Peter MacKay

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. I know she has been very much a participant in this issue, in this debate, and her question is relevant.

How do we address this issue of escalating drug costs? One way to do that is to ensure that those drugs are being produced here in Canada, at home, ensuring that there will be thousands of jobs provided through this industry. I believe that the current market will show that drugs are 40% less expensive now in Canada compared to the United States.

The other element is with respect to the World Trade Organization itself. There is indication in the ruling that the impact of the ruling over an eight year period is very much aimed at ensuring that pharmaceutical prices do remain low and that Canada will continue to have access to these affordable drugs.

The background vaunts the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board as having “the mandate to ensure that prices of patent medicines for sale in Canada are not excessive”. There are specific provisions in place to address just the issue the hon. member raises. I would suggest that participating in the market, ensuring that Canadians are producing these drugs at home and that we do not have to always go abroad to access and to reach the available levels, in and of itself is certainly aimed at keeping the prices down.

I would suggest that the efforts being made to try to prevent this legislation from coming into being and to try to expand the market to include the generic manufacturers could be better spent lobbying and ensuring that the pharmaceutical producers in the first instance are aware certainly of their moral obligation. If need be, the government would have to intervene to ensure that those levels are at an affordable rate and available to those most in need.

I agree that this has to be the crux of the debate. I do not have all the answers as to how we can ensure availability and low prices but I would suggest that the WTO has taken some steps in that direction. The government itself has to be continually reminded, and hounded on occasion, to make sure there are affordable drugs, particularly drugs aimed at preventive measures and the treatment of life threatening illnesses.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say about that intervention is that the truth hurts. I am quoting into the record the words of the Minister of Industry.

The moral flexibility that has been so common in this place, particularly on the part of that minister, is one that does offend people. It should offend the member opposite as well, because all the frothing and terrible finger pointing that went on in opposition among the current Liberals is really something to behold now. It is a foghorn type of voice that we hear from the Minister of Industry and the real shame is that coastal communities back in Newfoundland are without foghorns while we have a perfectly good one here.

It is important to focus not only on the hypocrisy but on the merits of the bill, given what the member opposite said. There is a certain degree of merit in allowing these pharmaceutical companies to be consistent and to be in a position where they can afford themselves patent protection. That is what this legislation comes down to at the end of the day.

Irrespective of those earlier positions, the government has, as it has done before, recognized the wisdom in following the policies put in place by the previous administration. Even though it was against them at the time and made great hay by pointing out how terrible it would be, it has now embraced them. It is encouraging to see that the truth has come through and that the merits of a lot of those policies which were so vilified are now becoming recognized as the right ones for the country.

With that in mind, the genesis of those types of drugs and that type of research and development, which allows these types of treatments to come to fruition, is what is really important here. We have to ensure that Canada will play a leading and pivotal role in the production of these types of drugs which certainly are meant to address in a very specific way the human ailments that exist. As we speak, there also are yet undiscovered pharmaceutical drugs with which scientists continue to experiment and continue to strive to discover. This is what is important. If we are to foster a very important and very critical industry within this country we have to be consistent. We have to be prepared to open that door to the same protections that exist elsewhere.

That is why in 1991 the Progressive Conservative Party moved in that direction. That is why we will support this bill, as we did in its introduction phase in the Senate of Canada, the other place. It is in fact to allow the benefits to flow, to recognize the importance that can be reached in this country in terms of making those drugs available and affordable and making them welcome on our market that we would be supporting Bill S-17. This research and development practice that currently exists in our country is one that we have to be extremely proud of. This is an industry in which Canadians can and do play a very leading role.

To that end we would embrace this move for consistency, this move toward ensuring Canada will be a leader and an effective player in this market. Bill S-17 does just that. It is a bill that recognizes the need for market competitiveness and the need for encouragement for our own pharmaceutical industry. It is one that is inviting and open to those who choose to come and participate in that market in this country.

We will be supporting this legislation. We look forward to this bill passing this House and becoming law in Canada.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

I hear some chirping across the way. Heaven forbid that we put into the record the actual words spoken by the Minister of Industry, the minister of reversals, the minister of rat packers, who has now in his new reincarnation completely reversed himself. He has somersaulted 180° from where he was. He has swallowed himself whole. He has done so time and again. He did so along with other members of the government on the GST, free trade, Pearson airport, helicopters and privatization. The list goes on.

