Debates of Feb. 20th, 1998

Questions On The Order Paper

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Prior to the transfer on November 1, 1996, the Transport Canada/NAV Canada Safety Oversight Committee, SOC, was set up. The purpose of this committee is to provide a focal point between both organizations for the exchange of information and resolution of matters relating to the safety performance of NAV Canada.

Members of the Committee include: the assistant to the president, Safety and Quality, NAV Canada; the manager, Safety Policy, NAV Canada; the director, Air Navigation Services and Airspace, Transport Canada; and the chief, Air Navigation Services and Airspace Safety Oversight, Transport Canada.

As of November 25, 1997 the SOC has met nine times to discuss issues raised by Transport Canada as follows:

November 29, 1996

Issues Development of NAV Canada's safety management program. Decrease in CADORS reports. Development of risk indicators.

December 20, 1996

Issues Information on high profile events. Reports on Sioux Lookout.

February 7, 1997

Issues Power outage at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Lack of details in CADORS report.

February 19, 1997

Issues Follow-up to power outage at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Information on power outage at Ottawa. Power outage at Kelowna

March 12, 1997

Issues Reinforcement of pilot/controller “read-back” procedures. Glide path anomalies at Calgary. FMS database/chart congruence. Controller proficiency checks.

May 14, 1997

Issues Review of “ATC Radar Display Systems Safety/Reliability Review”. Status of recommendations of Uncontrolled Aerodrome Advisory Working Group. Final report on Lester B. Pearson International Airport power failure—NAV Canada to act on identified deficiencies.

July 9, 1997

Issues Safety Report on Calgary Terminal Relocation. Handling of ad hoc reductions in service. Follow-up FMS—charting harmonization. ASTRA Report 1/97 follow-up. Controller/Flight Service Specialists language testing. Report on Gander Moncton Airspace consolidation, implementation and contingency plans.

September 30, 1997

Issues Transport Canada's involvement in future NAV Canada Safety Reviews. NAV Canada to comment of Transport Canada's FFB/OII observer protocol. NAV Canada's security plans. NAV Canada's plans on Aeronautical Information Services.

October 31, 1997

Issues Monitoring of language/phraseology anomalies. NAV Canada to develop policy on other ad hoc situations that do not fall under regular NOTAM/CADOR notification. Year 2000—Millennium Bug.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Mississauga West has one minute left in the questions and comments period.

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how Bill C-19 might impact on private sector unions in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from my home town for that question.

Bill C-19 is designed to deal with federal private sector unions. We are talking about the 700,000 men and women across Canada who come under that jurisdiction.

The steelworkers at Algoma, for example, would come under the provincial labour laws, but they meld together. Generally we will find that the provincial labour laws tend to work together in a positive way with this federal law. The amendment is levelling the playing field to make collective bargaining and organizing within the labour movement fair, and to give the proper information to all the men and women who would become organized within a new union.

It is a very positive bill that will help the labour movement and management work co-operatively.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-19 which would amend part I of the Canada Labour Code regarding industrial relations and makes the Canada industrial relations board more effective. I have met with constituents on this bill. They have encouraged me to support C-19 and hope the House passes it forthwith.

This bill contains a number of important and timely amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code. This part of the code applies to over 700,000 workers and their employers in the federally regulated private sector. This includes industries such as banking, interprovincial and international transportation, airports and airlines, broadcasting, telecommunications, port operations and grain handling.

Members in this House know that at a time when the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive, it is crucial that governments lead the way with forward looking legislation such as C-19 put forward by the Minister of Labour.

It is also essential that the strategically vital infrastructure industries that I have mentioned are able to operate as efficiently as possible. This means that we must invest capital in these industries. But just as important, it means that we must invest in our labour relations institutions.

Our dispute resolution process must be as modern, as effective and efficient as possible. This is precisely the objective of this legislation, to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code and improve labour relations in the federal workplace.

As members from the previous Parliament will know, this bill is almost identical to Bill C-66 which was approved by the House last April.

It is my belief that the new C-19, as was the former bill, is a legislative initiative which achieves the exceedingly difficult task of balancing the interests of workers with the interests of employers. It accords certain rights to each party but also demands that both sides act in the interests of their own membership and in the interests of the general public.

I firmly believe that this bill is a model of how labour legislation should be developed. During each stage of the legislative process, labour and management have been at the heart of it all expressing their opinions and offering their considerable expertise.

It is useful to point out that consultations began almost three years ago when the Minister of Labour asked the task force to review part I of the Canada Labour Code and then to offer recommendations or needed changes. The task force was led by Mr. Andrew Sims, a respected and non-partisan labour relations expert. He and his colleagues criss-crossed the country meeting with labour and business representatives, labour law practitioners, academic experts and ordinary citizens concerned about what was going on in our workplaces.

In terms of identifying issues in areas in which agreement between management and labour was possible, the task force certainly benefited from the excellent contributions of a labour-management consensus group. Membership in this group included representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Bankers Association.

The Sims task force compiled the results of the consultations and resulting recommendations in its final report entitled “Seeking a Balance”. There is a significant and recurring theme in this report. It is that the Canada Labour Code is generally regarded by labour and management groups as an effective labour relations framework which has facilitated collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector. Of course I must add that there is still room for improvement.

In the remainder of my time I would like to focus on one such area where changes are required. It is in the structure and role of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The task force examined many aspects of the board, including its non-representational structure. Since 1973 the board has been made up entirely of public appointees. None of these members is designated as either representing labour or management. In this regard the structure of the board differs from labour boards in almost every other Canadian jurisdiction. This must change.

Fortunately the Sims task force achieved a consensus between management and labour on this very item. All sides agreed that a representative board would have at least four related benefits.

First, for those appearing before the board, they would have more confidence in the process knowing that their cases are fully understood and properly reviewed. Second, decisions made by the board would generally be more acceptable to both labour and management. Third, it would provide some assurance that when the board exercises discretion, as it often must, that it would be on the basis of practical real world industrial relations experience. Fourth, the presence of a friendly viewpoint of the board would help the parties involved in the dispute to feel more comfortable about offering and accepting compromised solutions.

