Debates of March 25th, 1998

Division No. 118

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clarified that the report submitted for public consultation is not a government report. It was written by an independent group of consultants. It is not the minister's or department's report. The minister is not bound by any of the 172 recommendations.

The minister has made it clear a number of times that the recommendation with respect to the language issue is not on. I think the hon. member is creating unnecessary anxiety where there is none because there is full consultation. In preparing the report, for example, the legislative review advisory group consulted with hundreds of groups and individuals across Canada.

There were consultations that also took place in 1994, as the hon. member will remember. They have done very thorough work. The minister has no intention of duplicating the work at this point.

The minister, however, has travelled across Canada and has consulted with various interested parties about these recommendations. The public submissions to the minister that took place in seven different cities across Canada were only one part of the broader consultation effort. The minister has also invited all interested Canadians to read the report, look at its recommendations and submit their comments in writing. All opinions and comments will be taken into account in the development of new legislation.

Initially the minister intended to conduct five days of consultation. That number more than doubled to accommodate requests from a variety of groups, allowing for even more voices to be heard on more issues. The fact that the minister extended the consultation days is a clear indication that the minister is listening.

It is the government's desire to develop legislation that will reflect the needs of Canadian society and prepare Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the 21st century while keeping in place Canadian values.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary of fisheries and oceans is quite clear. He was on our west coast tour with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when we toured the west communities to find out exactly what is going on out there and why there is so much distrust between the communities that are involved in fishing activities and that of the DFO and of the current minister.

That is why I asked a question on behalf of west coast fishers and I will repeat that question. I will give it a little preamble after that as well.

My question was quite straightforward. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated to our committee that there is no 12 mile protection zone around Langara Island on B.C.'s west coast from commercial trawlers. He definitely stated there was no protection zone around that island. However, DFO documents clearly state otherwise.

The minister also stated that one should never give allocation of quota from one sector of the fishing industry to another. You should never to do that. This is exactly what has happened when DFO cut off the chinook salmon to B.C. trawlers and fishers and gave it to the Sport Fishing Institute. Ms. Velma McColl, who once worked for the Sport Fishing Institute and lobbied very hard, is now the minister's assistance in British Columbia.

My question was straightforward. Why does this government allow DFO to have a policy that helps the minister's friends in British Columbia and not that of west coast fishers?

We have a crisis in B.C. with our coho stocks and that many thousands of B.C. fishers are now going to be facing unemployment and tragedy in their coastal communities. These people who are watching now have a right to an answer and I would like that answer as clear, concise and transparent as possible.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be very concise.

I am disappointed that the member is trying to allege favouritism because of one individual who works for the minister. The minister is very fortunate to have individuals within his ranks who have experience in the fishery. That is what we need in the fishery.

On the issue of Langara Island at the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands, disputes between the recreational sector and the commercial seiners and trawlers have been an issue since the mid 1980s. It began with the growth of the chinook recreational fishery in the area and more recently these gear conflicts intensified. There is competition for the fishing area by the various groups, particularly for the relatively sheltered spots. Seine fishers because of the use of beach tie-offs and the size of the net interfere with or displace the significantly smaller recreational vessels. Similarly, fishing patterns of trawlers also may conflict with recreational fishers.

I stress that the primary focus of the Langara Island issue is not about conservation. It is about the desire of the different sectors to fish in the same area and the inherent incompatibility of these gears to co-exist in that same area. A small area around Langara Island is closed to commercial salmon trawlers early in the season to slow the catch rate of the chinook salmon. This is intended to ensure trawlers have a longer season and to minimize gear conflicts. This area around Langara Island referred to as a chinook red line boundary is less than seven and a half miles—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the time has expired.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, on March 16, I asked the Minister of Industry about the links between his department and the pharmaceutical industry. This question came on the heels of a decision by the Minister of Industry to push through drug patent regulation changes. This decision was made despite the fact that it added another two years to an already lengthy period of 20 year patent protection for brand name drug companies.

This decision was made despite the fact that it will continue to push up drug prices. This decision was made contrary to the wishes of Canadians, health care consumers, health care activists and the generic drug industry. This decision was made despite the fact that it will make it actually harder for the generic industry to compete in this important health care sector. This decision was made despite the fact that the Minister of Health acknowledged that the notice of compliance regulations were problematic and that cabinet would be dealing with them seriously.

It should be noted that the draft regulations were released January 24. The public was given until only February 23 to respond. The government then proceeded to revise those regulations and without any further chance for consultation pushed through the regulations and made the law on March 12. It should also be noted that when the cabinet decision was announced Merck Frosst had all the paper work ready to block a new generic heart drug from entering the market.

Is it any wonder that Canadians believe the drug industry is running this government? Is it any wonder that Canadians believe this government is always putting the needs of industry ahead of the common good, ahead of the public interest? The hope they had for positive change from this government has been dashed. They have been left with nothing but broken promises, disappointment and a feeling of helplessness in the face of this huge hold by the multinational drug industry over this government.

All of us are asking the question: Who is in charge? Is it the industry or is it the Minister of Health? Is the Minister of Health involved? Where is the Minister of Health? Is it the position of this government that the wishes of the big brand name drug industry should rule the day?

All that we are asking for is that the government reconsider this important issue to put some competition back into this industry and stop this monopoly hold by big brand name drug companies which is forcing up prices. It is time for a national vision for pharmaceuticals, a vision that puts patients before profits, science before salesmanship and leadership before lobbying.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, as previously stated by the Minister of Industry, it is impossible to conclude that the changes to the patent drug regulations were rushed through. The review of these regulations goes back to February 1997, in keeping with the legislative requirement to review Bill C-91.