Perhaps most recent and most pronounced was his reversal in terms of his commitment to the people of Newfoundland to stay in provincial politics. When the bell rang and there was an opportunity to better himself, lo and behold, he answered that bell and came to Ottawa.

While all that huffing, puffing and blowing and all the harping against the government was going on when he was among the unwashed in the opposition, he certainly made a wonderful case.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to much of the debate by previous members who have made a very compelling case and bring a great deal of passion to this particular debate. This is understandable when we are talking about drugs, whether they be generic or manufactured, in the first instance, from a pharmaceutical company. We know those drugs are often the lifesaving instrument for many individuals.

However, when we talk about consistency and the business elements of this issue, one has to agree that the WTO, although it has not set an arbitrary length of time, it has set 20 years for the life of a patent. Canada is presently not fitting within that guideline.

A ruling has given rise to Bill S-17, the legislation that is before us, and there is an effort on the part of the Canadian government and this parliament, through the legislation, to be consistent and in line with what the WTO has said.

When applied to drug development and production, the whole notion of intellectual property and property protection becomes a very divisive issue. It is an issue that in many ways pits certain sectors of this industry against one another. Patent protection and commercial opportunities for Canadians and Canadian pharmaceutical companies are on one side of the coin, while on the other side we hear and are certainly cognizant of the need for cost effective access to these new drugs and these technologies. Therefore there is no question that there is an element of competing interest here.

It is important to recognize that without a high degree of investment in research and development there would never be this particular dilemma that we have before us. Pharmaceutical companies do require an incentive just like any other business. It therefore stands to reason that they would want to be the beneficiaries of their efforts. They want the ability to profit from their toil and their labour in the same manner afforded other industries. This type of protection is such that it allows companies to receive that reward. In a global economy, it also encourages companies to come to Canada to avail themselves of that particular protection.

I speak with some personal knowledge. I have a colleague in the House from New Brunswick who has been the recipient of drugs aimed at the treatment of cancer. There are other very serious illnesses, such as AIDS, which these types of drugs are aimed specifically at. Some of these drugs can alleviate the symptoms or even put the disease in remission. The member from New Brunswick tells me that the environment created through this type of legislation allows companies to come to Canada. The rationale behind the original legislation in the 1990s was to allow pharmaceutical companies that come to Canada to be open to the same type of protection found in other countries.

Like many other pieces of legislation, this legislation has been put forward to ensure that Canadian companies can be competitive in the world market, not just in North America and not just with companies here but to see that there is a level of consistency and an invitation to companies to come here and allow them to have the patent protection that they would find in the United States, the United Kingdom or other countries.

The ruling handed down has significant implications. If Canada does not choose to follow the ruling or if it somehow lags behind, there are grave implications. This is the rationale behind encouraging companies to come here and do their research and development. To be the beneficiary of this, we need to have a parity with other countries.

Pharmaceutical companies that are doing research and development, the scientific background and the leg work that leads to the invention of drugs, which later become the subject of generic drugs, must to be encouraged to come to Canada. That is not to suggest that there are not occasions when generic drugs cannot play a significant role. However there is a level of patent benefit that should flow, whether it be for 10, 15 or 20 years.

The continuing argument of the Progressive Conservative Party has been that we need to be consistent. Canada has to be in line with what the WTO has said about the issue. We have to ensure that availability and access is achieved. Our efforts must be placed on lobbying in terms of making a case for access and availability of these very important drugs.

With respect to this issue and with respecting the credibility of where the government is coming from on this particular issue, there is some inconsistency that bears some mentioning.

The government took a very different stand during the initial debate in the 1990s and in particular in 1999 when the matter first came before parliament. It is fair to say that the Minister of Industry himself perhaps set a whole new standard for hypocrisy and probably raised the bar to a whole new level, such that it would make the most blatant hypocrite blush when looking at the record.

The inclusion of the current provisions in the bill were very similar and very consistent with the original position taken by the Progressive Conservatives in the 1980s. We have already heard other members mention this, but let me state what the Minister of Industry had to say initially about this particular issue. In Hansard on April 7, 1987, the current Minister of Industry said:

It is inconceivable to me that Parliament finds it necessary yet again to deal with yet another measure proposed by the Government because it is bound and chained by some ideological dictate which says this kind of Patent Act is necessary.

