Pierre Brien

[National Defence, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the minister that this does not apply to discretionary benefits.

I would also like to remind the minister that the government is using taxpayers' money to make these separation payments. What the people want and have the right to know is how much was paid to General Boyle.

Why is the minister hiding from the public the total amount of the separation package paid to General Boyle?

[National Defence, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Last week, the Minister of National Defence made an excellent suggestion, when he said that General Boyle should not be singled out. We agree that his case should be the basis for a new policy of transparency, like the one adopted in Quebec, and that the minister should therefore release the amount of the generous separation payments made to General Boyle with taxpayers' money.

Since he refuses to disclose the total amount awarded General Boyle in separation pay, will the minister at least tell us how much General Boyle has received in discretionary benefits from the government?

[Peacekeeping, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too am going to speak to Motion M-31 introduced by the Reform Party member, the purpose of which is to give Parliamentarians a greater voice when Canada sends soldiers to take part in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

It is very laudable to give Parliament a greater say in these decisions. Nonetheless, there are some changes we would like to see made to the proposal. As for the substance of this proposal, I think it is desirable to involve parliamentarians in debates of this importance.

We know that, on a number of occasions, this has already happened. Emergency debates have been held to back decisions which, in some cases, had been taken, or were to be taken, to send Canadian soldiers to take part in peacekeeping operations. At the conclusion of my speech, I will propose an amendment to this proposal.

Many people in our ridings and in our families have a connection with the armed forces; we all have such people in our ridings. Some members have military bases or other military installations in their ridings. The number of people involved in the military across the country is large. In debates such as these, therefore, we can

represent our constituents, who share with us their views and opinions when we see them at various events and meetings.

The Bloc Quebecois has already made its views on this subject known in its dissenting report on Canada's foreign policy, tabled in November 1994 after the election. I am going to read you parts of this report. The last paragraph deals specifically with the subject of the motion put by the member of the Reform Party.

The Bloc Quebecois said that "it considers that one of the primary roles of the Canadian Forces on the international scene must be to support peacekeeping operations by taking an active part in them. Canada's willingness to help keep the peace is one of its most important attributes and a major international achievement. However, in the future Canada will have to define more precise criteria for its interventions.

The costs and complexity of intervention will require a new attitude on the part of the international community: the events in Rwanda and Bosnia are eloquent evidence of this. Canada must learn from the experience of all these peacekeeping missions. The recent case of Haiti is a reminder of the need to base our intervention on democratic legitimacy and rigorous planning. In the future, mission objectives and orders will have to be carefully established, under the aegis of the United Nations". I continue: "Although in agreement with the majority report's recommendation on the necessity of giving the Canadian Forces a special configuration, since the credibility of our intervention depends on this, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to spell out the direction that Canada should take in this area. First, we think that Canada should rethink its current military alliances-NATO and NORAD-so that their strategic missions reflect the UN's needs".

"This approach would bring new vitality to these organizations and update their usefulness in security maintenance and conflict resolution, while enabling Canada to achieve the collective security goals that are crucial for its own territorial security. In addition, we consider that Canada should encourage the setting- up of a permanent contingent available to the UN for its peacekeeping missions abroad. We further think that Canada should set a ceiling on the human resources it is prepared to devote to peacekeeping. For example, it could limit the number of military personnel committed to peacekeeping missions at any one time to a maximum of 2,000 to 2,500".

This is what we said earlier. There are now close to 2,000 Canadian peacekeepers abroad. These soldiers are generally sent on a mission for a six-month mandate, so there is a rotation.

We concluded as follows: "And lastly, Canada should submit any decision to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in the House of Commons, as rapidly as possible, where time allows".

That is the context in which we want to propose an amendment. I want to say here that peacekeeping is currently one of the main areas of activity of our armed forces. I do not think that anyone is under the impression that, overnight, Canada will be facing any threat of invasion. Our role, as a country, is therefore much more to provide personnel to contribute to the peacekeeping and peacemaking effort around the world.

In fact, any review of DND activities should always be carried out in a similar frame of mind, looking to allocate a larger portion of the budget to peacekeeping missions, which are important missions, while at the same time assuming a role that may be very useful at home and in terms of operations of a more civilian nature. That being said, savings could certainly be made by managing along these lines.

The Bloc Quebecois policy, as set out in this report, has not changed. A number of options are discussed as far as possible positions regarding UN missions.

As for the amendment, I would like to point out that, in its present form, it refers to a number of peacekeepers. A figure like 100 is rather restrictive. The opportunity of this figure could be questioned. It is always difficult to set an arbitrary number. The other question is: what would we do in the event of a major crisis, a crisis erupting somewhere on the international scene, in any given country, on July 31, August 2 or December 27? According to the wording of the other motion, we would have to call an emergency session of Parliament, with the delays that would entail.

To ensure that a decision may be made in any event, and later approved by Parliament, we will submit in a moment an amendment introducing a degree of flexibility in the process, while ensuring however that, should this occur, if the government decided to send troops and contribute to a peacekeeping force over the summer or any other time when the House is in recess, immediately upon its return, the decision would be put to a vote in Parliament.

