Debates of Oct. 8th, 1996

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I hear all sorts of heckling. Is the issue here really that we are supposed to try to represent the interests of our constituents or not? Is that the issue?

It has been said that the hon. members across the way are supporting the interests of a certain side of this argument. I want to repeat, because of the heckling coming from the other side of the House, that I am not supporting the continuation of the use of MMT, although it would be very appropriate for me to do so in support of the refinery that exists in Prince George.

Quite the contrary, what I am saying is that we need further study. We need a comprehensive study. After 12 years I do not think it is too much for Canadians to expect that the government would conduct such a study instead of going with one side of the argument, as I have already stated.

This refinery, although it is quite small, employs some 80 people.

[An hon. member]

Eighty people.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, it is a very small number. The hon. member says: "Oh, 80 people". What is 80 people? They are potentially out of work. It does not really matter to him, no doubt. It matters to me. It matters to those 80 people who are concerned about their jobs. The whole point is that it is so needless to bring in something like this without proper study.

Those people would support the banning of MMT if it could be conclusively shown that it was either harmful to the health of Canadians or that it was creating some sort of substantive problems for the automobile manufacturers that could not be overcome in some other way. Other members earlier said that they did not want to see the Canadian government browbeaten with the threat of legal action by Ethyl Corporation.

What about the threats that came from the automobile industry over the last year and half suggesting that if the government did not put this in maybe the price of cars would go up by some $3,000? If that is not a threat I do not know what is. It is inappropriate to listen to one side of the argument. None of us want to see the price of cars go up. I keep returning to the fact that the conclusive evidence is not there so how can the government arrive at a decision to simply ban this product on the basis of available information?

We could go on and on debating this. I spoke for some 20 minutes in June 1995 on this issue, as did a lot of other members. I find it incredible that a year and a half later we are still debating the same issue. The government has refused to listen to any of the arguments put forward by members in debate. It is simply bringing back the bill to appease the automobile industry. It will force it through and it will get its backbench members to vote along party lines to force this through. I find it disgusting.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the comments of my hon. colleague for Prince George-Peace River. However, I thought I was probably at a meeting of the flat earth society when I heard what he had to say.

I realize and understand that the hon. member has the interests of a refinery in his riding in mind. I do not blame the refinery nor do I think it is fair to trade off the interests of eight people who happen to work at that refinery. After all, they have health concerns and concerns about the environment just like everyone else.

I should point out to the hon. member that I know a little bit about the automotive industry. I know that there are several Toyota dealerships in his riding, each having 20, 30 and even 40 employees whose livelihood and jobs are at stake simply because the new vehicles that are coming in, not made in Ontario, not made in Quebec which is, of course, the pretext by which the member of the Reform Party likes to side with the Bloc Quebecois. Obviously, Reform members find themselves in a very interesting position. It must be an election year and they are desperate to find any issue, even at the expense of someone's health.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to resolve this question. According to the B.C. motor vehicle emission control warranty regulations by this time next year, for the 1998 models, it will probably be that the emissions, which is what we are speaking about here, will not meet the standards set by his own province. How is he going to resolve this dilemma for his own constituents and for the sake of the car dealers there who are creating jobs and who are trying to make ends meet? He knows this is an important issue that will have to be met, particularly from the health and environmental standpoint.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Ontario.

With his extensive background of working for Toyota he would be an unbiased source to make the points for the automobile industry. I appreciate his enlightening me on how many Toyota dealerships there are in my riding. It certainly is of importance as well.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

That is a small number too. More than eight.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

If the hon. member is not too busy heckling, I wonder if he would listen to another point? With a nuclear power plant in his riding, would he be so concerned about the environmental issues with nuclear power that perhaps we should just pass a quick piece of legislation this afternoon to shut down the power plant, just on the evidence we have before us today, which admittedly is not very substantive?