He went on to expound upon the evils of the direction that the government of day was headed in. He said:

The citizens will need more than generic drugs to recover from the festering wounds which are about to be inflicted on the exposed ankles of Canada's poorest citizens when the Minister sinks his teeth in, past the bone, into the marrow and sucks the life's blood out of Canada's poorest citizens with Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 was of course the forerunner to this.

[Committees Of The House, June 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very straightforward and relevant question from the member for Peterborough. My simple response is this: where has he been? What I have said is that the difficulty I have with this legislation is the cruelty to animals provisions.

I have heard from a number of stakeholders who are concerned, including farmers, those who operate slaughterhouses, those in the trapping and fur industry and those who deal with animals regularly as part of their livelihood. They want to come before committee. That is what would hold up the bill. These people want a legitimate opportunity to come before the committee and put their concerns on the record, which might lead to possible amendments.

I will give the government its due. It has made some amendments to those animal cruelty provisions, which have answered a great deal of what the industry was concerned about, but it is not there yet. The stakeholders want to see some possible amendments. In particular, they want an opportunity to find out if criminal charges might result from practices they are currently carrying out. That is their concern, which is very legitimate.

Similarly, there is the firearms provision. The Progressive Conservative Party has said since the introduction of Bill C-68 that it does not agree with this billion dollars or more that will be accumulated in public costs before this legislation will be in effect. We oppose it. To be consistent, we are not particularly quick to embrace the firearms provisions of this omnibus bill, but that is the point. It is an omnibus bill. It is all or nothing. It is take all of these provisions or take none.

What I am suggesting is that this legislation, but for those two provisions, would pass quickly through the House with the unanimous support of the opposition. The government would get its way. The bill itself, in every other way but for those two provisions, would be passed. Those two provisions would be returned in the fall as stand alone bills. They would have advanced from the point they are at now and would pass quickly in the fall.

That is what could be done instead of carrying over the whole bill and having it spend the summer sitting on the order paper when it could be in effect. The Internet stalking and pornography provisions in the criminal code would take effect by the end of the month and would start to protect young people immediately. We would beef up the sanctions that attach to police officers who are attacked by people in an effort to remove their firearms. It would beef up the stalking provisions in the criminal code and it would toughen the sanctions that attach for those who harass women and children.

That is all I am suggesting: to divide the bill up in a very logical way, remove the controversy, bring those provisions back, and pass the rest of it part and parcel in this legislation before we go home. Let us do something good before we leave instead of just jacking up our own pay.

[Committees Of The House, June 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate those comments from the member for Elk Island. I know that what he has said and has put on the record is very true. It is very consistent with other behaviour on the part of the government. The Liberal government has always portrayed itself in a Janus-like way, saying one thing and doing another. We have seen that consistently since the Liberals came to office. We have seen it on a number of issues: the GST, free trade, Pearson airport. Consistently the government has said one thing and done another.

That is what is happening here in a more nefarious way. The government is bringing in a piece of legislation, saying that it feels this is important, that it is in response to what Canadians want. However, when given the opportunity and basically given a free ride, when the opposition says to pass this legislation quickly, the government says no, that is not really its priority at all. Its priority is bringing in a pay hike, putting members on the spot and somehow trying to set them up in such a way that if they do not vote for it, if they do not lay down and give the government its way they will not get it.

This occasion is one on which the opposition is saying “Let us do a good thing before we go home. Let us bring in a piece of legislation that Canadians can respect and be proud of”.

Why would we shy away from that? Why we would not somehow try to do the right thing, put the proper emphasis on it and proportionately move in a direction Canadians would expect? It is very disappointing and very frustrating for this side of the House when we are giving the government the opportunity to do that. The government members can hang their heads in shame, but I suggest that if we leave here with that bad taste in everyone's mouth then we have a lot to account for and I suspect we will have a long, hot summer.

Again I would hope that the government would reverse itself as it has done on so many occasions, but reverse itself in the right direction. The way the government did it on helicopters, for example, it reversed itself by in some way trying not to take the right contract. Now the Liberals are struggling to do everything they can to avoid buying the same helicopters they cancelled.

Let us try to put some of this partisanship aside and bring in a piece of legislation that Canadians want and Canadians are looking for.