This bill adopts an approach recommended by the Sims task force. The non-representational Canada Labour Relations Board will be replaced by one that does represent each side. The new more credible board will consist of a neutral chair and vice-chair and equal numbers of board members representing labour and management groups.

A second aspect examined by the task force was regional representation. It is not credible to have all members from the national capital region. Regionally based members will help to improve the visibility, accessibility and credibility of the board.

The task force examined whether the board members should be committed on a full time or part time basis. The report noted that many provincial boards have part time members which is cost effective while it enables the boards to benefit from the expertise and experience of people still active in labour relations and not stuck in Ottawa as full time bureaucrats.

However concerns were expressed about part time regional members. Some suggested that regional decisions would be made by part timers with other large demands on their schedules and would not be available for long drawn out cases.

In the Canadian way, the task force recommended a balanced blend. A core of full time adjudicators located in the national capital region will be joined by part timers located in the regions. This seems to gain the best of both worlds.

On these questions the government has listened to the respected members of the Sims task force. The bill provides for the appointment of part time and regional members. This will significantly improve the cost effectiveness of the board. It will give the board access to labour relations experts and it will improve the links between the board and the labour relations community.

The consultation that led to this bill identified the inflexibility of the Canada Labour Relations Board in responding to routine and urgent cases. One approach recommended was to move from the system of a three person panel to a one person panel. Many routine cases can be adequately conducted by a one person panel.

I stress that as a result of this legislation the major criteria for appointment as chair or vice-chair will be competence, as it should be. A clause will be inserted into the code to reiterate that these people must have experience and expertise in industrial relations.

In addition, the flexibility of the board will be enhanced by the repeal of the provision that requires the parties to obtain ministerial permission before they file an allegation of bad faith bargaining. This will be particularly significant in cases where an immediate board hearing is needed to break a deadlock.

The board's remedial powers will be expanded to ensure good faith bargaining. An amendment will confirm the ability of the board to direct one side to include or withdraw specific terms in a bargaining position in order to rectify a failure to bargain in good faith.

Time does not allow me to outline the many more improvements to the Canada Labour Relations Board contained in Bill C-19. It is fitting that the government, which has consulted broadly, is proposing a board that can take full advantage of the skills of the labour relations community. Labour relations boards are extremely important agencies. Their work affects thousands of employees and thousands of businesses.

I congratulate the minister on the work thus far and for looking forward in establishing a labour relations system that will instil confidence in Canadians.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on a labour relations problem which occurred recently in my riding of Edmonton East. It was the result of the intransigence between labour and management. For months and months I worked with other political and elected people from the community. We talked to the company and union representatives but it was all to no avail.

The real concern at these meetings was the very realization of the threat by the company that the plant would close if the union went on strike. That was understood and crystal clear to the union management to the point where they even admitted they knew the owner would close the plant if there was a strike. Prior to this the union had asked for a mediator's report. The company accepted the mediator's report but the union would not.

My concern is that yes, controls must be in place for this but I believe that the union by calling the strike closed this plant. Now 1,000 people are out of work in Edmonton East, 1,000 people who worked at the plant, possibly affecting up to 10,000 people in the community. This is all caused by the intransigence of the union management.

I have to agree with my colleague that there should be final offer selection in order to prevent this tragedy from ever being repeated and happening again. Had that been in place, as sure as I am standing here that plant would be open today and those workers would be at work.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can see where the hon. member's concerns are coming from. Being from the government side we may differ a bit on his perception and what his concerns are. Perhaps the issues he has brought forth could be discussed further at committee. Some of these issues could be discussed and perhaps changes could be made.

The new composition of the board will probably address some of the concerns my hon. colleague has brought forth. The task of achieving this new board will protect the interests of the workers as well as those of the employers. That is an added benefit. Also, with this new composition of the Canada Labour Relations Board it will have a co-operative working relationship. Collective bargaining legislation must have fair and balanced rights and obligations for employers, employees and unions, as my hon. colleague has brought forth. I take his question with due respect.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at second reading of this important bill.

I am especially pleased to do so since I also participated in the debate when the bill was called Bill C-66 and since I was involved with a major central labour body in Quebec for many years. This is indeed a matter of great importance to me and it is from these various perspectives that I look at this bill.

I would like to start by saying—and I hope that government members will listen—that when this bill was first introduced in the House and referred to committee, the parliamentary process was short-circuited. Second reading was cut short to refer the bill to committee, where it was bulldozed through.

However, in dealing with this bill, it is extremely important that parliamentarians have the time to consider every clause. This act is not like any other act that usually goes through this House. Most acts we pass are not likely to be challenged in court. In fact, they are often akin to a government decree on some issue. A labour code, on the other hand, must be scrutinized line by line, word by word, and even between the lines. Jurisprudential decisions will be rendered. In the end, this code will regulate all labour relations.

It is essential that parliamentarians be given the time to examine the bill on their own, consult experts and form an opinion. Otherwise, regardless of whether they are on the government or the opposition side, parliamentarians may think of this process as nothing but red tape.

That having been said, and I hope it will be repeated, people were initially pleased with the intention of the bill. But when we saw this bill—I think I can speak of “we” meaning not just the unions, but labour relations people from both the management and union sides—a great many of us were worried.

We were worried for a number of reasons that I will give, bearing in mind that we are at second reading. I hope that the committee will hold substantial hearings during which these questions and objections can become amendments supported by the government, because we know that, if they are not, it will be difficult for the opposition, regardless of party.

First of all, I want to say that the minister, whether this one or the one before, kept telling us that the Industrial Relations Board would be representative. The idea is an interesting one. The problem is that the bill does not give us a representative board.

A reading of the bill reveals that the minister appoints “after consultation”. This means that the final decision is his. He does not make appointments from a joint list supplied by the unions and management. These persons, if selected in this fashion, might be representative. They could then play a role that was more active, with a greater impact on the respective parties.