I know, for example, that the industry and refineries in the province of British Columbia are working extensively with the province to move toward stricter environmental standards. The hon. member mentioned them. From what I can understand, in speaking with members of the industry not only from my riding but from the province of British Columbia, they have a good working relationship with the Government of British Columbia. They are working toward adhering to those new guidelines and regulations when they come down the pipe.

I do not think the comment made by the hon. member is appropriate in the sense of again trying to throw out the scare tactic that somehow the industry is resisting, all the way down the line, making the necessary changes to make Canada, environmentally, a safer place in which to live.

As the member pointed out, the people who work in the oil and gas industries, be it exploration, production or refining, all breathe the same air and drink the same water as the rest of Canadians do. Therefore, it is certainly paramount to them to ensure that we have an environmentally sustainable country and a province of British Columbia in which to live.

I believe that using scare tactics and trying to paint one side of the argument as the bad boys in this dispute is not going to do anyone any good. That is why the common sense approach, the approach that is supported by the majority of Canadians where they can have all of the evidence in front them, would be to support the position of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada on this; which we have been demanding for a year and a half to have a comprehensive study done of this issue and have those results made known to the public.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has talked about public support. First, the overwhelming majority of Canadians support the ban on MMT. Perhaps the member should be aware of that point.

Second, the member also has been talking about an independent voice. I believe the member might be considering the public interest. I do not know how many times I have to go over this in the House, but I will try yet again.

When we talk for the public interest, I would suggest that the Allergy Asthma Information Association spoke in the public interest. I would suggest that the Canadian Institute of Child Health spoke in the public interest. I would suggest that the Environmental Defence Fund, the Sierra Club of Canada and the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada have spoken in the public interest. I would suggest that all of these associations and organizations spoke in the public interest.

I would like to know why this member is speaking against the public interest and against the Canadian people on this issue.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I would think, Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet enough today that we would not have any problem recalling my riding at this point.

I thank the hon. member for her question and comments about my presentation. On the issue of Canadians and whether they support the banning of MMT, I would like to know who conducted that study, how comprehensive it was, how much information was made available to the Canadians who were actually polled, how many were polled, where they were polled and what background they were given. We can all play with statistics. We have done that all day long in this place. Anyone can conduct a poll and get the results they want. If they ask the right question they will get the answer they want. That addresses the issue of the poll to which the hon. member referred.

She also mentioned the need for an independent voice. As I said earlier, and I am getting tired of saying it, that is what we have been calling for. When we consider that this issue has been around for as long as it has, surely to goodness some government at some time could have undertaken a comprehensive study of this issue so that we as parliamentarians would have had enough evidence in front of us to make a decision one way or the other without there being a big question mark.

As to her statement about being on the wrong side of Canadians, when she read off a list of people who made presentations and who have made their views known, certainly those people and those organizations are representing a certain point of view. They are speaking in support of what they feel is in the best interests of the health of Canadians.

What I cannot understand is despite the representations which were made before the committee, the fact is Health Canada did not support the recommendation that MMT is harmful.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about public interest right now, we are talking about commercial interests. On one side of the House, some members have automakers in their riding, while on the other side, some members have refineries in their riding. Since there are no automakers or refineries in my riding, I feel I can be relatively objective regarding this issue.

What we are asking is simple: if the automobile industry has real, independent studies, and I am not talking about lobbying, then let us see these studies so we can be convinced that this is indeed the right thing to do. We have asked time and again for such studies to be tabled.

We also asked Ethyl Corporation to do the same. It did so. It did its homework. It asked independent firms to conduct studies which have shown that MMT is not harmful to the environment or to one's health.

We want automakers to do the same. Let them do their homework and let us wait six months, as we are asking, to take a look at these studies in an objective manner, with no bias towards refineries or automakers. This is what we ask.

It seems very complicated for the government, and when I see Liberal members rise, I find it strange that they all represent Ontario, where ethanol is produced.

I would like to hear the Reform Party member elaborate on this.