Over a six week period the industry committee examined all aspects of the Canada drug patent. I should mention that her party seldom attended these meetings. During this time the committee heard some 130 witnesses and received an additional 40 submissions, many of which raised issues surrounding the regulations.

Counsel from both the generic and brand name industries appeared before the committee to assess various proposals on how to deal with the regulations. The committee recommended revisiting the regulatory regime.

Discussions with stakeholders have continued since that time. As a result changes, were proposed to the regulations. These changes were pre-published on January 24, 1998 with a full 30 day consultation period, as is the normal practice.

The final regulations that were approved by this special committee of counsel, on March 11 and registered on March 12, should have come as no surprise to anyone. It was business as usual.

After five years of experience with the old regulations we knew there were problems with this scheme that needed to be addressed, such as unnecessary litigation that wasted court resources, an unworkable damages provision, evergreening of patents and difficulty in administering the patent lists.

The new regulations address these problems. The regime we have put in place is a balanced one, recognizing the importance of all sectors of this industry, the generic, the brand name and newly emerging biopharmaceutical companies. It is fully in keeping with the government's objectives of a fair, more efficient system with reduced litigation that provides effective patent protection while enabling generic drugs to enter the market immediately on patent expiry.

Canada has the most pro-generic pharmaceutical policy in the developed world. We are the only country that has both a regulatory—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that the hon. member's time has expired.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to raise my concerns regarding the answer I received to my question of December 3, 1997.

At that time I asked the justice minister how the next supreme court justice could be put through a more appropriate public examination for the appointment process. The minister simply replied that she was willing to consult with Canadians who were interested. But this statement clearly indicates that the minister was not willing to bring forward a defined process of choosing a supreme court judge.

The minister stating that she is willing to consult simply means that the minister is not bound by any public input. The minister's reply to my question was out of touch with Canadians.

I ask, in appointing the supreme court justice, what specific consultations did the minister do? Did the minister travel from coast to coast asking Canadians what kind of judge they wanted? Exactly what kind of sociological advice did the minister receive in making the appointment? If the minister consulted with the provincial attorneys general, the chief justice, law societies and the Canadian Bar Association, does the minister believe this was adequate?

If the system has supposedly worked fine for 130 years, then why would former supreme court Justice Gerard La Forest comment that the Canadian process needs reform and that his replacement should be appointed only after a public review process has taken place? Did the minister not consult with former Justice La Forest?

In the United States the president nominates candidates to their supreme court. However before any person is able to take a seat on the bench they must appear before a Senate committee where their experience is tested, anything from their personal life to political views. In the United States they understand that these things are relevant for future quality decisions. To date, 12 nominations have been rejected and 17 have been withdrawn.

The public process has merit. Should we not want the absolute best judges to make rulings in our highest court? Do we not want to raise the public esteem of the court?

It is evident that who does the deciding is just as important as what is being decided at the court. The time is now for this government to open up the process to allow the public to have a say in who is to be chosen.

The appropriate public examination needed includes a forum for all Canadians to participate. I am suggesting that the process look similar to that of the United States. For example, our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the capability to review appointments of chairmen to the National Parole Board, the RCMP and CSIS just to name a few. Why would it be so difficult to set up a process for supreme court judges? On the other hand the Senate could hold ratification hearings.

In conclusion, I want to make it clear that Reformers are not implying that newly appointed supreme court judges are incapable or incompetent in any way. What we are saying is that the process to find replacements must change and must be modernized.

Canadians want change. Provincial justice ministers want change. Former supreme court justices want change. Why is the minister ignoring these pleas? The government even says that it wants change and then nothing happens. It is like the Young Offenders Act issue since 1993.

It is widely expected that before the end of this year two more justices will step down. A responsible minister would work on changing the process right now. Will the next appointments be made the same old way, or will the minister give way to the public's wishes and do the right thing?

Among the varied screening processes there needs to be a vigorous public accountability threshold to maintain the integrity and public regard for our highest court.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, as you know, appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada are made by the governor in council. Puisne judges as well as the chief justice are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in consultation with the Minister of Justice. In the process leading to an appointment, senior members of the bench and the bar are consulted. While there is no formal involvement of provinces in the selection of the judges, the province from which the appointment is made is consulted as well.

This selection process has produced excellent results in the last 122 years, by allowing for the appointment of highly qualified jurists. However, since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bench, and particularly the supreme court justices, have become the interpreters and protectors of the values enshrined in the charter.

Canadians now show an increasing interest for the judicial function and for those who fulfil that function. Consequently, it is important to make sure that those appointed to the bench are receptive to the values reflected in the charter.

As she said on the appointment of Mr. Justice Bastarache, the Minister of Justice is open to expanding the consultation process leading to the identification of qualified candidates for a position with the court.

Unfortunately, because of the untimely death of the late Mr. Justice Sopinka, just a few weeks after the appointment of Mr. Justice Bastarache, the Department of Justice has not yet had the opportunity to closely examine all the possibilities.

In any case it is very clear to the Minister of Justice that Canada should avoid the adoption of a U.S. style confirmation hearings process which has too often become a sideshow in which reputations are routinely destroyed by opposing politicians' intent on scoring political points.

Let me assure this House that this government—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the time has expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.50 p.m.)