A supposedly representative board is being deprived of some of the powers it could otherwise have. I am convinced that the parties will make representations on this important issue.

The bill, which comes after years under the existing act, should modernize labour relations, or at least adjust the legislation to the changes in that sector. It is a fact that globalization and the new economy, which has some advantages but also many drawbacks in terms of distribution and levels of income, including salaries, have changed labour relations.

I know that the unions have also taken a long look at the whole issue. I am a member of the Bloc Quebecois. I can attest to the fact that, since the eighties, the Quebec union movement has changed considerably and is now much more active in identifying the interests of businesses, not by ignoring those of workers, because a democratic union protects the interests of its members, but by getting involved, by knowing that jobs are created by the businesses, and by realizing that the more productive businesses are, the more competitive they will be and the greater the chances of preserving jobs and getting decent salaries. At least this is how it should be.

After some tough battles when conditions were difficult, the unions have changed some of their attitudes.

There have been some major changes in the world of labour relations, in labour organization. The exceptional agreement that was reached between Alcan and its employees testifies to that. In similar situations, the labour code has to help the parties, not hinder them.

Even more striking in this supposed reform of the Canada Labour Code is the fact that it provides less flexibility for the law and the minister to intervene. Instead of promoting dialogue and negotiation, even in the context of a balance of power, the supposed new code does the opposite. I have to say I have never understood why the departmental experts produce some of these provisions, including those pertaining to determination of the right to strike and ministerial intervention.

I would remind those watching us that the Canada Labour Code applies to only about 10% of unionized workers across Canada, and the situation is essentially the same in Quebec. I take this opportunity to point out something that is important in this House. The Privy Council in London finally decided in 1927 that labour relations were a provincial matter. In London, they often sided with the provinces, unlike the Supreme Court, which always upheld the federal government.

Some 10% of unionized workers are covered by the Canadian code, but these unions are rather special. Most of them are national or involved in areas under federal jurisdiction, such as shipping. The unions are often big ones that need time to conduct a vote.

I know our colleagues in the West are very concerned about what is happening with grain. As the critic during the rail strike, I realized the importance not only of labour relations and the union movement, but of the use of the powers of the minister and the House in connection with wheat.

It is essential that the committee look at the provision in the code requiring a union that has obtained the right to strike to exercise that right within 60 days of obtaining it. This is an extremely limiting provision, which is almost guaranteed to prevent a settlement. Why?

I said that many of these unions are big ones. Many of them are national and need time to obtain the right to strike. Sometimes the period between obtaining the right to strike and reaching a settlement can go well beyond 60 days.

Sight must not be lost of the fact that, often, a settlement is reached when management or the union is close to resorting to a strike or lock-out. However, when there is a cut-off point and the union does not want to find itself without a mandate, what will it do? It will break off negotiations before they are too far advanced and go after another strike mandate. This strikes me as sensible.

The only exception to the 60 days would be when both parties agreed to a postponement. If a dispute is intense, it is dangerous to think either party would agree.

This provision worries me, as does the one requiring 72 hours' notice of a lock-out or strike. This time, I will look at it from management's point of view.

An employer that intends to lock out its employees in 72 hours and so informs the union may find itself in the rather difficult situation of having to pay employees to do precious little because they know they are going to be locked out in 72 hours anyway.

If I look at it from the union's point of view, that of longshoremen, for instance—there are many of them—if they have to warn management that they are going to strike in 72 hours, what will happen? Ships that were scheduled to dock for unloading will have taken another route.

So, instead of making settlement easier, instead of using the imminent arrival of a ship for instance, they are taking away flexibility, taking away from the relationships of power for reaching a settlement.

When a strike or lockout occurs, it is because no agreement has been able to be reached. Of course this is always a sort of admission of failure, but at the same time it must be seen as the start of something new. Very often we have seen businesses, where labour relations had been difficult for years, go through a real conflict and then, afterward, the workers, the union representatives, the employer and its representatives start talking and a new and far different era in labour relations begins, because both sides have understood that to do otherwise was not in their best interests. They agree to listen to each other, and perhaps to take the concerns of both sides more into account. This was a common occurrence in the 1980s.

If this is to happen, the labour code must help make it happen. The code must not give one party an advantage, one which I would call an undue advantage, over the other. But what do we see here? The Canada Labour Code, while claiming to be modern, does not accept that employers should be forbidden to use scabs during a labour conflict.

There is one thing I can guarantee. When a company has used replacement workers, to use the euphemism, settlement may be difficult, but the subsequent return to work is far more difficult. I am arguing in favour of not losing sight of what will happen after the return to work, of ensuring an atmosphere that will lead to a proper organization of the work afterward.

There is no business anywhere that can thumb its nose at what the workers think—at any time, but particularly during and after a conflict—because those workers are the ones responsible for production, whether they use sophisticated machines or a hammer, they are the ones that make the company viable, the ones that make it profitable. This also applies to services.

The Canada Labour Code cannot not be seen as a piece of machinery with metal gears. It must respond to the current labour, business and economic situation. It must equip the parties to resolve their differences readily and then to start on a new footing, leaving the dispute behind as quickly as possible in order to move on to a new phase where work is assured and the business is competitive.

The committee has an important job to do. I will close by repeating that I hope it has the time to do it and pointing out that this legislation is not ordinary. It is legislation that becomes the law of the parties in its codicils and commas and therefore both its content and form must give both employees and businesses the means to resolve disputes and to play a role in this changeable economy, which is a challenge to everyone.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Bloc member for whom I have considerable respect. We sit on some committees together and I am always interested to hear her comments.

I have a couple of questions which I would like to pose to her, but I would like to give some background before I pose them. I come from a business environment in which I was involved in labour situations.

One particular part of the bill serves to illustrate the importance of what our party has been putting forward. That has to do with the fact that the bill allows the government to require grain vessels to be serviced at port. That is probably a good thing, in recognition of our international standing and serving the vessels which come to port. However I think it is tragic that it does not deal with getting the grain to the port.

