Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for Vancouver East were here because my questions refer to her as well as to the previous speaker from the Progressive Conservative Party. We are talking about a millennium fund that has gained a lot of publicity. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that it is kind of like putting the problems mentioned by my hon. friend from the Conservative Party on the back burner.

The information I am getting from students in my province is that devising the millennium fund was politically motivated. This is a politically motivated fund which does not kick in for three years and already has a politically appointed selection board. Does the member think it is possible that in this whole process of it growing politically the recipients will somehow be affected politically?

Does the member not see that as a direct possibility? I am sure the member for Vancouver East would agree that is a direct possibility.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete a few thoughts I had regarding this bill.

Time is a wonderful thing for having Canadians look back on a bill with some reflection. Although we are discussing this bill at the present time, let us look down the road about a month's time.

Just like people now looking at the CPP, they now have some questions to ask about the government's investment board. Just like people who have recently passed Bill C-4, the Senate decided it had better have a better look.

We should have a permanent and fair resolution process in order, something that is far removed from the desires of the government, something that is far removed from the whims of the government at any time.

That is exactly what Reform's position is, something that will get government out and allow the employees and the employers to have a peaceful settlement over the course of action.

I want to draw one conclusion as it relates to some of the ambiguous terms of this. It says that this board that comes together can have a work stoppage if public health and safety are at risk.

In Saskatchewan we can have blizzards at any time. Many times we have blizzards without even the weather forecast coming in. The highway workers are on strike because public health or safety are not considered to be involved.

However, as my hon. colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands mentioned, what about ambulance services being involved? The highway workers are on strike and the roads are blocked. What if somebody dies on the way to emergency care?

This type of legislation does not solve anything now or in the future. We do not need government interference. What we need is for both parties to understand that they can rely on fair and equitable treatment to be in place and that the government's hands will be completely off. There will be a final selection arbitration which will be an effective tool and will permanently resolve all the disputes we have had in labour issues under the previous administrations.

I beg the House to take a good look at the bill. It does nothing to solve labour disputes in Canada.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad this bill which was brought in by my hon. colleague has come before the presentation of the national budget. I assure the House many people in Canada consider the passage of this bill as being more important than the important budget that is coming down today. The passage of this bill determines how negotiations will take place in the Canadian workplace.

It is tremendously interesting to note that the Privacy Act suddenly takes on a different meaning. When we passed Bill C-4, the wheat board bill, we absolutely had to have it. It is a public company, a government organization, but we will seal it up, we will lock it in, put the zipper on it. It required privacy.

Now we have something where privacy is thrown out the window depending on who you want to benefit. The benefit is if you want to protect the government organization, you want to protect the government business, you invoke the Privacy Act, but if you want to destroy something, you open up the Privacy Act.

I would caution workers, I would caution companies to take a very close look at this bill. Even if it does get passed, which we on this side hope it does not, I hope they will be able to come back to the government and say “You are violating a human public principle that we have had in Canada since 1867. You are about to wipe it out ”. The government pretends it does not see it in this bill.

I note that it says this board will have six permanent members, three from employees, three from employers and the interesting thing, as many part time members as who deems necessary? As the minister deems necessary. And how many are necessary, 20, 25? Let us see what the political decision is.

We have the labour on one side and the employers on the other. Twenty people are brought in from the government to tip the balance. The government will then determine whether it goes in favour of the employer or the employee. And that is fair? I cannot understand this government saying this bill is non-partisan when it opens the doors for more partisanship than we have every had in labour relations.

The unions supported me in the June 2 election. The reason they supported me was they understood that unless there was the type of policy which Reform is trying to introduce, their future was just about nil.

I refer to the clause that the board can end a stoppage if public health and safety are at risk. The largest union in my constituency is the coal workers who supply the coal to the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. They can never go on strike. They could let the 72 hours go by because supplying hydro would be considered in the interest of public safety. The union workers who mine the coal could never be in a strike position and could never be in a strong negotiating position because all the government has to do is declare that it is not in the best interests. We take away the right to strike from the largest union in my constituency. And we say that the bill is designed for modernization?

[Patent Act, February 20th, 1998]

No, it was not. It was in Michigan, so the member can guess from that.

We have a tendency to take these important issues and make them too simplistic. Most of us will have to go to the history books for this, although a few might remember. Around the turn of the century, in 1918, a terrible flu hit this country.