[English]

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and her question, but I honestly do not know how I could possibly elaborate any further on what has been said over the past year and a half on this issue.

I would, however, question her statement about the objectivity of a member who happens to have a small oil refinery in their riding. The reason I say that is I have been very careful not to come down on the side of the oil industry or Ethyl Corp. to say that MMT is not harmful and that we should proceed full bore and forever use MMT in gasoline. I have not said that. The Reform Party has not said that. In its defence, the Bloc as well has not said that.

What we have said repeatedly is that we need this independent study to see which side of the argument holds the most water.

Without using any more time of the House-time is of the essence-we have only debated this for some year and a half, I am sure all of us are hoping to be finished with this.

My only hope is that the government members will break with party discipline and on this issue at least will vote with common sense and support the motion to hoist this for six months to allow a study so that we can really have the evidence placed before parliamentarians.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak in this House to Bill C-29 banning the use of MMT. First of all, I would like to say that I feel like I am trapped in a bad movie. Admittedly, back home in the Gaspé, the air is pure, we do not really have any problems with the environment as such, and given that I come from that area of the country, the fisheries are more up my line.

When I listen in the House today to all the efforts of the Liberal Party to justify its bill C-29, I want to get up and ask them what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, you will tell me if I have misunderstood. The Bloc Quebecois amendment proposes a six month delay because no study has been done. We would like to know why manganese is being banned, but we would also like to know what will replace it. When I say it is like being trapped in a bad movie, as the member for Laurentides said a few minutes ago, it is more like a trade war we are engaged in here.

I hear people who seem to be caving in to the automobile lobby and I hear people who seem to be caving in to the ethanol lobby. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has a popcorn solution to the ban on MMT. As you know, popcorn is another way of using corn. As my colleague on the backbench mentioned, it creates energy. When corn pops, it causes movement. But where are they headed with this bill? They have lost me.

Have they a viable alternative in mind? I do not think so. In the case of ethanol production, what are the other negative impacts that have not been studied? I am told that if we launch blindly into large scale production of corn on the same acreage, the soil will be impoverished.

I tell myself that maybe there is enough land in Ontario, in Canada, to rotate crops. Farmers always like to limit their risks. Is there a risk of ethanol pollution? I am told that perhaps not from ethanol as such, but if insecticides are used on corn crops, then there is a risk of pollution. I know that farmers will be tempted to use insecticides.

As you can see, there is no clear solution to these questions, and I am only looking at something that would give the government an opportunity to find an alternate solution. That is why I like the popcorn image. They are looking for an easy solution, but they are not just going to pop this problem away with a poof.

The other questions we might have about MMT concern the studies on the real impact on people's health.

Yes, I too am aware of that, but no one has yet confronted us with any direct cause and effect relationship. You will reply: yes, but as soon as there is any danger perhaps it will be wise to be a little more careful. There are no other solutions. Will any attempts to save money, maybe with impact on people's health, be done away with completely because the next solution has not been worked out properly? I think that the proposal by the hon. member for Laurentides is a very good solution, namely to take another six months, at least.

I wondered whether we were not in a league by ourselves, since the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who spoke just now, was telling us that MMT was banned virtually everywhere. I

am told that it has just been reintroduced in some states in the U.S.A. That opens the door. I am trying to see whether the Americans have made a mistake. We are 25 or 30 million Canadians, while they are 250 million, 250 million Americans who may be wrong. I think the solution to give ourselves another six months is reasonable.

While my colleague for Laurentides was speaking just now, with her numerous questions, for which I congratulate her-someone has to stir up the government, and she does an excellent job of it-I heard some of the Liberals saying: Yes, and if ever that study is done, it will never come out until after the elections. Once again, we understand the spin the government is trying to put on the debate on Bill C-29-it is pure vote-chasing. On the one hand, if they do want a study, it will be released only afterward, so why are they talking about it now? Because of the automotive lobby, the ethanol producers' lobby, wanting to get its share of the pie-a trade war pure and simple.

