Does the President of Treasury Board realize that, if he had done his job properly, if the government had managed the taxpayers' money properly, it would have saved almost half the money it swiped from the UI fund surplus?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I myself met with the auditor general yesterday morning for a briefing on his report.
He pointed out to me once again that his report was essentially positive and optimistic. He also indicated that for the first time he could say there was improvement in nearly every area. Perhaps it is coming about a bit more slowly than he would have liked, but the situation is improving.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr. Speaker, that is the problem we run into with this government. Blinded by his own arrogance, it is impossible for the President of Treasury Board to admit his errors with humility. He simply cannot do it. Two billion and a half is nothing to sneeze at.
The auditor general has estimated that the government could have saved up to $1.25 billion just by managing its stocks better. How can the President of Treasury Board be boasting about putting public finances in order, when his neglecting to do an item-by-item examination of government expenditures has resulted, for Public Works and Government Services alone, in losses amounting to $1.25 billion?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is certain that there is always room for improvement in all questions relating to management, whether in the private sector or in government. However, the federal government has implemented two years ago a comprehensive program review which the auditor general found to be excellent.
Yes, there are problems with certain aspects of our management. In order to give a clearer picture of the tone of the auditor general's report, in the very area referred to by the leader of the opposition, stock management, here is what the auditor general said in his report: ``We are encouraged by initiatives taken by the departments and currently in place. Major efforts are now under way in some organizations which have reviewed and simplified their policies and now have a clearer definition of their role, their responsibilities and their expenditures. We draw particular attention to the efforts made to capitalize many items which were previously incorrectly recorded under stock management''.
(1420)
You can see that the auditor general himself supports our efforts.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr. Speaker, I used to be a teacher, and I have had students like the minister, who justified getting 6 per cent on an exam by saying that they had improved a great deal since last time, when they got zero. That is not good enough.
It is not good enough because, while the government is claiming to have done this exercise with great conscientiousness, a great deal of work, at the same time the Minister of National Defence, and former Minister of Human Resources, was cutting benefits to all of Canada's unemployed. While he was making those cuts, the President of Treasury Board was calmly examining expenditures, and another $2.5 billion were wasted.
The government has overspent the information technologies budget by $300 million. How can the President of Treasury Board, who is responsible for good government administration, justify such a terrible performance in his own department, having gone more than 30 per cent over budget?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to one area, information technology, which is currently being developed and which is rife with problems for all governments, whatever the country, here or in the United States.
At this time we are busy trying to fine tune information systems so as to decrease the cost overages which sometimes occur.
In order to place the words of the Leader of the Opposition in proper perspective I refer you to what the auditor general had to say: ``Our office-the office of the auditor general-supports the use of information technologies in order to control costs and improve services, and we endorse the efforts of the Treasury Board Secretariat to develop an improved framework for managing information and technology projects''.
This morning, the auditor general discussed environmental issues. Regarding the 5,000 contaminated federal sites, the auditor general expressed his concern about the fact that the government was still unable to assess the health, safety and environmental risks and costs.
Considering that according to certain preliminary estimates, cost would total $2 billion, not including the cost related to radioactive waste, and also considering that the public's health is at stake, when will the Deputy Prime Minister see to it that her government proceeds with the assessment requested by the auditor general?
(1425)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general made it clear, in referring to contamination problems which depend a lot on modern technology, that he wanted us to make a more exhaustive list of contaminated sites and the costs involved in cleaning up those sites.
That is exactly what we are doing now. Many departments have already started to compile these lists. It is sometimes very difficult to estimate the costs, but we are now setting up the requisite lists, with a description of the sites and estimates.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the government's mellow mood to talk about radioactive waste. For five years, the auditor general has accused Atomic Energy of Canada Limited of failing to declare its environmental liabilities in its financial statements. And for five years, AECL has ignored repeated requests by the auditor general.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to promise, on behalf of the government, that she will urge AECL to act quickly on the repeated requests of the auditor general that AECL declare its environmental liabilities in its financial statements?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Let me assure him that AECL takes the comments of the auditor general as it relates to radioactive waste very seriously. A few weeks ago I met with the auditor general. I have discussed his concerns with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and working together we are going to provide a solution to this problem in the very near future.