You will tell me: "Yes, but the personnel have already been sent". Even so, if Parliament decided that it was not necessary, we could go back on the decision and not renew the mandate at the end of the six month term, or withdraw the peacekeepers, not immediately of course, because replacements would have to be found, and we do have commitments to honour within the United Nations.

So that would influence matters somewhat. It would mean a public debate could be held on the subject, people from various sectors could express their points of view, and if the government, in the view of the opposition parties, had not made the right decision, this would be the time to say so. But it would allow more flexibility, it would not have the disadvantage of having to

convene an emergency session of Parliament. That is why our amendment will introduce a little more flexibility in this regard.

I would like to say, while I am on the topic, however, that I would like to see our troops receive more training before being sent outside the country, so that they will have a better understanding of the stakes involved, which are often political, economic or social, in order to be able to represent us with dignity.

Many people have done extraordinary things during their posting. It only takes a few unfortunate incidents like those in Somalia, for example, or elsewhere to ruin the reputation it has taken years to build. We must therefore step up our efforts to train these people before they set out, to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the work they will be doing, and that they represent us well. I think we have some way to go, and we must avoid any more events like those that took place in Somalia.

In conclusion, I propose as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "all" and substituting the following:

"projects of military commitments abroad involving Canadian troops must, as soon as possible, be the subject of a vote in the House in order to recommend their approval or rejection to the government".

This would satisfy the objectives I have just mentioned. I would like to table this amendment.

[The Canadian Armed Forces, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Yesterday, the minister asked about our policy on disclosing severance settlements. I remind you that our policy is the same as the Quebec government's, which is based on Quebec jurisprudence and puts severance pay in the same category as regular compensation, which is in the public domain.

If the minister is willing to be open, I am giving him another chance and asking him again to confirm that General Boyle received over half a million dollars in severance pay, and whether or not he intends to make this agreement public?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister uses the taxpayers' money, the taxpayers have the right to know. This type of information is available elsewhere, in Quebec for instance.

When General Boyle resigned, the Prime Minister stated that the general's departure was handled according to the rules that normally apply in such situations. In other words, when the Prime Minister and the minister talk about normal rules, could it mean a golden handshake of over half a million dollars?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The new Minister of National Defence promised to clean things up in the armed forces, but his first move after his appointment was to hide from the public the amount of the compensation granted to General Boyle to get him to resign.

Since taxpayers' money was used, could the minister of defence tell us the terms of the settlement reached with General Boyle when he handed in his resignation? In other words, how much money was General Boyle given to resign?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, October 9th, 1996]

my supplementary is for the Prime Minister.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the fact that his new Minister of National Defence keeps coming back to the need to get to the bottom only of the events that took place in Somalia is a way for his government to divert attention and to bury once and for all the document altering and cover-up operation?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. By the way, we noticed that he said "the rest" of affairs were being managed well, so we understand that that particular one was not.

The Prime Minister said that the decision of his former defence minister was in no way linked to the Somalia affair, but rather to the code of ethics issue.

But yesterday, the new defence minister very clearly linked the departure of the former minister and that of General Boyle to the

Somalia affair, stating, and I quote: "In recent days, two people have taken some very difficult steps. First my colleague, theformer Minister of National Defence, resigned, and now today, General Boyle has done so as well".

Is the Prime Minister aware that in his desperation to save the face of his government, he is going so far that his new defence minister no longer dares to follow him?

[Patent Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to the bill introduced by the hon. member for the NDP, a bill that basically, and very briefly, will reduce the protection granted the drug manufacturing sector. There are patents that protect the industry for a period of 20 years but in fact have an effective duration of about ten years.

We should realize that it takes about ten years from the time a molecule is discovered that will be used to manufacture a drug to the actual marketing of the drug, so that unlike other products, where the actual marketing takes place very quickly after the development of a product, the actual protection of the patent extends well beyond the 20 years allowed by law, because the initial date applies from the time the new molecule was patented.

Of course when we are talking about the pharmaceutical industry, we are talking about one of the major sectors of the economy, especially in Quebec and Ontario, and in other provinces as well. But when we are talking about the innovators, the companies that do research and discover drugs in Canada, they are mainly concentrated in Quebec and Ontario.

In fact, more than half are located in Quebec, in the Montreal area, and quite a few in the Toronto area as well. This is the reason why both the Montreal Chamber of Commerce and the Toronto Board of Trade are recommending not only that we maintain a legislative framework to support and protect pioneering industries, but that we upgrade it.

As we know, this debate has taken place twice since 1987. The first time, in 1987, the law was changed to extend patent protection. If I recall, it was extended to seven years. The member is suggesting that we revert to a system of compulsory licences. In 1993, the Conservative government returned to the attack, increasing patent protection for drugs to 20 years.

Of course, there were very active lobbyists on both sides. These people are always part of the picture. Behind the humanitarian reasons often quoted to give less protection and allow for drugs to be copied earlier, on the grounds that they would be cheaper, there are the industries which make a lot of money copying these drugs.