I was just thinking that we have been here three years now, and how can it be that the government has nothing better to offer on the environment? A good question, and I would like to hear the Liberal members, the Minister of the Environment, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment give us the answer. What is the story on PCBs in the Magdalen Islands?

Those islands are just across from us in the Gaspé. From what I hear, there was a PCB problem relating to the wreck of the barge Irving Whale. PCBs escaped on the ocean floor. Tests were done and, perhaps as in the popcorn solution-poof-the Minister of the Environment sees no more trace of PCBs on the ocean floor.

This is something tangible. The danger relating to contact with PCBs has been proven. As for MMT, there is not yet any scientific proof.

You will understand my surprise, will understand that I am wondering how much the speeches of the government side are based in fact, and you will understand that there is good reason to listen open-mouthed.

The hon. member for Lachine has also asked whether Canada is really entitled to legislate on this. I think the answer is yes, we are.

It is not because we have the right to pass legislation that we have the right to ruin people's lives, because we have no alternative solution to offer. If we really want to act intelligently in this area, I believe that we must stack the decks in our favour as far as possible. That would mean adopting the member for Laurentides' amendment, a six month hoist, and to do the necessary work during that time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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.

Patent Act

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

moved that Bill C-311, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleague in our NDP caucus, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, for seconding my bill.

Bill C-311 is a very important bill with respect to prescription drugs in this country. The bill will limit the life of patents for medicines to 17 years and allow for compulsory licences to be granted for the manufacture and sale of medicines after the original patentee has had the medicine approved for marketing for four years.

The royalty rate is to take into account the amount of medical research carried out in Canada by the applicant and the patentee. There is provision for refusal or deferral of a licence if a patentee has been unusually delayed in commercializing a medicine.

What is compulsory licensing? Compulsory licensing is allowing generic drug companies to produce a copy of a brand name drug. Generic drug companies pay a royalty of 4 per cent to the brand name company. Compulsory licensing can only occur after the patent set by the federal government has run out.

Before Bill C-91, passed in the previous Parliament, the length of drug patent was seven to ten years which was set by Bill C-22. Bill C-311, my bill, would shorten the length of a patent to four years. Bill C-311 does not set a royalty rate to the brand name drug companies but states that factors such as the amount of research money spent in Canada be rewarded under the royalty system. A name brand drug company that does original research and development in Canada would receive a higher royalty. This would increase job opportunities in the industry by encouraging drug companies to do their research in Canada.

Every opinion poll that has been conducted in this country in the last 10 years in terms of important concerns for Canadians has listed health care. We have seen the cutbacks to health care. We have seen a great deal of problems with respect to the federal government's offloading to the provinces. This is a major concern for poor families, for middle class families and for working families.

Rather than address the concerns of these families, the Liberal government in Ottawa has turned a blind eye to the anxieties of these people. In fact, the Liberals have taken a simplistic approach by cutting back billions of dollars from health care and transfer payments and offloading to the provinces. There are better ways to address rising costs to health care. Prescription drug costs, for example, are the fastest growing component of costs to health care in Canada. Bill C-311 offers a better way to curtail some of the rising costs.

Since the introduction of Bill C-22 in 1988, the average prescription bill has gone from $12.48 in 1987 to about $24 in 1993. This average prescription drug bill represents a 93 per cent increase as a result of providing these manufacturers with a 20 year monopoly to charge whatever they want for these prescription drugs without competition.

If we look at the increase of the licensed drugs alone during that period the average prescription has gone from $16.92 in 1987 to $43.42 in 1993. This represents on the licensed drug alone an increase of 258 per cent. Prior to Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 of the last Parliaments, drug costs amounted to 8.9 per cent of total health spending in Canada. In 1993 it had risen to 15.1 per cent of total health spending. That is a 70 per cent increase with respect to health care costs in the drug component alone. Rather than address this particular problem the government cuts back health care further. My Bill C-311 deals with this issue of rising costs in the health care programs in this country.

