems or indeed the level of satisfaction associated with these devices.

A national registry such as is proposed in this motion would go a long way to helping women assess their risks not only for silicone gel implants but also for the new versions, such as the saline implants now on the market.

Today I have used the example of the breast implant to highlight the importance of a national registry system. Clearly the system would be a great benefit for consumers in other instances as well. It would help researchers track patients over a long period of time in order to provide for a clearer database for better research. It would give Canadian men and women a greater opportunity to access information and to be aware of potential problems.

There has been much written on the issue of health care in Canada, specifically about the increasing lack of confidence people have in the ability of the federal government to ensure the safety of drugs and products routinely used. The breast implant issue came to the House only as a result of certain members' raising the issue; they made it an issue. The Minister of Health at the time finally after much discussion and a lot of pressure did put in place a moratorium.

All this took place after the federal drug administration in the United States had made its findings. Most people may agree we are very reliant on the research of other countries to determine the level of safety for products used in Canada.

I do not want to suggest for a moment the health protection branch and its members are in some way at fault for this. Funding cutbacks to the system have affected the testing of new devices and drugs on the market with a greater reliance on secondary research as opposed to primary research by the department.

There is no doubt in the minds of Canadians they rely on the federal government, the department of health and welfare, the health promotion branch and the health protection branch to ensure certain standards. Most Canadians probably assume any product in this area which they take or is implanted has gone through a rigorous set of tests and is safe without question. It would be naive to assume anything can be safe without question since it is not a perfect science.

I urge support support for this motion. It is not a panacea to all the things that need to be done to ensure greater safety for the Canadian consumer in health related areas but it would be a positive step toward the protection of consumers, access to information and providing and assisting the maintenance of a database which would assist in the research of long term consequences.

I hope all parliamentarians will seriously consider this issue. I hope the Minister of Health will seriously consider this issue. It would be in the interest of all Canadians, men and women, and would provide Canadians with greater faith in our medical system.

National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical DevicesPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, the motion placed before the House by the member for Yukon is certainly worth considering. Any proposal that would contribute to maintaining and improving the health and safety of Canadians deserves thoughtful discussion.

There is some ambiguity in the member's motion. Does the hon. member want a national registry of drugs and devices or a national registry of patient profiles and adverse reactions to those drugs and devices or both?

The fundamental question regardless of what the member means is would setting up a national registry of drugs, medical devices and various forms of biotechnology protect the health of Canadians better than the system we have in place? Before we review that system we should consider the context of the motion.

In 1992 a resolution by the subcommittee on the status of women called for such a registry. In its report, "Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions", the subcommittee said one of the problems with breast implants in particular and medical devices in general is adequate mechanisms are not in place to monitor the complications and long term effects of implanted devices. The resolution called for a national patient adverse reaction registry through which patients would be able to register any problems, complications or ill effects.

No one disputes this but the resolution on which the motion is based was conceived in response to a specific problem, the need for women to have accurate information regarding the use of breast implants.

The subcommittee had heard wrenching testimony by women who said they had been scarred and made ill as a result of breast implant surgery. In its report the subcommittee concluded a crucial factor for women facing these decisions was the need for accurate information regarding the risks and possible complications associated with the use of implants, hence the idea of a national registry.

The report says: "We see the lack of such a registry as a major inadequacy in our current system. Without such a mechanism physicians and surgeons can easily lose track of patients who have breast or other implants. This complicates their ability to pass the new or emerging information on possible problems with implants".

This specific resolution and the motion go well beyond implants to take in drugs and various forms of biotechnology. Whatever the merits of a registry for breast implants, Canadian women and Canadians in general are at present well served when it comes to the safety and efficacy of medical drugs and devices.

Many Canadians and the hon. member may be unfamiliar with the co-operative system administered by federal, provincial and territorial governments which ensures medical drugs available in Canada are safe, effective and of high quality. I will limit my remarks to mostly drugs, and my hon. colleague will discuss devices.

The department's health protection branch through its drugs directorate not only approves all drugs offered for sale in Canada before they go on the market but monitors their use after they are on the market so that any drugs sold in Canada must meet the requirements of the food and drugs regulations.

Once a drug has met these requirements the department issues a notice of compliance, an NOC, and assigns a drug identification number, a DIN, to the drug. The drug directorate maintains a database that includes information on all the drug products assigned and the identification number. This database now contains information on approximately 22,000 drug products sold in Canada.

In addition, Health Canada makes information on drug products sold in Canada available to the public in a variety of ways, including the drug directorate's electronic bulletin board system which we can access through modem. The building blocks of a national drug registry are already in place through the co-operation of all three levels of government.

In addition to registering drugs and giving public information, the drugs directorate through its bureau of drug surveillance promotes and supports the safe and rational use of drugs after they enter the market and are in the public domain. This bureau ensures drugs are manufactured according to regulations and internationally recognized good manufacturing practices and standards, ensuring the safety of market drugs.

