Hélène Alarie

[Canada Grain Act, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.

As the new agriculture and agri-food critic for my party, I want to assure you that I will certainly be separating the wheat from the chaff.

We are again debating a bill that concerns only part of Canada, the prairies. What, however, is at the heart of this bill? The summary of the text reads as follows, and I quote:

This enactment establishes a licensing system and an insurance plan for the special crops industry in Western Canada. It provides for the licensing of all buyers of special crops and for the voluntary participation of producers in the insurance plan, which protects them against default of payment for special crops by licensees. Outstanding payments for standard crops will continue to be protected by security given by standard crops dealers to the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC).

After a summary examination of this highly technical and specialized bill, I will most certainly be a participant in the debate bearing in mind the best interests of farmers and farming and recognizing that this bill does not concern Quebec farmers. This is the reason my speech will be brief. I am not particularly concerned with a matter that is of interest only to western farmers. I feel quite outside this debate, particularly having heard the previous speeches, including that of my predecessor, the member for Prince George—Peace River.

The most important clause in this bill is clause 7. This clause provides for the establishment of an insurance plan, and I quote:

—to insure producers of special crops who are holders of cash purchase tickets—

—elevator receipts—

—or grain receipts against the refusal or failure of licensees to meet their payment or delivery obligations under the receipt or ticket.

If such a regime were to become law, this would allow a licence holder with an elevator operator or grain dealer licence to receive statutory levies from producers delivering special crops.

He would then remit the levies to the agent, who would use them to pay any premiums owed to the insurer, any expenses related to the administration of the insurance plan and any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses to which a member of the Special Crops Advisory Committee may be entitled under subsection 49.02(4).

The difficulty lies in section 49.02, which consists of four subsections setting out how the advisory committee is to be formed. The first subsection allows the minister to establish an advisory committee by naming nine members for a renewable term not exceeding three years. Is this not a way of making political appointments?

Would it not be better for these positions to be elected ones, especially since the committee is mandated to present recommendations regarding the designation of special crops and the selection of a person or organization as agent or insurer, and to advise the minister on any other issues concerning special crops? This could easily become a conflict of interest.

Moreover, the majority of the members of the committee must be “special crops producers who are not special crops dealers, grain dealers or operators of primary elevators”. In other words, they cannot be traders. I add this comment because the wording of the bill in French is rather ambiguous on this.

In addition, members's remuneration is also fixed by the minister. The agent must also reimburse them for any reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by them in the course of their duties while absent from their ordinary places of residence.

It can be seen that a number of questions arise concerning clause 7, particularly subsection 49.02 and its paragraphs. Other clauses also require some clarification, and this will be forthcoming, I trust, before we vote on this bill.

I will, therefore, be on the lookout for the slightest comment from farmers on this bill, for they are the ones who must benefit from it first and foremost.

[Option Canada, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the deeper one looks, the murkier it gets.

Through her bungling, is the minister taking part in the cover-up that has been going on since 1995 and that was the reason the auditor general said on January 20 that, as long as everything is not out in the open, it will not be clear whether we are dealing with a simple administrative oversight or real misappropriation of funds?

[Option Canada, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We have a mystery. The minister sent us a copy of a letter she had sent to the home of Claude Dauphin, informing him that her officials had written his lawyer. This letter is undated and fewer than three lines long.

On March 20, Option Canada wrote to the minister and referred to another letter that is dated February 3 and contains a number of questions. What is behind this new mess?

[Quebec's Fiscal Balance, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, during a promotional visit to Montreal, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that the sovereignists were once again to blame for Quebec's budget not being balanced yet.

Of course, the Liberal Party of Quebec, which sat on its hands during the nine years it was in power in Quebec, is not to blame. The Liberal Party of Canada, which eliminated the federal deficit by shovelling 52% of its spending cuts into the backyards of the provinces, is not to blame either. No, the separatists are to blame, according to the minister. Go ahead, pin it on the sovereignists, we can take it.

What concerns me however is that, to replace Daniel Johnson, whose party was responsible for the largest deficit ever in Quebec's history, the Liberals are set to crown the leader of the party responsible for the largest federal deficit in Canada's history, the leader of the Conservative Party. That is scary.

The federalists are the ones who have plunged Quebec and Canada into debt. It is a good thing that the sovereignists were there to take things in hand.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the motion on Disaster Relief Canada's definition of part time farmer is incomplete. Every time there is a disaster, there is the big problem of how to compensate these farmers who do not come under the program's very specific categories.