[Committees Of The House, June 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I commend your wisdom of that point. If the hon. government whip who has just joined us would unplug her ears and plug in her earpiece, she would know very clearly that this is extremely relevant and important, and I invite her to listen to my remarks.

What the opposition, and I suggest many in her own government, would like to see happen is for the minister to simply divide up the omnibus bill and remove two rather controversial elements of the legislation. They would be returned in stand alone form and would advance, if she would agree to this, and improve in their standing and speed in which they would pass in the fall. By doing this, it would allow Canadians to have the benefit of this new legislation which would attach specifically to Internet stalking and pornography being sent around the country in this new way. This very nefarious practice could be addressed by bringing in this type of legislation now.

Why would we hesitate? That is the question that we are left to ponder. Why would the Minister of Justice refuse the opportunity to bring forward this very positive legislation supported by the opposition and by her own government? It seems she simply is doing this out of some defiance or stubbornness because it was an idea that originated on the other side of the House.

This is a practice that unfortunately we see far too often. Ideas somehow on this side of the House are lesser ideas or are ideas that somehow should not be given the same credence; the same way the Prime Minister would have Canadians accept that if members of this side of the House in the opposition do not get down on their knees, kiss his ring, ask for contrition and ask that we be given a pay raise, we do not get it.

This perpetrates again this idea that we have two separate classes of members of parliament. We have those who bow down and support the Prime Minister in his every effort and those who do not for some reason. They try to fulfil their role in opposition legitimately by questioning his ideas and vision, if there is one. This is the type of attitude.

We can talk endlessly about ways to modernize parliament. We can talk about procedural change and the way to empower members of the opposition and backbench Liberals. Yet it is this palace guard, pinnacle top-down approach, which we have seen from the Prime Minister in particular, that squashes that. It absolutely goes against any type of individual thought. It is meant entirely to put down anyone that might have an original idea.

If parliament is supposed to improve its lot, if we are to somehow improve the way in which Canadians view the legitimacy and the relevance of the Chamber, that has to change. Unfortunately, we can do everything in our power to try to change procedurally the way that the House works, but as long as this attitude exists, as long as there is this Prime Minister in place, as long as the PMO is going to view any sort of legitimate dissent or questioning of this unfettered power that has now accrued in the PMO, we are not going to see an improvement of this place. We are not going to see members of parliament encouraged to step forward into the breach on occasion against the power and the winds of change.

This is yet another example. We have a very clear, common sense opportunity to bring forward a piece of legislation that would protect children. It would increase the ability of our justice system to deal with individuals who act violently toward police. It would increase the ability of our justice system to respond appropriately and proportionately to those who engage in the very disturbing practice of harassment, of targeting a person and terrorizing his or her life.

The practice of criminal harassment, colloquially known as stalking, is something that has, for reasons that defy logic, taken on a whole new meaning. Quite frequently we see individuals, usually women, subjected to this very disturbing approach that destabilizes a people's lives. It injects itself into their stability or the way in which they can carry on their normal practices.

Again, this is important legislation. This is the type of bill that should be brought forward with great haste. What is the deterrent? What is blocking our ability to do that? It is the Minister of Justice who has the power and is embodied with the responsibility to protect Canadians in the first instance and to take every opportunity to bring forward this type of legislation.

I commend her for bringing it this far, but we are at the goal line. We are just about to bring the legislation forward through the House, on through the other place, into practice and into being law. Yet the minister, defying all logic, defying all reasonable approach by the opposition, and I suggest by lobbying within her own ranks, is refusing to do so, and is refusing to even answer why.

When questions were posed to her in the House of Commons, she pointed the finger in her academic, professorial way and accusatorially told the opposition that it was playing politics. We are playing politics because we want to support a government bill? That is playing politics? We are trying to bring it in so that it will be the practice to protect Canadians. That is playing politics? She is denying the opposition an opportunity to work with government simply because she feels perhaps this idea is coming from a place outside of her political world, a place outside the government's world, because only good ideas come from the government benches. That is inevitably what we are left to ponder. Why can the opposition not originate a good idea? It can, and I think most Canadians recognize that.