We are in the information age. We move information around but few people actually produce a product. When we boil down all the moving of information around, where are the people who are actually producing something? It is our Canadian farmers who are doing that. Much of the information age rests on the foundation of people who are actually producing a product. That is why it is so critical those people not be subject to hindrances due to labour stoppages.

My concern is that we have a government which recognizes the need to maintain our international standing at ports for vessels but ignores or seems to put secondary the needs of Canadian farmers and Canadian producers.

The rail system knit the country together in the beginning. The rail system was a very important factor in building this nation and carrying product to port so we could participate in the international market. When Canadian farmers suffer, I suggest to the House and to those watching that all Canadians suffer. That goes to my point that the information age has been built on top of those who actually produce.

If we can do this for the international community, why can we not also specifically entertain new ideas such as final offer arbitration that our party has put forward? If it cannot be embraced by all venues, why not for venues like Canadian farmers who are so desperately in need of getting this product to market to ensure a strong Canadian economy?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has reminded me of the rail strike, when the Bloc Quebecois was the official opposition and I was the critic in this area. I can tell the House I have more pleasant memories than those from that period of time when the rest of Canada was accusing us of holding up quick passage of the bill, while we simply insisted on the usual three days between the bill's introduction and its passing. We had proposed a perfectly acceptable amendment, which the government rejected. The next time around it agreed. We were told we were threatening Canada's economy.

I said two things at the time “If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canadian Labour Code, then change it. Until then, we will defend those who abide by the code”.

I also learned at the time that workers were prepared to load and unload the grain anywhere. It is the employers that locked them out to force the government to pass special back-to-work legislation.

Labour relations are a complex issue. I understand your point of view, but potential disputes cannot be solved overnight. When workers feel they are not getting their fair share of the profits, when companies do not listen at all, some confrontation is bound to take place. When the economy is doing better, of course.

Does the final offer solve the problems? I have often heard members from this side express satisfaction that a final offer was made. I reviewed the issue, and I am prepared to do so again, but I am not convinced it would solve the problem at all. Indeed, if the final offer that is accepted is such that, afterwards, workers are so upset that they keep the company from operating at full capacity, nothing will have been solved.

I do not think this is the right solution. In any case, my colleague should realize that when unions are dynamic, strong and democratic, as most of them are, nothing can replace discussions between the workers' representatives and those of the employer. The code must keep such talks alive.

Again, I believe Quebec was the first to undergo this change in labour relations. Since the province was hard hit by the 1981-82 recession, unions had to adjust to the new reality.

A similar adjustment was also made in the rest of Canada. It is good for the union if a company does well, but the union must be recognized. A company should be willing to make compromises when the union is taking its needs into account. We must facilitate this kind of approach in Quebec and in Canada.

There is nothing better than a business whose employees feel truly involved. But for unions to be recognized, they must have a role to play; they must know that their proposals will be taken into account.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member might have a comment on the issue surrounding replacement workers.

In the bill replacement workers cannot be used, but the concern is whether or not it is for union busting. Businesses have the right to continue operating. They can bring in replacement workers to continue keeping the business open but they cannot use them for the purpose of union busting.

In the province of Quebec I believe replacement workers are not allowed under any circumstances. Would the member have a comment on the difference between the two situations?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, we can certainly come back to that. I would just like to tell my hon. colleague that, at first, when the antiscab legislation was passed in 1977, businesses were very angry and could not wait for the Liberals to be back in government to revoke the antiscab legislation.

When his government was voted in again in 1985, Robert Bourassa told the companies whose concerns were voiced in the business magazines of the time “You are enjoying labour peace. Why do you want to change that?” While this legislation is intended to prevent the hiring of scabs by a company looking to undermine a bargaining unit, it leaves the door wide open.

How can one think that, even if the company claims to recognize and not to dispute their position, striking employees will not get furious when scabs are hired and will not try, by every means available, to resolve the dispute in their favour? This will lead to problems down the road. The use of scabs is a source of problems after a strike. The company can never resolve its labour relations problems.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to the bill to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code.

I am proud to support the legislation because I believe strongly in collective bargaining. The bill does not create any unfair advantage for anyone. In fact it balances the needs and interests of workers, employers and the Canadian public. Therefore it is good for the Canadian economy of today and tomorrow.

Canada has been well served by its system of collective bargaining. We know that labour and management groups in the federally regulated private sector view part I of the Canada Labour Code as a viable framework which has facilitated the process.

We are also beginning to see a new level of co-operation between management and labour and new styles of negotiation. These new developments challenge us to find the proper balance between a number of goals and objectives. A balance must be found between social and economic goals. Work is a form of personal social expression and a source of economic security.

A balance must also be found between instruments of labour policy. Property rights, for example, must be balanced against protection of freedom of association. A balance must also be found between rights and responsibilities.

While our system of collective bargaining conveys certain rights to management and labour, it is also based on the expectation that labour and management will meet the responsibilities to bargain fairly and in good faith.

We are also facing global economic challenges and increasingly competitive markets. Our collective bargaining system must be flexible enough to ensure that labour disputes can be resolved speedily and positively. Enhanced co-operation will lead to greater productivity, increased employment security and more participation by workers in workplace decisions.

The legislation contains a number of important reforms and innovations which together accomplish the difficult task of finding the proper balance between the interests of workers, employers and the Canadian public.

The following reforms and innovations will prepare us for the economy of the 21st century.

First, a new Canada industrial relations board will replace the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The new board will include a neutral chairperson and vice-chairperson and equal numbers of members representing employers and employees. The new board will be more flexible and able to act more quickly and its powers will be more clearly defined. This will ensure that complex labour-management disputes can be fully addressed and it will be possible for appropriate actions to be taken in the event of unfair labour practices.

Second, the federal mediation and conciliation service will be strengthened and its neutrality will be enhanced by defining its role by statute. These amendments will help to emphasize the fact that dispute resolution and prevention are important aspects of our collective bargaining policies.

Third, the right to strike or lockout will be subject to the holding of a secret ballot within the previous 60 days and the provision of 72 hours notice.