It should be emphasized that since this bill came into effect, we have seen an increase in research activity in the pharmaceutical industry, and an increase in job creation both in the area of patented drugs and pioneering industries and in the area of generic drugs, or copied drugs. Both sides have been expanding.

This bill was aimed at striking a balance. It is true that there is always a risk when granting a patent. One should be very careful and monitor the situation closely. There is a risk of creating a monopoly, pushing prices upwards. The government created the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board to keep track of the situation. There are standards, guidelines that ensure that, when the drugs developed reach the market, their price will not be unreasonably higher than the costs involved.

So the review board tables reports. What do these reports say? I heard the member sponsoring this bill talk about sky-rocketing costs and give us some examples. In fact, since 1987, the cost of patented drugs has increased only by 2.1 per cent a year. According to the report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the increase has been lower than inflation. It is always appropriate to monitor the situation, but in fact the legislation and the regulations have been well enforced and are very efficient.

Sky-rocketing costs might be due to other factors. If health costs are increasing in Canada, it is also because the population is aging. There are other similar phenomena that have to be considered. I would like to remind you that, in 1993, when health costs were being examined throughout Canada, 3 per cent of expenses in the health system were related to patented drugs, that is, drugs coming

from the innovative industry. We must be careful, therefore, not to fall into the trap and stick to the facts.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the current act comes up for review in 1997. We are talking about spring 1997. Of course, people are wondering if election deadlines will change the situation. We will see. However, the current act must be reviewed in 1997.

At that time, each of the industries and groups concerned will have an opportunity to be heard and explain why they want changes, why they want more or less patent protection and how. They will have an opportunity to present their cases.

It would be premature for Parliament to draw conclusions from a very partial analysis of the situation-which, according to the arguments I heard, is not always connected to the actual figures-and pass this bill reducing patent protection to 17 years, as the hon. member proposes.

We know that in reality this would be reduced by three years. It is a lot. It is important to note that putting a drug on the market is very expensive and time-consuming. Many research initiatives never pan out. In all areas involving research and development, many research efforts never lead to real-life applications. Considerable amounts of money are invested in R and D.

If we limit the protection they enjoy and their ability to market their products and recoup their investments, how will this translate into reality? There will be a drop in research activities. The focus will shift to generic products, duplicating and selling various drugs.

This brings us to the social aspect. All of us in this House expect help if we take ill. We expect to have access to drugs or care, palliative or otherwise. Now, for these drugs to be available, someone has to do research in their applications. Unless our legal, fiscal and economic framework does not create incentives, these drugs will just not be produced and we will find ourselves with another problem on our hands: not having access to the drugs we want.

Caution must be exercised in saying that drug patent protection should be reduced on compassionate grounds. This has a serious and major perverse effect. Therein lies the social dimension.

Should the act be amended, the economic factor would also affect the balance that currently exists whereby, in Quebec and in Ontario in particular, a lot of people are involved in research and development.

Let me give you a few figures. In Quebec, there are over 6,000 jobs in the research sector for this industry. This is a large number. These jobs are in areas where knowledge and technology are important, and where major infrastructures and investments are required, in excess of $600 million for the companies located in Quebec.

So, we are talking about 6,000 jobs and, in 1994, the most recent data I have indicate that research activities totalled more than $240 million. This is quite a sum of money. The government itself could not do as much in the present context. Who is going to do the research if, through this bill, we reduce the incentives these companies have? Many of them are concentrated in the Montreal area. Some of them are also located in the Laval area, in Metro Toronto and just outside Toronto.

We find many generic drug companies in Ontario and Manitoba, and a few in Quebec. There has been a slight shift since 1993.

We now have a situation that makes development, research and job creation possible. The hon. member talked about jobs. Jobs have been created in both generic and new drug companies. It has been possible to achieve a good balance under the present legislation. Should we be doing more? We will have to take a look at that. Do we need to monitor more closely price control? We will also have to consider this issue.

Right now, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board argues that the situation is under control and that everything is going relatively well. Under these circumstances, it would be ill-advised to jeopardize an industrial structure that is so important to our future. We need think only about the existing relationship between the scientific community, the universities, and the companies that have developed in the last few years a very important rapport, which will give our country an edge in this area.

Lastly, I want to remind the House of our international obligations. Canada has some obligations under NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, what was formerly known as the GATT. If we pass this bill, we will be violating these international agreements, which require us to provide the same protection we were giving in 1993. We have to be very careful before adopting such a bill and make sure that what we are doing will be good for employment and medical research and will promote economic growth in Quebec as well as in Ontario and in the rest of Canada.

In this regard, this is not a votable bill, but had it been a votable bill, we would have had to vote against it. I invite the member to come and express his views next spring when a broader and more public debate takes place. We will get the facts straight and review the situation.

[Canadian Armed Forces, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, having an interim report does nothing to prevent a complete investigation of what else went on in Somalia.

Does the explanation of the minister's reticence to call for an interim report not lie in the fact that his government does not want a report on document tampering to come out before the next elections. This could smear not only General Boyle but also, of course, the former Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister himself?