In total, Bill C-91 will cost the Canadian health care system between $4 billion and $7 billion according to research by respected U.S. health economist Stephen Schondelmeyer. The financial impact of Bill C-91, which my bill in effect repeals, will accelerate dramatically during the years 2000 to 2010.

The passage of Bill C-91 was supposed to increase employment as well in the brand name pharmaceutical industry. Since the passage of these bills we have seen not an increase in R and D jobs but in fact a decline. We have seen a 1,200 job cut in the R and D sector of the pharmaceutical industry in Ontario alone, and about 800 jobs in Quebec have been cut as a result of these bills.

This was on the promise by the pharmaceutical companies when they came to this Parliament and asked for protection for up to 20 years. They promised jobs; we have fewer jobs. They promised stable cost in terms of pharmaceuticals; we have seen those costs sky-rocket.

We have also seen some very important developments with respect to what the generic drug companies have done for our health care plans and for our country. Here are examples of some of the drug costs that are generic brands which are cheaper brand drugs, which my bill would encourage in terms of production in Canada. An ulcer drug, brand name Zantac, costs about $1.10 and the generic price is about 42.5 cents, which is a 61.1 per cent saving on a generic drug. An asthma drug, Ventolin, is $12.27 for 15 millilitres versus $4.95 for the generic price. That is a saving of nearly 60 per cent. On blood pressure drugs as well, brand names are roughly 41 per cent to 45 per cent more expensive than generic prices. Anybody who has children will know that with the antibiotic Amoxil there is about a 44 per cent to a 45 per cent saving when purchasing a generic drug.

Bill C-91 and some of these bills prevent those sorts of generic companies manufacturing generic drugs under a licence and a royalty fee for up to 20 years. That is why my bill is very important. It basically rolls back that period from 20 years to 17 years, but after four years generic companies can license and manufacture drugs in competition.

We have had support from a number of organizations, provinces and individuals across this country. The minister of social services in Saskatchewan, Mr. Lorne Calvert, who was the associated minister of health when this bill was being reviewed in the House of Commons, represented Saskatchewan at the Senate hearings on Bill C-91. He brought all of his research on the prescription drug program in Saskatchewan and warned at that time that the bill would drive up Saskatchewan drug costs $6 million to $10 million a year.

We have had about a three year passage of time since this warning was made by the provincial Government of Saskatchewan and this has proven to be more than accurate because we have seen not a $7 million to $10 million increase but something much more substantial.

Mr. Calvert gave the example of generic drugs and the savings they provide: "Generic drugs save the provincial government drug plan millions of dollars yearly. Enalapril, a commonly used prescribed heart drug, would have been available as a generic in 1994 prior to the introduction of Bill C-91. The bill delayed the proposed entry of Enalapril until the year 2007". As a result of a drug dispute this drug was available for a short time as a generic and in one year saved the province alone $2 million. That is on one drug. Yet we see members in this House are concerned about protecting their own position with respect to drug companies and patents.

We have had thousands of letters and calls. In this House as the New Democratic Party we have done a number of things. I have tabled thousands of petitions calling for the repeal of Bill C-91 in support of my Bill C-311. I have had hundreds of people write letters to me. We have had motions raised and debated in this House. We have had questions raised with the government with respect to Bill C-91. They seem to fall on deaf ears.

I have some letters I want to share with my colleagues in the House of Commons today. One says: "You have my heartiest agreement on your attempt to rescind the legislation on Bill C-91. It is my profound belief that this perpetrates a distinct hardship on

those who pioneered our country, suffered through world wars and a traumatic depression and now in their latter years are held ransom by the greedy drug corporations. I can personally attest to the horrendous gouging because my mother in her last two years of life was paying monthly bills in the hundreds of dollars for prescription drugs".