Fourth, replacement workers will not be banned outright. Rather, the board will be given the power to stop their use if it finds that they are being used as an unfair labour practice to undermine a union. At the same time, the legitimate rights of employers to continue their operations during a stoppage of work is recognized without undermining the strength of the union.

Fifth, employees will be entitled to insurance and benefit programs during work stoppages.

Each of these measures will ensure that part I of the code contributes to an effective and efficient collective bargaining system which is responsive to the needs of both employers and employees.

I will discuss the consultations that led to this legislation and the consensus that exists on the bill presently. This is important to better appreciate and understand why the bill is as it is today. Consultations began with preliminary discussions led by senior government officials with the labour movement, business groups and representatives of other groups with an interest in the federally regulated private sector. These discussions identified major areas of agreement and disagreement concerning required amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code.

Following these preliminary discussions, a task force of exceptionally able and credible labour relations experts was established to examine part I of the code and to make recommendations to the Minister of Labour. The three person task force was led by Andrew Sims, an Edmonton labour lawyer recognized for his accomplishments as former chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. Mr. Sims was joined by Paula Knopf, an accomplished arbitrator and mediator based in Toronto, and by Rodrigue Blouin, a professor at Laval University and a distinguished labour arbitrator.

The task force held public consultations in many cities, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. More than 90 written submissions were received from close to 50 groups and individuals including major labour and business organizations. In most of the cities it visited, the task force also met informally with labour lawyers and labour law administrators. Full day meetings were held at the universities of Laval, Toronto and Calgary. These meetings provided academic experts in labour law and administration an opportunity to express their opinions.

The task force also benefited from the work of a labour-management consensus group made up of representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the federally regulated employers, transportation and communication, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Bankers Association. The work of this group was important in identifying issues in areas in which consensus was possible.

The Sims task force produced its report which included extensive recommendations early in 1996. The recommendations of the task force received strong support from both business and labour groups. An additional round of consultation involved meetings held by the Minister of Labour in April 1996 with representatives of labour, management and other groups in Vancouver, Regina, St. John's, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. These meetings gave the minister a chance to hear in person reactions to the recommendations of the task force.

Finally, the public had a chance, through the work of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, to express its views on Bill C-66, which was passed by the House of Commons in April 1997 and which was awaiting third reading in the Senate when the 35th Parliament was dissolved for the general election of June 2, 1997.

The concerns raised during the study of Bill C-66 have been taken into account in Bill C-19 now before the House. The amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code are important and necessary.

They will not radically alter the current system but rather will encourage co-operative and productive labour-management relations and provide a framework for collective bargaining.

The legislation will establish a fair and balanced set of rules which will allow management and labour to define their own problems and to find their own solutions to the challenge of global economic change.

The legislation is the combination of extensive consultations with all parties with an interest in mounting a collective bargaining system for the 21st century.

I hope all members of this House will agree that the bill deserves their support because this bill is a fair and a balanced package of amendments based on recommendations of an independent task force of labour relations experts.

It has the general support of labour and management organizations subject to the code which have devoted considerable time and resources to a lengthy review and consultation process.

In conclusion, modernization of part I of the code is needed to improve the administration and functioning of the industrial relations in the federal private sector and to address changing workplace issues.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-19, the Canada Labour Code bill, as amendments have been presented.

Our party reviewed the consultation that has taken place in this country with many stakeholders. This has certainly given us an opportunity to speak in favour of the amendments.

I would like to speak on some of the initiatives that the amendments are focusing on, an enlightening departure from some of the practices of the past in this country. One is successor rights improvements. In the province of Saskatchewan successor rights have been legislated provincially.

I would like to speak on the issue of grain transportation as well, a major industry and a major concern to the many producers in my province.

In recent years in grain transportation rail companies have been reviewing and downsizing their short line operations. They have abandoned rail lines and also have sold off to other interests.

My concern is that a lot of the reasoning CN and CP have been using is the labour relations, the collective agreements they are bound by.

When they transfer rail lines to other operations, to American interests or to other small operators, the first to be compromised are of course the collective agreements.

One of the many issues raised is the concern that grain exports have been compromised by labour disruption in some of the ports, labour disruption by the grain handlers and grain transportation.

A couple of winters ago there were major disruptions in grain transportation that had nothing to do with labour. This country has to revisit its transportation strategy. Labour has a major responsibility to make sure the job is done on a daily basis, that the quality of work is done, that the safety and the health of the workers are not compromised, that democratically they represent themselves at negotiation tables with employers.

The overall strategy of grain and rail transportation in this country has been compromised year by year. It is going to take leadership from this country. This kind of leadership might come with an industrial relations board where grievances can be brought to the table and addressed.

There are issues such as anti-scab and replacement workers. This is recognized in an amendment to the labour code now before us. It recognizes that employers cannot use scab workers to compromise union positions, or union busting as the hon. member mentioned. This is a major concern to the union leaders in this country.

The other issue labour leaders have raised is the whistleblower legislation. This is the ability of a worker to raise an issue with federal, provincial or local powers or the public at large concerning worker health and safety within the workplace.

We also have seen the file increase on environmental issues such as hazardous wastes which are being used by the manufacturing industry and the transportation industry which compromise our environment. This past week we heard evidence that hazardous wastes from offshore enter this country through our ports. This has been a major contributor to hazardous wastes in this country.

Environment Canada, through its cutbacks, reorganization and harmonization of its responsibilities with the provinces and other departments in recent years has confessed its inability to check all ports of entry for hazardous wastes.

The other issue is its ability to depend on intelligence by working with with customs officers, the RCMP and the provincial police in Quebec and Ontario. There is also the opportunity to work with the workers and the labour organizations in this country. They work the ports, the railroads, the manufacturing plants, the incineration plants where a lot of these hazardous wastes are located. There is a lot of underground illegal activities with hazardous wastes.

If we mobilized and protected our workers through whistleblower legislation we would have a much safer environment, a much safer community and more transparency from an industry which is expected to police itself. Sometimes in policing, when it comes down to an economic or financial decision, industries will put labour, safety and environment at the bottom of the list.