I remember visiting a small village in northern B.C.. The flu of 1918 wiped out the whole village. This winter a new strain of flu, the Sydney A, has already claimed 10 Canadian lives. I mention this because to this end Canadians have learned to depend on medicine to protect us. Even more so Canadians rely on an industry that produces and makes available the prescription drugs that maintain their health. With that neither member who has spoken would interfere.

In this respect the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important and most lucrative industries worldwide. In any country with a major pharmaceutical interest, the health of the industry as well as the health of its citizens must be considered a factor.

Because the industry is so lucrative and a significant portion of the economy relies on the industry's success, namely employment and investment in research and development, governments around the world are presented with a difficult task of balancing economic interests with very important social interests.

We are here today debating my colleague's bill because many Canadians feel that the balance has shifted. The hon. member who introduced the bill will say that it has shifted too far in one direction. He will say that it has shifted toward the interests of the industry and no longer considers the interests of Canadians. That is basically what he is saying in his bill.

I repeat that there is some truth to this. But whether it is good for the economy or meets our social objectives, we must remember that first and foremost the pharmaceutical industry exists to provide prescription drugs to Canadians. Huge profits, jobs, research and development are important spinoffs, as the Liberal member mentioned.

In Canada people say that they take pride in our health care system. We believe it is the best in the world and we want to keep it that way. Canadians find great solace in the fact that barring everything else which concerns them, an affordable medical system must be kept in place.

We know it matters not whether we are rich or poor, illness is illness and the requirement for medication should know no bounds. We also know that the chronically ill, seniors or children are vulnerable and therefore must have access to affordable medical assistance. This is particularly true for seniors and the chronically ill. They cannot afford to live in a country where the cost of medicine is too high. I commend my colleague for recognizing this and for putting forth his efforts to improve the situation.

However in debating this bill I would like to make certain recommendations which I feel would accomplish our goal more efficiently and more effectively. In saying this I am indicating that I have certain problems with my colleague's bill and I will lay these out for the consideration of the House.

My colleague says that the 20% patent protection for brand name pharmaceuticals is the cause of the cost of drugs being too high. I would suggest that is being a bit too simplistic. There are clear benefits to patent protection, not the least of which is the contribution made to research and development both in the performance of it and in the generation of it that goes into this country. It is precisely this kind of research which brings Canadians the breakthrough they need to counter the effects of the flus we are seeing right now, such as the Sydney A.

Important commitments have been made by the brand name pharmaceutical companies. A program between the PMAC and the Medical Research Council was initiated for research and development with a budget of around $250 million. That is a huge sum of money. Such agreements among sectors make an important contribution by fostering basic research in the pharmaceutical and biotechnical fields in Canada's universities and research industry.

PMAC member companies have also made commitments toward an R and D to sales ratio. As a result they have made a contribution to applied research, an important tool in achieving Canada's economic well-being.

However these commitments have not produced a perfect system. My colleagues are seriously concerned that the commitments made by the brand name pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development are in no way assured. The Liberal government has not ensured that these agreements are binding. That is a problem for the people of Canada. It is certainly a problem for the Reform Party.

We believe that the generous patent protection given to the brand name companies must be incumbent upon the willingness of the PMAC to make binding commitments to the research and development of new drugs in Canada. Not only do pharmaceuticals gain from a competitive patent protection, they also gain from the most generous R and D tax write-offs in the world.

Based on this we believe the government should be seeking a binding commitment from this sector. We do not have that. That to me is the real guts of this bill. I agree with the hon. member on that point. The participation of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada is so important in building a strong knowledge based economy, but we must have some proof that this is happening. I would like to see the member's bill emphasize this.

Maintaining the 20 year patent protection is in keeping with the patent protection of our global competitors. By ensuring this applies in Canada we can compete in the investment made by the pharmaceutical industry which enhances our economy. But in entering into this relationship we must ensure the integrity within this agreement by seeking binding commitments. Today we do not have that.

I would suggest to the originator of this bill that rather than tinker with the number of years on the patent protection that exists now, accept the 20 year patent protection to ensure Canada's competitiveness, but also ensure that the promises are binding. The government has the responsibility to see that they produce real benefits as a result of the initiatives of this industry.

[Patent Act, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, what a delight it is on the last half hour on a Friday with everybody just brimming for his speech to come. I am sure that you will find it very exciting, probably one that you would rather forget.

I want to commend the hon. member who introduced this bill. I appreciate this bill's coming forward. I do not entirely agree with everything in the bill but it has merit.

It also gives me the opportunity to inform the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre that I was not part of a government in Saskatchewan in 1982, as he said the other day. I was part of a local government which was perhaps as important.