The minister of justice has a lot to answer. She seems, for reasons known only to her, to have dug in and said the government will not bring the bill forward. It will not allow Canadians to have this protective, positive legislation in place before the recess, because it has bigger priorities. It has to get pay raises through. It has to somehow improve its own lot and not that of those who would be affected by this type of criminal activity.

This report speaks volumes. This report came about as a result of the same type of action and pattern of arrogance that Canadians sadly have come to expect and have borne witness to during this government's administration. We saw the minister brought before a committee because of this type of action before, yet it does not seem to have had the desired effect. It does not seem to have made any kind of an imprint on the minister's mind as to why she should perhaps listen on occasion to the opposition and why she might somehow open her eyes to the fact that the opposition is not always out for blood. It is not always out to try in a partisan way to embarrass the government. There are occasions where we simply want to try to support the government. This is just one of those occasions.

This is a bill that very clearly would improve the criminal justice system in the country. All it takes is a little compromise. All it takes is the minister's recognition that to give a little she would get a lot. She would get the support of this party, and I am sure other parties in the House, to bring forward Bill C-15 in a new, revamped way that would attach to these provisions and remove some of the controversial provisions.

As I said before, those issues that deal with firearms and cruelty to animals would return in the fall in a stand alone form, advancing from where they currently sit on the order paper. They would move in a more rapid pace when we return in the fall.

It seems so logical, so common sense, yet the minister has chosen to simply ignore this request, which was first brought forward through the government House leader. She was approached in a number of ways and in a number of forms. I know the member for Provencher wrote to her with a very similar straightforward request and was flatly turned down with no reasons given. That is not accountability and that is not good enough.

The Minister of Justice has something to answer to here. Because of this report, there should be a bit of a sword of Damocles hanging over her head. She has exhibited this type of strident attitude before, ignoring the pleas of the opposition and ignoring the wishes of Canadians who predominantly would support any efforts to bring in legislation that would protect them, their children, their homes and their law enforcement community.

This is the reason behind bringing this matter forward. We in the opposition have on occasion limited opportunity to ask the questions and bring forward legitimate issues. The government sets the agenda to a large extent, particularly the legislative agenda and the priorities.

Again we are left to wonder why is it that we would rush headlong into a bill that enhances our pay and our pensions? Why is that the priority before we go home? Why, in the remaining days of parliament, will members of the House and members of the Senate be dealing with that? Surely it is not consistent with what Canadians expect? Surely this is not where we should be focusing our efforts in the remaining time that we have in the Parliament of Canada. If we have an opportunity of choice between taking a pay raise or helping children, surely the answer is obvious. Why the minister of justice cannot see that and embrace that is beyond comprehension.

I commend the Minister of Justice for coming before the committee and making proper apologies. She admitted there was something wrong. She was prepared to make changes to ensure that this type of practice would not occur again. Yet at the very first instance, when an occasion arose where the minister could show a little understanding and willingness to compromise and work with the opposition not against it on behalf of Canadians on a very legitimate issue, her bill, she did not.

This is not something that originates from the opposition side. We simply are saying to the minister “Let us pass the bill. Let us get this legislation through quickly”. We want to work with her and support the legislation because it is such a positive initiative.

However, no, it does not seem like that will happen, and why? We have not heard from the minister yet. I guess the response is just because, much like the Prime Minister, because the government can. Why do animals do certain things to themselves? Because they can. As vulgar as that may sound that appears to be the response we get. There is no response because the power is there to do so and therefore the government is prepared to exercise it.

That is what enrages opposition members. That is what offends Canadians. They see that members of the Parliament of Canada cannot work together on such positive issues as protecting children and improving the way in which our justice system works. What is more fundamental than that? What is more important than that? Surely it is not pay raises. Surely it is not the way in which we can improve our own lot in life. We are elected to come here to bring forward important pieces of legislation that would do very good things.

With that, my time has expired. We would hope that we might hear at some point from the government at least, if not the minister herself, as to why this seemingly indefensible position has been taken by the minister and her department.

[Committees Of The House, June 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, May 9, be concurred in.

This particular report, as many will recall, came about as a result of the actions, not personally on the part of the Minister of Justice but more so within her department and the decision that was taken to release information about Bill C-15 that is currently before the House. The information was provided to members of the media in the form of a briefing to which members of parliament were not invited, nor were members of their staff.