In grain transportation we are loosing miles and miles of rail transportation in light of our commitments to the environment in Kyoto, and to labour. The Crow rate was taken away from western grain producers. This issue is still a concern. The rate cap that was created for grain transportation will be up for review. The price of grain transportation will go right through the roof.

The issue is can the employers talk with labour? Can they talk with those in grain transportation? Is there any kind of leadership this country can create, aside from our running to southern railways, to address port access to international markets? Why can we not as Canadians keep our Canadian ports, keep our Canadian railroads, keep our Canadian labour standards and keep our Canadian labour industry in this country? Why can we not keep it truly Canadian Pacific or Canadian National?

That issue is very dear to the hearts of many grain producers. This is especially so in the northern part of our provinces. The industry and the producers are far away from their markets and have to transport their grain many miles. There are small family farm operations that cannot afford a semi-tractor trailer operation to take their grain to the nearest inland terminal.

In light of all of this and hindsight being 20:20, it is the relationship we have with labour and employers and the leadership of this country. This country has to provide leadership from coast to coast to coast.

The proposed amendments now in the Canada Labour Code, the industrial relations board that is being restructured, are a positive move. It represents interests on both sides. It provides opportunities for issues to be rectified regionally or locally and more expediently. The limited prohibition of replacement workers and scabs is being recognized. It is not wholehearted but at least it is in the right direction. Successor rights have been taken a step further. The preference for grain exports is also being recognized. I think western grain producers are being heard.

Overall when future amendments are being brought forward, I would like to see the issue of whistle blower legislation brought forward so that workers can have the protection to bring out the health and safety and environmental issues.

The Canadian Labour Congress has publicly made it known through the consultation process that these amendments are being supported by the labour community. However, in light of the concerns that hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois have raised, some of these issues are not taken far enough.

What our party is saying is that at least it is one step. It may not be a whole jump through the door but future amendments might be an evolution to seeing that which the hon. members from the Bloc are envisioning.

I thank the House for allowing me to speak on this most important issue. I welcome any questions.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke so eloquently on this bill. He is right. It is a step and I think it is a good step.

I was just in the back of the lobby a couple of minutes ago talking to some staff. There were a couple of letters from farmers who desperately want this approved.

It is so important today that we move this bill along. It is going to be sent to committee. Why does the member think the Reform and Bloc members, which I really do not understand, and the Conservative members are holding it up in a log jam? If we quickly move this bill on to committee, then we would have an opportunity for more input. Does my colleague have any thoughts on that?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I guess the question rightfully should be placed with the parties from which she wants the answers. I cannot speak for the other parties of this House.

The grain transportation issues were raised especially with the grain producers in the west. The ports cater to the offshore markets. Farmers must have the ability to move their grain through the mountain passes. The operation of the railroads must be transparent to the producers which is something that has not been addressed. We quickly lay the blame of grain not being moved on labour disruptions, but the operation of the railroads is not transparent to the grain handlers and the producers.

The transparency of the operation of the railroads is compromised when amendments are made to the Canadian Transportation Act, such as those which have been brought forward in recent years. It is as if rail transportation is on one side and the producers and the people who use the railroads are on the other side.

We have lost our head. Somebody took time off and we have lost our head on this issue. There is no vision. There is no foresight. There is no thought. The railroads are selling off our Canadian interests when the rail beds are on Canadian property and title belongs to the Canadian nation.

Many capital investments have been made by CN and CP over the years for improvements and line extensions. Now they are selling it off to Omnitrax out of Denver and rail transportation out of Texas. What are we left with?

We realize now the detrimental effect which greenhouse gas emissions will have on our environment in the future. Rail transportation is the way to go because it is cheaper.

We were told in northern Saskatchewan to build a highway. It costs $180,000 to build a kilometre of highway. Why not build a kilometre of rail bed at $18,000? The rail bed is mechanized and is very efficient.

The people of northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon eventually will have to negotiate with firms in Denver and Texas to get rail transportation into the far north.

We are losing our vision of the entire country for the benefit of industrial labour relations. The farmers feel alienated. They sit at their kitchen tables and talk about the issues of this nation. We have to bring those issues to the House of Commons because the vision of this country should be debated here.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to zero in on what the hon. member had to say about grain transportation. I want to assure him that not only in northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern Manitoba is this a concern. It is a concern right across Canada.

I come from a constituency which grows a lot of wheat. The farmers there will openly tell you that they have been betrayed on three counts. First, they were betrayed when they got one year's free freight out of the Crow rate. Second, the practice of the grain companies and the railway companies getting together to plan the mass rail line abandonment is a betrayal of the farmers. The third betrayal is our inability to go to the railways and say “Your cost of operating is 50% what it used to be, or it certainly will be. We are not going to be talking about freight increases, we are going to be talking about freight reduction”.

Would the member agree with that?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I hope there is foresight in the hon. member's comment and that his prophecy will some day come true.

The hon. member is talking about decision making. The decisions are made at the board tables of the rail transportation companies. They are made for profit margins and shareholder interests. However, the shareholders have lost sight. The shareholders are Canadians. We are the shareholders of the railroads.

Someone got their way. They lobbied the right person at some point in time and now the railways are private organizations.

Speaking of privatization, there was a recent decision made in Great Britain. The chief executive officer of Virgin Records, Mr. Branson, challenged an American interest that has operations of all the lotteries in Great Britain. But lotteries as we know them in Canada are state run and non-profit intensive. However one person took it to court and has stopped privatization of railroads and privatization of the subway departments in all the major cities.

That is what we have to look at in this country. Stop the privatization move. Let us look at the national vision and bring in the shareholders, Canadians, those people at their kitchen tables from southern and northern Saskatchewan, from Quebec, from Ontario, from B.C., from the Yukon. Make these people a part of the decision making process and the vision of this country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I see by the hour on the clock that my debate time is unfortunately going to be cut short. I will have to continue on Tuesday or whenever the government screws up the courage to bring the legislation back again.