It is with ease that I talk about this because the pharmaceutical industry has been very much a part of our family. I had an older brother who made his career in this area. He was a Canadian. He took his Canadian experience and travelled around this world. That was a Canadian influence. I suppose we might say he was multinational, but he was Canadian born, Canadian trained and for the most part represented Canadian pharmaceutical people.

I have a doctor who is still practising, so drugs are very much part of the repertoire when I visit with him.

I wonder if anyone here has ever visited one of our large pharmaceutical research stations. The one I was at has hundreds of acres, thousands of employees. I would not want to guess—

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

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?

[Bill C-28, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this party along with all other members of the House have a right to know on behalf of their constituents the answer to this question. Why was the finance minister's name on a bill that could benefit him?

[Bill C-28, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the deputy finance minister.

Even the government's own so-called ethics counsellor, the same ethics counsellor that has whitewashed every other scandal for the government over past years, has said that this matter was conducted improperly. He told a parliamentary committee that he should have been informed but he was not.

Why was the finance minister's name on a bill which could benefit him?

[Canada Shipping Act, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I concur with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said. He has given a good review. There are some points I want to add.

This morning what cuts this side of the House to the core is when the hon. member mentions that it was the Senate that brought in amendments to this bill.

I would be remiss not to mention my colleague who brought up the point of order earlier. I am not going to discuss the ruling of the Chair but I do want to reinforce a statement for everybody in the hopes that never again in the history of this Parliament at least a Bill goes to the Senate and the Senate makes the amendments before it comes back to the elected officials.

This practice is totally archaic, totally not in touch with today's reality. That really bothers me. I am not afraid to go into the standing committee on transportation and discuss with the hon. member the welfare of the industry across Canada. This side of the House is insulted to the highest degree when my hon. colleague raises many issues with regard to this bill.

Section 53 of the Constitution Act states the rules concerning the breach of the privileges of this House. I want to read this into the record because it directly concerns me. Standing Order 80(1) states:

All aids and supplies granted to the sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.

Whether we like to admit it our not, we are dealing with millions of dollars. This is nothing small. We are talking about liabilities up to $270 million. For that reason I feel very sad that we have to come back to the committee and discuss amendments that came from the Senate. That was totally unnecessary. To members on this side of the House it is considered a total insult to being elected officials.

I have a few more comments with regard to this before I get to the bill itself. The Senate was restricted from originating money bills in 1867. It is a fine point of law whether this is a money bill or not. It is not a money bill in some terms but because it deals with the potential of government expenditures that is a question we have to address.

Introduction of bills in the Senate gives the Senate more legitimacy as unofficial, unelected people. It gives it more legitimacy or as much legitimacy in this bill as members on this side of the House and members of the standing committee on transportation. I beg the hon. member, please do not do this again in the life of this Parliament. Please do not ignore the people on this side of the House who are elected. It is not that we are going to oppose this bill. We are not going to oppose the bill.

I have every reason to believe what the hon. gentleman has said, that it has received the support and consultation of the stakeholders. That is the good part. I will be asking that question when we are in committee, if all the stakeholders have been consulted. There will probably be some more.

I beg the hon. member please, on behalf of this House, on behalf of Canada, do not put this bill to the Senate before it comes here.

The hon. gentleman has done a good job, as well he should because he has been with this bill for a long time. There are some things that I would like to add that perhaps the hon. gentleman has not added.

Bill S-4 is designed to increase the compensation available to public and private Canadian claimants, for maritime claims in general, and particularly for claims related to ship source oil pollution. As a result of these amendments in S-4, the maximum compensation available against the international oil pollution compensation fund would more than double. It has doubled to the point of $270 million.

I might say that Bill S-4 enables Canada to accede to several international conventions on marine liability. Thus it harmonizes, and I emphasize the word harmonizes, the Canadian maritime liability legislation with that of the other major maritime nations and previous legislation really did not do that. In that respect there is support of the Reform Party because it brings the bill up to date.

I want to mention some key features. This bill provides for a substantial increase in shipowners' liability limits. In this era there are ships that are double and triple the size of former vessels using our harbours, international waterways and Canadian waterways. Maybe the liability limits are not even high enough, but at least it recognizes that.

The bill creates a procedure for rapid amendments, and that is a good point. I do not know how rapid they can be, but when we think back to the terrible oil disaster off the British Columbia coast with the Exxon ship, it was a long drawn out procedure. Hopefully this bill will speed that up because Canadians in particular, and people around the world I am sure, are more environmentally conscious of these things than they have ever been before.