The motion introduced today would expand the definition of hobby farmers, without changing the surrounding text of Diaster Relief Canada's definition.

Even with a broader definition, part time farmers would not be better covered by the disaster relief program. From this point of view, the motion becomes almost pointless.

After the flooding in Lac-Saint-Jean, and in the context of municipal tax reform, Quebec looked at the definition of part time farmer. It includes some useful categories covering people starting out in farming, so as to allow them time to get up and running, as well as all forms of specialized farming requiring a certain number of years to become established. I am thinking, for instance, of orchards, which are not productive initially and where the operator must look elsewhere for money to get his enterprise going.

However, part time farming, or at least as I know it in Quebec, is vital. It is important, in my opinion, because in certain places it holds communities together and makes a major contribution to the economy, because people increasingly have to look for income from other sources to combine with what they earn in their business. Some communities would be changed drastically without all the part time farmers, who hold things together and provide support.

In such cases, the importance of part time farming cannot be denied, and the term hobby farmer is an insult to all those who play a vital role in supporting the community.

Obviously, it is in times of disaster that we discover the weaknesses in such assistance programs. At such times, there is a lot of co-operation and assistance, because it is a time of crisis. However, when things settle down, and it is time for action, for rebuilding and compensation, the questions begin. Action must be taken within the framework of the programs.

I listened to the suggestions earlier about the study undertaken by the ministerial task force, but I think their work should be reported to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and to us so we may consider all angles of it, because from the definition, we assess the criteria and then things get more complex.

Reference was made as well to the programs that were implemented, and I would like to return to the statement made by ministers Vanclief and Massé on February 17. These two ministers of the federal government announced unilaterally that they would be granting aid of $50 million to part time farmers in Quebec.

The federal government said that, with this program, and that is the crux, part time farmers will receive from the federal government assistance comparable to that provided to full time farmers under the disaster assistance arrangements.

When assistance programs are implemented after a disaster or some other difficult event, we can see the hardship experienced by the farmers and how important it is for part time farmers to be included in the group that requires protection and help to get back on their feet. However, as it stands, the agreement does not cover them.

Part time farmers were told on February 17 that they would be treated exactly the same as full time farmers. This has not been the case.

For full time farmers, the Government of Canada and the provinces share the cost 90-10, but in this program a 50-50 split was demanded.

I think that the intent of the announcement made on February 17 has not been respected, which creates another problem, which is a major one in my opinion: duplication with respect to the cost of administering the program.

I inquired how the implementation of the program for full time farmers was coming along and I learned today that some 9,000 applications had already been distributed: 6,000 for full time farmers and 3,000 for part time farmers. This information comes from Quebec agricultural information offices because we in Quebec are close to our farmers. They are registered with us.

But it is a system that is already in place and that, unfortunately, has some experience, because of the flooding in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. One learns rather quickly in this kind of situation, although one would have preferred not to have had to.

But the result is that farmers have already been surveyed and work is proceeding very quickly. We are prepared to sort out the problem of part time farmers.

But now another system is being introduced for part time farmers that goes through a different channel, that is therefore not as easily accessible to farmers, who are very familiar with their regional offices, and that, worst of all, increases this program's administrative costs.

In crisis situations such as this one, I think the need is not to increase visibility or administrative costs, but to meet the needs of these part time farmers as quickly as possible.

As my colleague pointed out, some of them are hobby farmers, but others are young or not-so-young people with growing agricultural operations. For those who know this sector well, in these circumstances, every cent counts.

So, a solution must be found. We must not wait for another disaster before finding a solution to this problem. In this sense, it is true that we must look at the definition of part time farmer or part time farming, as they would have it.

I would like to make one final point. The inflexibility with which the $50 million program is being implemented in Quebec is costing farmers dearly. A shared-cost initiative was discussed, without both parties being required to participate. It is rare for two parties to act together when the consultation is all on one side. This was the case here. The measure introduced in no way took into account Quebec's programs.

For all these reasons, therefore, and I would like to speak at much greater length because this is an issue that touches me deeply, the expression part time farmer must be redefined.

[Patent Act, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in a speech on October 2, I said “Research and development is a key component for any society wishing to be fully prepared for the 21st century. Economic prosperity is increasingly the result of research and technological development, rather than the development of natural resources”. That quote fits in well with the very basis of today's debate on drug patents.