It resulted in a complaint and a point of privilege that was raised on March 14 by the hon. member for Provencher. The question was deemed to be a breach of privilege by the Speaker at the time and it led to a referral to the procedure and House affairs committee where there was some deliberation which resulted in the minister herself and members of the staff appearing before the committee.

It was truly an affront I believe to all members of parliament that the minister in her wisdom and her department decided to exclude members of parliament from information on a bill which can be deemed fairly important and substantive. It takes the form of an omnibus bill, which means there are number of pieces of legislation that are put together in somewhat of an artificial form, I would suggest, in this instance because the amendments to the criminal code are completely unrelated. This is what has caused a lot of concern for members of the opposition and, I suspect, there are members on the government side who are equally uncomfortable with how the bill appears before this Chamber.

I would deem the legislation itself to be very important. It touches upon such issues as stalking and increasing the penalties that would be attached to that. It deals specifically with and creates a new offence for criminal harassment on the Internet and approaches, in a new and innovative way, the manner in which our current criminal procedure can attach to those who choose this nefarious means to harass and to stalk, in particular, children, and the availability of pornography on the Internet and the way that is dispersed.

What really offends members of the Progressive Conservative Party is that we are faced with an opportunity to bring this type of legislation into the House of Commons to pass before the recess. The Minister of Justice, for reasons perhaps known only to her, is dragging her feet on this in denying the House and thereby denying the country the ability to bring the legislation forward.

The opposition stance has been consistent in the past number of weeks which is that within the omnibus bill there are very controversial provisions that deal specifically with cruelty to animals. That is not to suggest for a moment that this type of legislation is not needed as well. It is a matter for which all members of parliament are concerned but there are elements of the bill dealing with cruelty to animals and with firearms that have caused some consternation throughout the country. Members specifically are concerned on behalf of their constituents about how this will affect legitimate professions and practices as it relates to animals, trappers, hunters and cattlemen. Those who are dealing daily, as part of their profession, with animals are very concerned about how these new criminal code provisions and amendments will affect them and their livelihood.

For that reason, there has to be an opportunity to examine in detail and hear from some of these witnesses at that committee. That opportunity would come through committee.

The reality, in terms of how the procedure could unfold, is the minister has been given a very legitimate offer from the opposition to sever out parts of this omnibus bill and bring it back in the fall when the entire bill under the current schedule will be revisited. Certain sections of that bill could be taken out. Then the Internet pornography sections, specifically the stalking provisions that would increase the current criminal sanctions for stalking, could be dealt with. This initiative was taken by Senator Oliver in the other place and is one that he pursued vigorously over the past number of years. Suffice it to say that the Progressive Conservative Party is very supportive of that provision and others.

It would also increase the sentences, specifically creating a new offence for disarming a police officer.

I know, Madam Speaker, you have more than just a passing knowledge and understanding of these types of bills and omnibus pieces of legislation. However, what has happened and what is offensive is the minister has decided to force feed the entire bill to the House of Commons. In a very strident and stubborn way she has said that she refuses to take out those sections which attach controversy and raise the ire of many in the country. Therefore, she is willing to stand pat and let the entire legislation be deferred and stalled on the order paper until next fall.

In plain speak, that is not good enough. Members of the opposition do not accept this. When we look at the priorities of the government, we are left only to wonder as to why we would be rushing headlong toward bringing in a piece of legislation which would increase our remuneration. When we have an opportunity to bring in a very positive piece of legislation that is supported by all members of the opposition, and obviously members of the government, by simply making a very small concession, I would suggest that would lead a piece of legislation—

[Justice, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, by splitting Bill C-15 and removing the very controversial animal cruelty and firearms provisions much good would flow. Children would be given greater protection from demented Internet stalkers. We could have some tough new provisions introduced through the criminal code.

Why has the justice minister dug in her heels and refused to allow quick passage of very positive criminal code amendments? Clearly Canadians know who is playing politics here. It is the very stubborn minister of justice.

[Points Of Order, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my gratitude to the Chair for deferring this matter in order to hear my brief submission, as well as the submission of my learned friend.

I will be focusing in on procedural, as opposed to legal or constitutional arguments, which is where I believe the focus should be on this particular point.

The issues at play are very important and very complex. They go to the very pith and substance of responsible government. The sad part is that it is the failure of the government to act responsibly that has given rise to this bill.