An important part of the bureau of drug surveillance is the adverse drug reaction monitoring program. Canada has had a system to gather information on adverse drug reactions since 1965. Under this program health professionals report adverse drug reactions voluntarily. Reporting by pharmaceutical manufacturers is subject to control by the Food and Drugs Act and regulations.

To enhance the value of spontaneous reporting in Canada the adverse drug reaction program has established a series of regional reporting centres across the country, serving as a front line for this reporting program.

There are four centres fully operational right now: the B.C. adverse reporting centre located at the drug and poison information centre at St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver; the Saskatchewan adverse drug reporting centre located at the drug information centre at the University of Saskatchewan's college of pharmacy; the regional drug information service for the Atlantic region at Camp Hill hospital in Halifax; the Quebec regional adverse drug reaction centre located at the Centre d'information pharmaceutique at Hôpital du Sacré Coeur de Montréal.

However, in my experience as a physician I believe voluntary reporting may not be as accurate as it should be. There should be mandatory reporting by physicians of adverse drug reactions.

What I am really trying to say is this building block will provide the basis for future evolution of national drug programs.

The initiatives involve the federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as industry and a number of professional health organizations, including the Canadian Co-Ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, CCOHTA, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Patented Medicines Review Board. CCOHTA is an excellent example of the way the federal, provincial and territorial ministries of health work together and jointly fund it. CCOHTA collects, analyses, creates and disseminates information concerning the effectiveness and cost of technology and its impact on health.

Currently CCOHTA is conducting pharmaceutical evaluations to provide information on the relative therapeutic and economic value of medicines and alternatives.

Referring back to the original resolution on which the motion is based, we can safely say that when it comes to medical drugs we do have national mechanisms in place to ensure our medical drugs are safe and effective. Patients and physicians are educated about the side effects and use, and adverse effects are reported, albeit voluntarily, which is the weak link in a very strong national chain.

Would mandatory reporting by physicians of adverse drug reactions instead of the current voluntary system be the only step needed to put in place a complete system of drug and medical device safety? If so, the question to be asked of the hon. member is whether this motion is redundant.

National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical DevicesPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to motion M-375 brought forward by the hon. member for the Yukon. This motion proposes that the government begin consultations with the provinces and territories to establish the parameters for a national registry of drugs, medical devices implanted in the body for more than one year and various forms of biotechnology.

This motion deals mainly with the serious problem of breast implants and the deleterious effects they have on the health of those women who have them.

An estimated 150,000 women, in Canada and Quebec, have had silicone breast implant surgery between 1969 and 1992. Approximately 75 per cent of these implants were for purely aesthetic reasons, and the remaining 25 per cent for post-surgical reconstruction of the breast. Although the use of breast implants is strictly voluntary in both cases, medical considerations compounded with cultural factors turn this procedure into a complex source of concern for women's health.

Today, many women are confronted daily with the disastrous results of silicone leaking into their body. These leaks cause immune deficiencies. The implants contract and the body tries to reject this foreign substance, creating massive scar tissue.

Some women develop problems like the hardening of their breasts, chest pain or loss of sensitivity. Others have more systemic problems like pain in the joints, kidney trouble, infections, sclerosis, chronic fatigue, etc. All these complications are part of what we now call the silicone-related syndrome.

Canadian women are worried. Some scientists still refuse to admit the dangerous effects of silicone. Officials and representatives of the federal health department do recognize that some women with breast implants experience health problems, but they quickly add that no link has yet been proven between these health problems and the fact that they have received these silicone-filled prostheses. However, the potential health hazard of silicone has been a proven fact for a long time now. Hundreds of American women have sued and won their case against the makers of silicone gel breast implants; American courts have recognized that this product is dangerous and the victims have received substantial compensation.

In 1992, the House of Commons Sub-committee on the Status of Women released a report entitled Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions . Although this study was originally on breast cancer and the breast implant that was called Même at the time, developments on silicone-based implants led the sub-committee to expand its study and to make several very significant recommendations concerning breast implants.

One of the greatest problems the sub-committee recognized was the lack of a satisfactory mechanism for monitoring the development of complications and the long term effects of these objects implanted in our body. So, it is now impossible to tell the number of breast implants that were used, the range of potential problems or the rate of satisfaction with these implants.

The lack of a national registry is a major flaw in the current medical system. Doctors and surgeons may easily lose track of people with breast or other implants, and this limits their ability to give their patients new information or updates on problems that may arise from these implants.

It also makes it impossible to follow up on patients for prolonged periods to produce the scientific data bases required for proper methodological research. A national registry would also make it possible to identify problems and complications related to implants or inquire about the incidence of complications related to the use of implants and other medical procedures.