Private Member's Bill C-248, an act to amend the Patent Act, introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, is not votable, but it is very timely. The hon. member certainly had good intentions in introducing this bill to reduce the cost of health insurance and drugs for consumers, but the arguments, and the amendments my hon. colleague wants to make to the Patent Act, are weak and open to dispute.

I am, of course, opposed to the way this bill greatly weakens the present regulations as far as a 20-year drug patent protection is concerned. The Bloc Quebecois has always stressed the importance of maintaining that twenty years of protection, and I will defend that position in my speech. I will take this opportunity to counter the arguments advanced by the sponsor of the bill.

First of all, a study published on February 27, 1997 by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board shows that federal regulation of the price of patented medicines saved Canadians and Quebecers between $2.9 billion and $4.2 billion between 1988 and 1995. In 1995 alone, the savings were between $846 million and $1.1 billion. I would point out that the board was created in 1987 under Bill C-91, which enacted amendments to the Patent Act, increasing the protection for drug patents.

As well, the price of patented medicines has risen an average of 1.6% since 1988, compared to a 3.1% increase in the consumer price index. In 1995, the average price of patented medicines in Canada dropped to a level 7% lower than the mean in other countries. In 1994, the cost of patented drugs represented 2.5% of the total expenditure of the Canadian health system, while generic ones and other non patented medicines accounted for 3.7%.

It is therefore totally wrong to say that the regulations passed under Bill C-91 caused a catastrophic increase in the cost of drugs when the bill became law, as the NDP member would have us believe.

Following the introduction of Bill C-91, drug manufacturers, especially those with their head offices abroad, invested substantially in research programs in both Canada and Quebec. This support helped Canada and primarily Quebec to narrow the ever widening gap between us and our competitors, such as those in the G-7 countries, in the levels of investment in basic research.

In 1988, investments in the health sector by pharmaceutical companies producing patented drugs represented 18% of the total. In 1995, the figure reached 37%. There is no doubt that, if Canada does an abrupt about face and once again offers less patent protection than other developed countries, the growth in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years will be reduced to nil.

Bill C-91 was intended to protect intellectual property, and any amendment that would limit its application could well harm the industry in Canada, and thus the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec. Because this is my responsibility, my concern is and must be to consolidate one of the largest industrial clusters.

Our economy is becoming a knowledge-based economy, particularly technological knowledge, which is the main force behind growth in the economy and improvement in quality of life. Technology and increasing productivity are therefore now at the very heart of the job debate.

Unlike the generic drug industry, the patent drug industry funds basic research, which, by the way, has been underfunded since the Liberals came to power. Cutting funding further would dry up the source for the development of new drugs, which help us improve our quality of life.

The question that arises is this: Would the generic drug industry be thriving if this basic research were not being done? Would there be anything for it to copy?

It is therefore wrong to say that the regulations that came into effect as a result of passage of Bill C-91 have resulted in a catastrophic increase in the cost of drugs.

Once again, this bill is an attempt to use the cost of drugs as an excuse for weakening the 20-year protection. This bill is becoming less important because, just under a month ago, the Minister of Industry introduced proposals to amend the regulations. Consultations are presently under way and anyone wishing to intervene on this subject may do so.

Therefore, because we have not forgotten the poor and the ill, because we want a better quality of life for our fellow citizens, and for all the other reasons given, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-248.

[Research Funding, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say that research in Canada is in good shape, when he can see that the MRC, the Medical Research Council, could approve only 216 projects out of the 1,103 applications made and could renew only 41% of the current ones?

[Research Funding, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, granting councils are facing major cuts. They are having a hard time funding new researchers and maintaining current projects. To each of our questions on this issue, the Minister of Industry responds simply that $800 million is available for the innovation foundation.

Does the minister realize that these funds subsidize only the research infrastructure and not the researchers themselves, thus allowing the brain drain to continue unchecked?

[Medical Research Council, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec.

A few days ago, the dean of medicine at Université de Montréal deplored the fact that, in Quebec, a considerably smaller number of grants from the Medical Research Council were going to French-speaking universities than to English-speaking universities. Add to that the fact that, in order to be understood, researchers often have to write their papers in English.

Is the minister responsible for FORD-Q, who claims to be concerned with the issue, prepared to remedy this unacceptable situation?

[Medical Research Council, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

In September 1997, the Medical Research Council distributed $49 million in grants to universities. We now learn that there is a considerable imbalance between the number of grants awarded to English language universities and the number awarded to French language universities.

Can the Minister of Industry explain to us, for instance, why McGill University received twice as many grants from the council as did the Université de Montréal?