This is an example of many that I have received. I have another one here which I think is really important for members to pay attention and listen to: "My wife and I are senior citizens on fixed income and it costs me approximately $100 per month for prescribed medication. The only thing we have to cut back on to pay for our drugs and our prescription drugs is food and clothing".

Bill C-91 and Bill C-22 have resulted in sky-rocketing prescription drug costs and many people in the country have to make a choice between a life sustaining prescription drug or a life enhancing prescription drug and purchasing food. What kind of a government is this that would not pay attention to these problems in our communities, particularly to those pioneers, those seniors who have built our country? I think we have to get to the bottom of this.

Perhaps we have some information which will provide the House with a bit of insight in terms of why the government is not taking any action. In contrast to the letter from Mr. Nord who wrote saying that he is making a choice between prescription drugs which are necessary and food which is absolutely necessary, the Minister of Health of the Liberal government says that it is more important to protect patents and the big multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

I quote from an article on "the surprise the minister gave to the brand name drug manufacturers who are pushing for maintaining a 20 year control over the sale of pharmaceutical drugs that they have developed". The minister said this at a pharmaceutical convention: "I have not come here tonight to talk about Bill C-91 because no one wants to hear about that. This government believes that intellectual property rights are important and they ought to be protected and enhanced at every opportunity in this country".

The article goes on: "One industry spokesman said the minister's comments were a `victory' for the pharmaceutical research companies".

This is a problem with this government. It does not seem to have its priorities straight. It would rather embrace and protect the multinational oil companies, protect and embrace the multinational pharmaceuticals than look after people like Mr. Nord who has to make very crucial decisions on a daily basis about whether he can continue to live because of his medical condition. What kind of empathy is that?

I hear the Liberals all the time in the House and it makes me want to puke. We close our eyes and listen to all the wonderful things they say. Then when we open our eyes and see what they have done, they have always done the opposite. They get up and talk about the great things they are doing for social programs. When we look again they are slashing health care and encouraging pharmaceuticals to gouge Canadians for prescription drugs. It makes people absolutely sick. The Minister of Health is a nauseous part of this entire Parliament as far as I am concerned.

Members are probably saying the member for Regina-Lumsden is on a bit of a crusade here and does not have much support. I have support from the Consumers' Association of Canada, seniors organizations, the National Health Coalition, a number of organizations from across the country. The CLC is another sponsor and supporter along with many organizations and individuals from the province of Saskatchewan and other parts of the country.

I want to share with members today an experience I had meeting with an Argentinian parliamentarian, Ernesto Algaba, a national congressman who came to see me because he heard about the work I had been doing in the past three years with respect to Bill C-91 and the pharmaceutical patent protection.

He told me: "In Argentina we are very concerned. We are being pressured by the American Pharmaceutical Association to institute a drug patent law like that in Canada, the United States and Mexico. The American Pharmaceutical Association came to us, promised us jobs, promised us low cost, stable price prescription drugs. We are kind of worried about this because we said no initially. Then the U.S. ambassador came to our Parliament and met with some of the parliamentarians and threatened us on behalf of the American Pharmaceutical Association saying either we pass this legislation or they are going to pull out some of their economic supports and maybe they will pull their embassy out of our country". He wanted to check and see what was going on.

Mr. Algaba said that they went to Chile. He told me: "Do you know what they found in Chile?" The Chilean government was given the same garbage that the government was given about Bill C-91. "Pass the legislation, Mr. and Mrs. Chilean Parliamentarians. You will have jobs galore in R and D and you will have stable prescription drug prices".

Do you know what happened? The Chileans passed legislation. Their jobs are gone and their drugs are almost more expensive than they are in Canada. That is what we hear from Argentina and other countries. The government has to pay attention to some of the very serious charges by other parliamentarians.

There is also some confusion about profits with respect to the pharmaceuticals. I have some information here.