The ruling of Speaker Parent dealt with the content of Bill S-13. Bill S-15, we are told, was drafted to answer some of the procedural objections raised by the Chair. This bill of course we know originated in the Senate. Others have also addressed that point and supporting material has been filed with the Chair.

Speaker Parent's ruling seemed to reject, based on a common sense approach or standard, that the industry could not possibly want something that would hurt its own cause. Yet there is a clear indication that the industry does in fact want this scenario and has asked for it on previous occasions.

The logic seems to be that the industry was possibly in the process of hurting itself, yet the Speaker seemed to think this was implausible. Following that logic, if the industry was in favour of causing harm to children this would be illegal. We very much need to look at what the industry has said in this instance.

The government House leader has suggested that the levy proposed in the bill amounts to a tax and therefore a burden on the people. However there is proof that it is not a tax. If one examines in detail the provisions of the bill one will find that it is not a tax.

Let us look closely. The charge is made not on the population at large but is placed on the industry itself with the proceeds directed specifically and narrowly. The proceeds are to be used completely outside the process of government and, I hasten to add, for a positive benefit: the promotion of health and healthy living of young Canadians. The proceeds are not to be used by the government but are for private use.

There is a precedent for this situation. It is dealt with on page 763 of the 18th edition of Erskine May. At this point I must recognize that Speaker Parent resorted to precedent from the 22nd edition of May.

There is a corollary issue surrounding the issue of competing editions of this volume and the degree to which the house of commons at Westminster continues to indirectly legislate this parliament, but that is best left for another time. I will return to my friendly 18th edition of May where I find compelling precedents that outnumber the modest rule of the 22nd edition.

Speaking of instances where levies have been treated as matters outside the ways and means rules, Erskine May cites 10 instances of bills which oppose levies and levies which have been used for purposes other than direct positive benefits to an industry. The levy can be used for other purposes. Clearly precedents exist both in the jurisdictions of Great Britain and Australia. I submit that this is the case with respect to Bill S-15. I am quoting from page 763 of Erskine May which states:

It may sometimes be difficult to define the limits of an industry, as in the Wheat Bill, 1932 (which was treated as within this rule) under which levies upon importers of flour formed a fund for making payments to growers of wheat. An even more difficult case was the Mineral Workings Bill, 1951, under which a fund fed by contributions from ironstone operators, owners and the Exchequer was set up to restore agriculture land from which iron ore had been extracted. This again was held to be a levy on the operators and owners though it involved some extension of the rule.

The royal recommendation was required on the mineral workings bill because of the contribution required from the exchequer. That was significant in the House as recorded in volume 486 of Hansard , column 1809. There was no royal recommendation required in the instance of the wheat bill. Both bills passed both houses without being treated as taxes.

It is my submission that Bill S-15 has nothing to do with public funds. It distinguishes itself from the traditional definition of tax because there is no reference to public funding. All money collected from the companies would go directly to the foundation and would bypass general revenue. The government would not touch it. The origins and arrivals would not evolve around the government or the public purse. It would in no way impact in terms of a revenue generating source.

Further, it distinguishes itself from any traditional definition of tax because there is no reference to public funding. If one were to look at it from a Canadian analogy or perspective, perhaps one should ask if it would be proper to originate a private bill in the Senate which established an enterprise such as a railroad, a church or an international bridge. In that legislation the enterprises were given the duty to carry out certain objectives and in return the right to make enforceable charges upon their clientele.

That is the situation that applies in this instance. There is a willing customer and a willing vendor seeking the right to carry out an enterprise under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.

The Speaker knows that private members' bills can and indeed regularly originate in the Senate. All sorts of special conditions and powers are granted to those private situations. When a bill arrives here from the Senate, the House does not look into the question of how the Senate views the bill. It arrives here not as a Senate public bill or a Senate private bill, but rather as a bill passed by the Senate to which the concurrence of the House of Commons is requested.

If the House is to restrict the right of the Senate to send us private bills which contain financial powers for the applicants, there will be a significant problem for canals and international bridges that levy tolls and for churches and other bodies established under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I thank you again for facilitating my contribution to this procedural issue. As you have said, it is an important issue for the public to understand. The political issue is not one over which you have any influence. You are acting as referee on questions of compliance within the rules of the Chamber. All members understand and appreciate your duties in that regard.