At present, consumers can lodge complaints about business transactions, cars they buy or service contracts, but surprisingly enough, there is no equivalent for products such as breast implants, cardiac valves, artificial hip joints and what not.

This recommendation to establish a national registry is not new. It has already been made by several groups. For example, ACEF, the Montreal Association coopérative d'économie familiale, published a report on breast implants last year. In it, ACEF again urged Health Canada to provide women with adequate information on the subject and to establish a national registry of women with silicone gel breast implants to facilitate and ensure efficient medical follow-up.

In a study conducted in 1992, the Sub-committee on the Status of Women made further recommendations. It felt that "women have a fundamental right to accurate information regarding the risks and possible complications associated with the use of implants".

The sub-committee recommended that the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons and the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Surgery prepare in coordination with the appropriate government officials information sheets that accurately reflect current knowledge and debate around the possible effects of breast implants.

The sub-committee also requested that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, identify alternatives to breast implants and outline the conditions under which such surgery should be considered.

To develop properly, society cannot do without women or ignore women's issues and the problems they face.

Women's health is one of the factors which have a direct bearing on the place of women in our society. Here, as elsewhere, we must take effective action. Women's health has always been neglected. There is never enough money allocated for research are always inadequate. There are major problems with research related to breast cancer, gynaecology and obstetrics, chronic and degenerative diseases, mental health, violence, occupational diseases, particular needs of immigrants and ethnic groups, teenagers, elderly women, etc.

When she first took office, the Minister of Health explained how she intended to promote women's health. She told us about the programs which her government was going to implement to correct the imbalance affecting women in the health care system. So far, not much has been done. When will a true health program will be developed for women?

If the Minister really cares about women's health, now is the time to act and support motion M-375. In doing so, she would make a concrete step toward that goal.

National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical DevicesPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Madam Speaker, the motion is fairly broad and the mover actually took some pains to narrow the focus of her motion. I am going to do the same. I have respect for the mover. The member for Yukon has a significant and specific interest in this subject.

The hon. member did take the time to focus on silicone breast implants and went on to say that this motion would be a voluntary motion where physicians and patients would voluntarily comply, that it would help with notification and the tracking of those individuals who had medical device problems.

If we look carefully at the issue of silicone breast implants we could say that a registry of these devices would have been a help in tracking those women who had them implanted. As it turned out it was consumer groups that took up the slack, women who had advocacy groups set up to take that information. Today that is still the case. Whether a government registry would have been the most cost efficient and best mechanism for this, I am not convinced. I leave that as a question I cannot answer.

As the member spoke about silicone breast implants, she suggested that it was the FDA in the U.S. that was really the instigator of our regulatory process here in Canada. Because this is a subject of great personal interest to me, I went back and researched very carefully the genesis of this problem. I am not sure I agree with the member on this specific issue. Let me tell this House what I found on silicone breast implants.

One of the very first individuals in the world who expressed concern about silicone breast implants was a scientist of our Canadian HPB. This scientist went to the manufacturer of the Meme implant and found manufacturing techniques that he said were completely unacceptable for a device to be implanted in the human body. He came home to Canada and made that public

over a fair portion of time. I have copies of his original memo saying that he had grave reservations and he advised the HPB to discontinue the certificate of compliance for the Meme implant.

What happened to that scientist? He was fired. The HPB, through pressures that went beyond the scientific data, fired him. That scientist, a Canadian, was not at all convinced that he was wrong and he went to the FDA in the United States and asked if it had any concerns. He was personally instrumental in getting the FDA to move toward the moratorium that subsequently was established.

If members who were not part of the debate in this House on the breast implant issue want to go back and look at a fascinating series of documents, I invite them to do that. It sounds like a spy story with manufacturers making claims, the health minister making promises, the regulators involved in the middle and finally, a big moratorium established. Most people know the subsequent events of the manufacturers having been accused of some inappropriate behaviour and lawsuits are now on the table.

I go back to the regulatory process. A scientist in a very good department said there was a problem and he was fired. What has happened to him since? Has he been honoured in Canada? Has he been elevated on a pedestal as a hero of the regulatory process? Not a chance. Today that scientist is still vilified by his record from HPB.

I think that someday Dr. Pierre Blais will stand in this Chamber to be recognized for his contribution to the health of women in this country. Someday he will be recognized for the visionary scientist that he was, the man who put his reputation on the line, who put his avocation on the line, who said that it is more important to tell the truth than it is to go through a process of saying that it is okay.

I direct all my comments to: Is our regulatory process in Canada effective and efficient? Is it the best regulatory process? Politicians, and I include myself in this group, should only be certain the regulators are doing their job.

I have watched with great interest BST. What is happening to BST? It has become a political hot potato. Forces from three different directions are coming at us on BST.