From 1987, when Bill C-22 was passed, to 1992-it looks pretty darn good for the pharmaceuticals-the revenue of Miles Canada Inc. grew 52 per cent. The revenues of Merck Frosst MSD AGVET grew by 111 per cent. The revenues of Burroughs Wellcome Inc. grew 172 per cent. The revenues of Merck Frosst Canada Inc. increased 185 per cent and Abbott Laboratories had a 1,120 per cent increase in revenues as a result of these drug patents and the jacking up prices and gouging consumers.

I want to save my last few comments to talk about what the Liberal Party did in opposition. The NDP was the only party that spoke and voted unanimously in opposition to Bill C-91 when it was passed. The Liberals joined with the New Democrats in 1992 and voted against Bill C-91. They said: "If we are elected, Bill C-91 will be repealed".

We even have some reference in a famous red book of broken promises-this is just one more-which is found on page 81. It speaks of a national forum on health which the Liberal Party would undertake to institute. It says: "The forum must be part of a thorough study of the health of Canadians and of our health care system. It will be mandated to consider questions such as the goals, results and evaluation of our system as well as the costs of care, including prescription drugs". That is what the red book says. That is what will be done on the national forum on health.

I have here a speech from the Prime Minister. They are opening remarks by the Prime Minister to the national forum on health, his Liberal baby in the red book. There is not one reference, inference, suggestion or idea about the words drugs, prescription drugs, pharmaceuticals or anything of that nature. There is not one reference in the speech with respect to some of the action they were going to take.

I wonder why. I think he who pays the piper calls the tune. It seems to me when a former Liberal cabinet minister, Judy Erola, is the chief lobbyist for the international pharmaceutical corporations lobbying the government, it is going to be pretty easy to get their attention.

What about some of the contributions? Bristol-Myers Squibb gave the Liberals $4,800. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. gave the Liberals $5,200. Burroughs Wellcome Inc., to which I made reference in terms of its huge increases in revenues, gave $8,700 to the Liberal Party and Merck Frosst, to which I also made reference, gave a paltry $11,000.

These guys are getting billions of dollars in revenue. I think the Liberals are missing an opportunity. They should be gouging them a little more. Get a few more bucks from your buddies in the pharmaceuticals. That is the only thing that is going to happen.

The last straw is when the Liberal members of Parliament sent out letters to their friends in the pharmaceuticals. I note that a member from Winnipeg sent a letter out trying to collect some money from pharmaceutical companies. Of course, the pharmaceuticals are more than happy to comply, although it looks almost like a bribe. Who knows? We have seen these sorts of articles appear in newspapers, particularly in the

Hill Times.

I am going to wrap up my comments but I want to underline the importance of this bill as I have stated in my remarks today. I want to ask members here who believe that this is an important bill-we should address the concerns of Canadians with respect to prescription drugs and their skyrocketing costs-that this bill be designated a votable item.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the request of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden to make his motion votable. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is not unanimous consent.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the motion is not votable, could I have the unanimous consent of the House to refer the bill to committee?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the request of the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to the political posturing of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. He knows very well that Bill C-91 is up for review in 1997. Unfortunately, he is trying to show how conscientiousness and how concerned he is about this matter.

I speak against the bill presented by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. I would like to explain why the bill is not appropriate.

First, it ignores the important role that intellectual property protection plays in the Canadian economy by reducing the patent term for pharmaceuticals and by reintroducing compulsory licensing.

The bill would shorten the patent term for drug patents to 17 years from the date the patent application is filed. It reintroduces the compulsory licensing regime that was eliminated when the Patent Act was amended by Bill C-91 in 1993.

The House will recall that before the Patent Act was amended, patented medicines did not enjoy full patent protection. Instead they were eligible for a period of marketing exclusivity for seven to ten years. This bill would not even allow innovative drug companies that protection. The holder of the patent under this bill would have only four years before the generic companies could copy the formula under a compulsory licence. The bill would allow the patentee to receive a royalty and the compulsory licence could be refused or delayed if a patentee has been unusually delayed in commercializing the medicine.