Another thing I would like to mention is that the bill adds a provision for liability limits for those small ships that still ply our harbour. The limits of the liability adjust to the size. It is like the limits for a Honda car adjusting to a Cadillac. Maybe my hon. colleague over there has a Cadillac, I do not know. He does not. But if he did have, he would have to pay more in liability limits.

It also makes special provisions for liability of shipowners to their passengers. My hon. colleague mentioned that in this case most of these people already carry a fair amount of liability insurance. I am wondering though if it would not be a good idea to jot down as a memo that we need to take a look at that.

A million dollars liability insurance. Is that $1 million per person? I am not quite sure what is meant by that. There needs to be assurance that these boats are carrying enough liability insurance because passengers are more important than cargo. We need to take a look at that.

The bill extends the application of maritime liability rules to all ships at sea and inland. That is important. It is not just the oceangoing voyages. And it extends, as my hon. friend has mentioned, the exclusive economic zone. Even in the recent events of the last few days maybe we need to take a look at that as well. As our industry grows and as Canada becomes more of a lead player in this particular field, we should take another look at that particular area.

Modern day communications have made it possible that we now have a day to day means by which we can be in communication, much more so than ever before. With the use of modern communications techniques, radar and so on, the global limitations of liability therefore become a very important economic instrument in the operation of any ship. We agree that the clauses as they relate to that become very, very important.

Raising the maximum compensation, what I worked out is $120 million to $270 million, some may think is pretty hefty, but if we look at the scope of the act, some may even argue it is not high enough. It is certainly not too high. As I mentioned earlier, when we have these huge boats now doubling and tripling the capacity, this is not out of order and maybe it is not high enough.

I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport there is a need to further solidify Canada's place in the international maritime community. We are very big players now. I suggest to the hon. member that we may get to be an even bigger player.

As Canada grows there is no question that our part of the maritime industry is going to increase. Because of this, through the implementation of both sets of conventions and the protocols, and quite frankly I think there has been very limited negative feedback concerning the contents of this bill and its predecessor Bill C-58, the reaction that I and my party would have is that we will support the bill.

There is one principle in particular that I would like to inform the hon. minister about. It has a theme which this party adopts and that is user pay. I believe that is within this bill and we can support it on that merit.

Bill S-4 appears to be a sound bill. It strives for a balance between the shipowners and the claimants which appears to be fair. But we still have to allow time for the standing committee to send out the message that if anyone else, a stakeholder, has an interest, they will be advised that they can appear before the committee.

The bill exposes the shipowners' insurance companies to major financial liability. It also provides for a transfer of payments out of Canada's ship source oil pollution fund to the international oil pollution compensation fund. It is questionable that a bill with such ramifications should indeed come from the Senate.

I would like to share this with the hon. parliamentary secretary as it relates to this bill. This bill indirectly relates to Bill C-9 because they use the harbours, the insurance claims and so on. I refer him to page 14 of the act. At the bottom of page 14 it talks about the right that is exercised, that there are reasonable grounds to believe there are records in dwelling houses related to the reporting of contributing to oil spills and all of that. I am not disputing that but it is something that is really difficult for me to imagine at this time.

I hope none of Canada's oceangoing vessels are involved in this but Canada's ports are now a major entry point for the worst type of pollutant this society has. We can clean up an oil spill. It is very costly but eventually we can clean it up. We cannot totally erase the damage. It is there. But on a recent national television program it was shown in graphic detail that coming through our ports are large amounts of hard drugs. They come into Canada and find their way into the U.S. market.

I would hope that in committee we could take a look at this catastrophe. It is hard to clean up a young person's life which has been ruined by drugs. If we in Canada are truly going to say no to drugs, if we are going to have our schools say no to drugs and if parents are going to say no to drugs, then it is incumbent upon all the players involved, including the shipowners with this bill and the port authorities with Bill C-9, to get serious about this.

The hon. member may say that is not relevant, but I believe it is. If we can search a house to obtain records to prove that someone has used a boat to bring in oil which has polluted this country, then the same thing should exist here, in co-operation with other branches of the government, and we should have the same power to say no to drugs at Canadian ports. As a Canadian citizen I was hurt when I watched that program.

Reform will be supporting this bill. However, I would like to reiterate that it should not have originated in the Senate. Please introduce legislation in this House.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a point related to that particular document being tabled as to whether the actual quote was mentioned in the “blues” and has he examined that for the benefit of this House as to the actual statement made by the minister. Could he tell us that please.