John Manley

[Price Of Gasoline, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how long the line would be if we were to issue directions to hold investigations every time somebody made an allegation.

As the hon. member knows, there have been a number of situations with respect to gasoline prices that have been investigated by the director of the competition bureau. That has led, in recent months, not only to charges having been laid but successful prosecutions under the provisions of the Competition Act.

The director has also established a 1-800 number so that consumers who have concerns about gas prices can make those concerns known directly to the bureau of competition so that action can be taken where it is warranted.

Finally, I remind the hon. member that he with five of his colleagues has the ability to ask the director to investigate issues where he thinks there are facts that warrant it.

[Price Of Gasoline, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we will look closely at this investigation in the United States to see the results. As the member knows full well, the power of the Minister of Industry to give an order to the director of competition is seldom used. In fact, it has been used only once in Canada.

At this time, we do not have enough information to justify such an order, but if the member wants to ask questions to the director, I think he will be appearing before the industry committee. Moreover, the member has the right, with five of his colleagues, to submit a request directly to the director.

[Drug Patents, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear on this issue. The member is quite right. A review period was established in Bill C-91 that will come into effect in the spring of 1997.

At the same time, he understands that the NOC link regulations which were enacted pursuant to section 55(2) of that legislation are very complex. In order to determine whether they have the desired effect of appropriately balancing the interests that lie in this area between the rights of patent holders to protect their patents-which I believe is what he is endeavouring in suggesting that these should not be changed-against the interests that consumers have in the legitimate acquisition of generic products when patent rights have expired-to which I am sure he also does not object-I think he understands that the essence of patent protection is that it extends for a period of time after which it ends. That is the law.

The NOC link regulations are intended to establish a mechanism whereby both interests are adequately protected. In order to determine whether that has been achieved we are looking at the litigation that has ensued from those regulations and we will determine what the best result is to follow from that.

[Drug Patents, April 29th, 1996]

Mr.

Speaker, I have indicated to both types of pharmaceutical industries, the generic and the multinationals, that it is important for them to consider the impact of these regulations. Despite their highly complicated nature, it is vital that they work to the benefit of all Canadians.

I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to explain his position on these regulations. I am open to his ideas, because it is important for us to determine the best way of implementing the regulations.

[Copyright Act, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is really convoluted. Of course there are private royalty arrangements. The very reason one would impose a home copying charge is so that one can ensure producers, performers and composers receive compensation for their work.

Unauthorized home copying is a way to avoid people being paid for what they have created. Does the hon. member think that is unfair?

They do not pay attention to what is written in the red book but if they did they would see a clear, explicit promise to introduce copyright reform in this Parliament, and that promise we are fulfilling.

[Copyright Act, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will correct at least a few of the errors in that question.

First, the home copying charge will apply to audio tapes. Second, it is not a tax. It might be useful if the government could retain that revenue but the levy will be established by the copyright board and will be distributed on behalf of the producers, the performers and the composers who, after all, are entitled to it.

If the hon. member wishes to countenance the unauthorized copying of artistic works then perhaps he should explain his rationale for why he feels those who compose, produce and perform artistic works should have their works randomly copied, easily copied, with no compensation whatsoever for the economic value they have created.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996, not more than one additional sitting day after the day on which this order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day so allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Budget Implementation Bill, 1996, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, we have been unable to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996.

Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I will be moving a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

[Telecommunications, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member very well knows, technology is changing rapidly in the broadcasting sector. It is always possible that technological changes will mean that equipment bought by consumers is rendered unusable.

The most important thing for the consumer is to take the time to do a bit of research before buying. But they know very well, and I believe Mrs. Beaudoin knows it too, that regulating retail sales to consumers comes under provincial jurisdiction.

[Telecommunications, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that the technology used to have provide broadcasting services changes very rapidly at the present time. Most service providers are now switching to digital technology, which does not work with existing satellite dishes.

There might be a potential problem for consumers. The sale of satellite dishes, used to receive television signals, is not regulated by the federal government. With any high technology equipment, consumers must examine their options very carefully before they buy. This is very important.