Perhaps the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden believes that these provisions would be sufficient to encourage companies to continue research in Canada. Perhaps he thinks that Canada would continue to attract R and D investment under these terms. Perhaps he thinks that these measures would be suitable in today's knowledge based economy. I assure the hon. member that these measures would not be sufficient. Why would a company invest in a country where it is not assured adequate property protection, including patent protection?

The hon. member should know very well that he comes from a province where the government quite often will attract businesses and will change the agreements for those businesses halfway through the agreement period. That is why that province is not attracting this type of R and D. In particular, the province of Saskatchewan does not attract this R and D because the government changes rules on companies that come into that province.

Since patent protection was first enhanced in 1987 through Bill C-22 the ratio of R and D to sales by pharmaceutical patentees has continuously increased. Last year the innovative companies spent $624 million on R and D. That represents 11.8 per cent of their sales revenue, nearly doubling the ratio of 6.1 per cent achieved in 1988.

The brand name pharmaceutical companies are among Canada's leading investors in research and development. Last July, when the publication Research Money listed Canada's top corporate R and D performers, 17 integrated brand name companies were among the top 100. This investment in research and development means highly qualified jobs for Canadians. It means jobs in the brand name companies, jobs in the universities and hospitals that support their research, and jobs in the many small and medium sized businesses that have flourished in the past few years as Canadians respond to the challenge of designing new products for the health care industry.

The growth of small and medium sized biotechnology companies has been particularly impressive. In fact, when we look at the Research Money list of the top 100 R and D performers, seven of the companies are Canadian research based biopharmaceutical firms. The growth and success of these young companies has been built on a solid foundation of world class intellectual property protection in Canada.

During this period of increased R and D, the prices of patented drugs have been kept under control. According to the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, an independent body which regulates the price of patented medicines, the prices of patented medicines actually fell by 1.75 per cent in 1995. They dropped at a time when the consumer price index rose by 2.14 per cent. This is the second year in a row they have dropped.

Furthermore, an international comparison of the top 200 selling patented drug products produced by the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board showed that for the first time Canadian prices on average were below the median international prices in 1994.

If this bill was passed, Canada would become one of the only countries in the industrialized world where pharmaceutical intellectual property would not be effectively protected. Canada would become the only developed country in the world with compulsory licensing regimes for drugs. In addition to the detrimental effect on jobs and growth, we could expect a strong reaction from our trading partners.

This brings me to my second reason for opposing Bill C-311. The measures proposed in the hon. member's bill contravene Canada's international obligations under the World Trade Organization and the North American free trade agreement. The patent term of 17 years from date of filing for drug patents would violate Canada's international obligations under the WTO. These drugs require a minimum patent term of 20 years from the date of filing a patent application.

There is another aspect of this bill that runs counter to our international trade obligations. Both the WTO and NAFTA require that patent rights be enjoyable without discrimination as to the field of technology. A compulsory licensing regime for pharmaceuticals would constitute discriminatory treatment toward pharmaceutical patentees. We could expect action under both the WTO and NAFTA as a result.

The government has signed these international treaties because we believe they will promote economic growth. Canada must

compete with other countries not only for global market shares but also for investment and technology.

International trade agreements that provide for strong intellectual property protection create the necessary climate for investment and technology transfer. Canada, as a trading nation, is not prepared to ignore its international obligations. The challenge with Canada's drug patent policy is to ensure that it conforms with our international trade obligations and supports the development of our pharmaceutical industry while making patented drugs available at prices that are not excessive.

With respect to some of the comments that were made by the hon. member, it is very interesting that he referred to the growing revenues of these companies. He never referred to what their profits are. Revenues are not necessarily profits. It is also interesting that he wants millions of dollars to be spent by companies on R and D. Then he wants the fruits of this R and D, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to go to other companies that have put no money into R and D.