I simply say that when members of Parliament start to think they are scientists, that they are regulators, they are stepping beyond their purview. We, as politicians, should be making sure the regulatory process is perfect, as best as it can be. When the scientists make their decision to make certain that new data, new information is readily available to them, then politicians should get out of the regulatory process.

I considered this motion carefully. I have not decided fixed in my own mind that all the things this motion asks for would be suitable for Canada. I do believe that a registry of medical devices makes good sense and I will limit my support to that.

National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical DevicesPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this afternoon on Motion M-375 moved by the hon. member for Yukon.

More than one million Canadians have some type of surgically implanted medical device. Some implants such as heart valves and pacemakers are life sustaining devices. The recipients will not survive without them. Other implants, such as intraocular lenses, joint replacements and breast prostheses improve the quality of life.

In considering the merits of a registry of implant patients, let me first discuss the question of therapeutic implants.

Recent widely publicized problems with some implants, such as heart valves, pacemakers and teflon coated jaw implants have highlighted the need to track implant recipients so that they can be quickly notified by their physicians in case of serious problems.

A better option would be to set up a national registry of medical devices implanted in the body, similar to the one already in existence in England for high risk cardiac implants.

Such a registry would provide all the required information to track down the patient.

It would also provide additional data needed to develop risk management strategies and valuable feedback, including earlier warnings about device failures to clinicians, manufacturers, Health Canada, and provincial health ministries.

A national registry could be administered by a board of directors made up of representatives from the implanting surgeons, manufacturers, Health Canada, and provincial ministries of health. The board will be responsible for managing the collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of the data. All information in the registry will be deemed confidential. To protect the privacy of registered patients rules will have to be established by the board of directors for the use and release of information contained in the registry.

There is strong support for the creation of such a registry from the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the Ontario cardiac care network. Medical device manufacturers have also shown a keen interest, because this registry would allow them to meet mandatory standards on the replacement of medical devices.

In short, what is being suggested is the creation of a new program to improve the follow-up on all implants and medical devices used in the human body.

Since medical services are delivered and funded by the provinces and territories, the authority of the different levels of government to require patients to register or to require surgeons to register their patients will have to be explored, as will the authority to collect change of address information from provincial or federal records. The federal government could coordinate the involvement of provincial health ministries across Canada to ensure that the registry will meet the requirements of all participants.

The major drawback of the establishment of implant registries has been the lack of money. The start-up costs would be about $200,000. These will include the costs to develop the computer database program and data entry forms, negotiating participation in the registry, setting up a board of directors, developing a long-range plan and operating procedures, and establishing longterm funding.

Since about one million Canadians now have implants or medical devices, the annual costs would be $20 million.

Maintenance of a registry of implant patients is estimated to cost about $20 per patient per year. There are approximately one million Canadians with medical device implants, resulting in a total annual cost of $20 million.

Cost sharing will have to be considered with the federal government, the provinces and territories, manufacturers and patients.

The medical device industry and the provincial governments already spend resources on implant monitoring. It may be possible to redirect these funds to a national implant registry.

Let me now address the special case of a registry for breast implant patients.

In 1992 the Minister of Health instituted a moratorium on the use of silicone gel breast implants and commissioned an independent advisory committee to examine their safety. One of the key recommendations made by the committee in April 1992 was to create a national registry of breast implants. The proposal was for a confidential continuing registry of consenting recipients of breast implants in Canada.

Since most cosmetic surgery is not funded by provincial health insurance plans and provinces would therefore not have health records on breast augmentation procedures, the only way to collect information on such patients will be by voluntary participation of the patients.

It was recommended that start-up funding be provided by manufacturers and that the registry be operated by a national not for profit organization.

The initial cost of this national registry could be anywhere between $120,000 and $190,000, with an estimate of 5,000 new patients each year. After that, annual operating costs could be covered by a $10 registration fee.

The drawbacks that will be encountered in setting up a breast implant registry are the difficulty in the collection of patient information and inaccurate patient information, since many breast implant recipients do not know the type of implant they have or the manufacturer. These deficiencies will limit the usefulness of the registry.

After completing its preliminary assessment of the issue, the department believed it was not feasible to implement a breast implant registry for recipients who had surgery more than a few years ago because of the high cost and inherent difficulties in collecting complete and accurate information.

In summary, a registry for patients with therapeutic implants that is funded by provincial health insurance plans will have advantages for federal and provincial regulatory agencies, manufacturers and patients, provided that financial, legal, and organizational problems can be solved.

The benefits of such a national registry would be: a very quick way to trace the women concerned, when problems are discovered following the insertion of such implants; the gathering of useful data on the value of such products for clinical practitioners, manufacturers, Health Canada, as well as the health departments of the provinces and territories. Moreover, it would be possible to analyze the long term evolution of these implants.

National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical DevicesPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

It being 6.21 p.m. and there being no more members rising for debate and the motion

not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Committee; and of Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 26 to 33.