This is the government's second kick at the can for this legislation. That has become clear thus far. Certainly we in the opposition ranks have become well accustomed to seeing reruns in this 36th Parliament, leftover, retread legislation from the last Parliament that did not meet the bill, so to speak. The government has insisted on dredging it up, repackaging it, giving it a different number and bringing it back in the hopes that the Canadian public is going to be somehow fooled by this and give it a fresh look.

It is unfortunate on the government's part that it did not invoke closure on the old C-66 from the last Parliament to ram it through the House like it did with so much other legislation. But I suppose it must have had a little bit of a twinge of conscience at one point about doing that with every piece of legislation in the closing days of the last Parliament.

Even after this government is told by Canadians that its bills are flawed, it just keeps reintroducing and recycling them. Often, as in the case of C-19, some minor cosmetic changes are made but we are really right back where we began.

The problems that existed in Bill C-66 are still found in the present Bill C-19 that we are debating today. When I look at this bill I have to look at it through the eyes of my constituents, through the eyes of farmers and through the eyes of those Canadians who will be most affected when the government undoubtedly uses its majority in the House, as it did recently with Bill C-4, and just rams it through despite the pleas of Canadians from coast to coast that it simply does not do the job.

Some groups have told me that they are content with C-19 and they have encouraged me to support it. Even when those same people have expressed supreme disappointment at the considerable flaws in the legislation, they have basically said that it is better than nothing.

It is our job as official opposition and as MPs to strive to ensure that Canadians do not have to be content with something that is better than nothing. We believe that it should be a whole lot better than nothing. So we have to look at each piece of legislation on balance and we have to weigh the pros and cons. While some clauses may have some merit, we have to consider that the flawed clauses of the legislation, or the legislation that is missing altogether, may cause significant problems or consequences later on.

The fact is that when it comes to C-19 those problems and consequences far outweigh any benefits that may arise from the passage of C-19. From my point of view as the chief official opposition agricultural critic, farmers who already contend with unstable weather patterns and many other challenges beyond their control, increasing input costs for one, will not find solace in this legislation. They will continue to have one or more unstable factors threatening their livelihoods.

Grain farmers need guarantees that their grain will get to its destination. Despite government claims to the contrary, Bill C-19 will not guarantee that grain will be transported to its destination.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the hon. member. It being 1.30 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—Lake Centre, SK]

moved that Bill C-248, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-248, a bill that will attempt to basically make prescription drugs affordable to those who need it most.

I commence my remarks today by thanking my colleague, the member for Yukon, for seconding my bill.

Bill C-248 basically reduces the patent life of a new drug from 20 years to 17 years. It also reduces the period of market exclusivity on a new drug from 20 years to 4 years. Market exclusivity is the patent holder's monopoly on sales.

The largest increases in sales volume of a new drug typically occur during the first four years. After that the largely Canadian generic firms would have the right to manufacture copies on payment of a royalty to the brand name patent holding firms, a system called compulsory licensing.

In essence Bill C-248 provides for competition among prescription drug manufacturers that now have monopoly pricing authority under government Bill C-91.

This bill is supported by literally tens of thousands of seniors and thousands of other people in Canada who are ill and require prescription drugs. It is supported and endorsed by the Canadian Health Coalition, by the Government of Saskatchewan, by the Canadian Labour Congress and by many other organizations.

Debate on the patent drugs issue has often confused the two ideas of patents and market exclusivity. The two points were only made synonymous when the pharmaceutical bill, Bill C-91, was introduced in 1991. Bill C-22 in 1987 did not eliminate compulsory licensing. It simply extended the period of market exclusivity from four years to seven years.

Bill C-248 includes the best of the pre-Mulroney regime on prescription drug royalties and pricing. It respects so-called intellectual property rights by establishing a royalty payment to the patent holder, but it does not intervene in the market to create a monopoly for an undue length of time.

It is different from the 1987 system in that instead of a flat royalty rate Bill C-248 would allow for a sliding royalty scheme that rewards brand name pharmaceutical firms that actually did the majority of the research on a particular drug in Canada as opposed to now when they do it outside the country.

This proposal was adopted by the federal NDP as part of its platform in the last election. The NDP is the only party to consistently support competition in the prescription drug industry. This bill fulfils part of our campaign commitment to continue the fight for fair prescription drug prices.

I want to talk for a few minutes about costs and benefits. I believe it is time that we as parliamentarians admit that the current government policy of granting generous patent rights to foreigners as an enticement to establish a Canadian pharmaceutical industry just has not worked.

The policy sees public funds used to pay for these generous patent rights through billions of dollars in drug costs from our provincial medicare and drug plans. The drug companies get a five year average return on capital of over 14%. In return for this generous ROI, layoffs, a trade deficit in pharmaceuticals, less R and D per sales in the U.S. and expensive drugs for those who need them most are the rewards for Canadians.

We have not even begun to pay the worst of the costs yet. Health economists like Stephen Schondelmeyer and Queen's health policy group have examined the costs of Bill C-91. If we take their most conservative estimate and compare the situation under Bill C-91 to the case under Bill C-22, which was by no means perfect, the cost to consumers is between $4 billion and $7 billion over a 10 year period.

Most of that $7 billion will be paid after the year 2000, which as everyone knows is the new millennium. If you catch the millennium bug, the millennium drug prices are going to kill you. That is because the last of the drugs approved with a seven year market exclusivity under Bill C-22 will be able to go generic in 1999. We have not even begun to feel the pain, in other words.

In return for $4 billion to $7 billion in additional drug costs, we have received maybe $500 million in additional R and D which was already required to meet Canada's drug approval regulations. We lost over 2,000 jobs as well. We sustained huge cutbacks in transfer payments and social programs to pay down the debt and deficit, along with all the hardship and unemployment they entailed.

People say that the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board is there to protect against price gouging or skyrocketing prescription drug costs.

What exactly has been done by the PMPRB, the great defender of the people of Canada? The Patent Medicine Prices Review Board lacks accountability, which is a bit of a problem. It lacks transparency, which is a bit of a problem. It has no mandate to serve the public interest. It serves the interest of large multinationals across the world. Its methodology is skewed to give the appearance of price control while it permits drug cartels to charge the highest drug prices in the industrialized world.

Why do I say that? For example, they use in their formula for checking price controls seven OECD countries such as Britain, France, U.S., Switzerland and Sweden that have the highest costs of living anywhere in the world. They are more expensive than Canada. Yet the PMPRB uses as a reference retail prices which are never charged to the citizens of those countries or their drug plans because they always buy at discounts of up to 40%. It is very clear that we pay the highest prices anywhere in the world.

Our view is that the PMPRB has to make some changes. It needs a legislated mandate to protect the public interest, not large corporations. It should make drug comparisons of all twenty-nine OECD countries, not the seven most expensive countries in which to live in the OECD.

Drug price comparisons should be made against the real price, the 40% discount price, and not the retail prices charged in these countries. Finally, some due diligence should be exercised and the price data from large drug cartels in European countries should be independently verified to determine for sure whether or not the prices are accurate.

My bill will basically restore competition and perhaps encourage the PMPRB to do the job it was supposed to do at the outset.

The Liberals opposite have said that they will work within the system, will go to the industry committee meeting and will fire tough questions at large multinationals written by the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Health and their colleagues to make drug companies look good.

Working within that system has not really paid off. There have been no tangible results. I say this with some sympathy for colleagues in the Liberal government who faithfully toiled away in the industry committee last year on Bill C-91. They lobbied their caucus and they lobbied their Minister of Industry. They had every expectation that some minimal response would be provided. As we know, nothing actually happened. The Liberal government was able to slide into another election because the review was being done until the election call last spring.

What reward did they get for this? The biggest defender of the large multinationals, the chair of the industry committee, David Walker, got his reward. He was defeated by my colleague, the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, for all the great work he did misleading the people of his constituency and not doing his job to stand up for the public interest when it came to price gouging by large multinational drug companies.

What about those who did not get defeated? Not very many of those who supported the drug companies were not defeated by an NDPer. They simply got humiliated by the cabinet's complete capitulation to the multinational drug companies just last month.

I argue that the only way to fix Bill C-91 is to scrap it and to support Bill C-248. That is why I am asking for support of the bill. It will make some definite changes, bring competition to drug pricing and help those who need it most.

Large foreign drug companies wanted 20 years of market exclusivity on new drugs for four reasons. First, they said it would create jobs. In fact there are 2,000 fewer people working in our pharmaceutical industry as a result.

Second, they said that it would keep drugs affordable. In fact costs for brand name drugs have skyrocketed since 1987, forcing provincial government drug plans to pass on more of the cost to the sick and elderly.

Saskatchewan is the best example. It has been unable to defend its citizens who require prescription drugs to maintain their health because of skyrocketing costs of brand name drugs and the exclusion of generic companies from manufacturing competitively priced drugs for those who require them.

It has also driven the cost of medicare extremely high. Prior to 1987 prescription drugs accounted for less than 8% of Canada's medicare costs and now it is over 12%, a 50% increase in medicare costs for prescription drug purchases alone.

The third idea they put forward to allow Bill C-91 to pass was to generate funds for research. Although most research money is spent on company directed clinical trials that are required by law anyway, only one new breakthrough drug has been developed in Canada since 1987, the AIDS drug 3TC. Even now it is being manufactured in Ireland. How many jobs did that create in Canada? Probably none but maybe one or two to sell it.

A commitment by large foreign drug companies to help fund pure research through the Medical Research Council was scaled back and still remains unmet. The shortfall in the MRC's budget is having drastic consequences for Canadian medical scientists.

To use the R and D pitch by the drug pharmaceuticals in Saskatchewan as an example, there were approximately 123 requests for clinical drug trials in Saskatchewan. The international pharmaceuticals approved none of the 123 requests, not one. Yet they are travelling from province to province claiming to be spending billions and trillions of dollars on more and more R and D. It is all a big lie by the pharmaceuticals.

Fourth, they said they needed Bill C-91 and could not change its provisions because of international trade obligations under the WTO. Members of the House who sat on the industry committee will recall that witness after witness, including international economic advisers and lawyers, appeared and said that the WTO permitted member countries to pass laws to seek to protect the public interest.

If the public interest is being gouged by large pharmaceuticals or any other company unfairly, any government can take the decision under this clause to protect its public from unfair pricing practices. The government does not want to do that because it would jeopardize its contributions from companies like Glaxo Wellcome which gave the Liberals $90,000 in contributions. Another pharmaceutical, Merck Frosst, gave the Liberals about $16,000 to help buy this protection under Bill C-91 and not to support a bill like Bill C-248 which I am putting forward in the House today.

It is clear the policy has not worked for the Liberals. The Liberals in opposition agreed with abolishing Bill C-91. Their critic, Ron MacDonald, the former member for Dartmouth, would not even run in the last election because he was so embarrassed by the flip-flop of the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister stood in the House as leader of the opposition under the Mulroney government and said “The Prime Minister of Canada always sides with the multinationals and not the sick and poor. When are you going to repeal Bill C-91?”

Now that the former leader of the opposition is Prime Minister of Canada, he should look in the mirror and ask the same question. Perhaps he should answer it by taking some initiative to help people who are suffering under unfair prescription drug pricing practices by multinational companies.

Today bankruptcy statistics were announced: 91,000 personal and business tragedies, a record number in the country.

This is something, in my view, that is going to hurt those families even more when they require prescription drugs to maintain their health.

The Liberals were persuaded very unanimously by their lobbyist, Judy Erola, the chief lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada. Judy Erola is very persuasive because she is a former Liberal cabinet minister under Prime Minister Trudeau. They bought this line of sustaining Bill C-91 hook, line and sinker.

The cost and benefits of the current government policy on patent drugs does not add up. I challenge parliamentarians in this House to say that the emperor has no clothes and that the process that we have under Bill C-91 does not work. If we do not fix it soon the future of medicare is on the line and certainly the lives and future of all Canadians.