Surely it is important to this House that Canadian Airlines not only survives but that it is prosperous for the benefit of its workers, its investors and the travelling public.
We are all well aware that the Canadian government's balance sheet is worse than Canadian's, but one constructive thing the
federal government can do to help is to ensure that Canadian Airlines operates on a level playing field both at home and abroad.
Reform Party says no to government bailouts but we say no to federal government inaction.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. What is this government doing to ensure a level playing field for Canadian Airlines International at home and abroad?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is saying the same line it has been saying for the last month. Canadian Airlines has to restructure in order to get on firm ground, in order to become a profitable company, in order to maximize its opportunities in this deregulated industry, in order to succeed. Quite frankly the government is not going to go there with a cheque.
The minister is there now facilitating discussions, doing everything he can, along with the Ministry of Transport, to see Canadian become a strong airline, along with Air Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I assume that in that answer somewhere the government is in favour of a level playing field for Canadian at home and abroad. It is one of the things it can do.
We are wondering if there is not something the government can do in a practical sense to work out that commitment. One of the best ways for the federal government to make Canadian carriers more competitive is to cut the federal tax on fuel which costs them about $95 million a year, $32 million for Canadian alone.
The transportation minister said on Friday that he was open to lowering the federal tax on fuel and that he had had discussions with the Minister of Finance about it.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he lower the federal tax on aviation fuel and if so, by how much?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has indicated that everything except deregulation is on the table. Once Canadian Airlines has restructured, he will come together with the company and the Canadian employees who work for the six unions, once they have become stable, and consider any request that Canadian Airlines has to make.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): As the member mentions, Canadian Airlines has put several restructuring proposals on the table and four of its six unions are now on side. Two of the largest unions, as the member knows, the CAW and CUPE, still have some concerns, and that is fine. What concerns us is that so far they have made no commitment to let their membership vote on the company's proposals.
(1430)
Not just 16,000 jobs are at stake, but the security of 16,000 families with homes and mortgages and bills to pay. Canadian employees should have every right to have a say directly in a vote on their own future.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Will the government guarantee that every employee of Canadian will be able to vote on the company's restructuring proposals?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the hon. member's comments because they are most welcome.
The minister said yesterday while he was in Richmond that great contributions were made by the workforce at Canadian. They are great people and they run a good airline. The trouble is the airline is not profitable. It lost $1.2 billion over the last 10 years.
The addition I would like to make to the hon. member's question is that the leadership of the Canadian Auto Workers and CUPE have forgotten that it is not just the employees at Canadian Airlines who are taxpayers. The government also has a responsibility to look after the interests of all Canadian taxpayers: in my riding, the member's riding and every riding in the country. It has to ensure that their investment is looked after and that they are protected as well.
That is why we are encouraged and looking forward to the restructuring plan of Canadian. In that way the Canadian taxpayers are looked after as well as the 16,500 employees of Canadian of whom the hon. member speaks.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister stated in this House that her government was legally obliged to withhold the documents sought by the Krever commission. Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act sets out no such obligation. Her own minister of justice in fact said it was possible to obtain documents from the years 1980 to 1984 under a special procedure, which involves applying to the Prime Minister of the time, namely, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to undertake all the steps necessary to obtain the required authorizations to finally provide the documents to the Krever commission? In other words, is she prepared to seek the approval of her former leaders, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner, so we may finally know the truth about this tragedy?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the member's remarks, I understand her to say that there is currently a section 39 preventing the present government from revealing events in other cabinets, that of Mr. Mulroney and others.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure whereby the government may shed some light on the contaminated blood scandal, as her colleague the minister of justice clearly stated.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether her government is refusing to act or whether former Prime Ministers Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner are refusing to release the documents sought by Mr. Justice Krever?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat what I said yesterday in the House, which is, that section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act does not allow the present government to release confidential information concerning past governments including that of Mr. Mulroney and previous ones.
The government extracts $95 million a year in federal fuel taxes from Canadian aviation companies, an input tax that was supposed to be taken away when the goods and services tax was introduced.
(1435 )
If the government is so concerned about Canadian taxpayers and Canadian jobs, why does it continue to extract this money from an industry that is in financial trouble?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to circumvent or just forget all about the real problem at Canadian Airlines.
Canadian Airlines is not making a profit. Canadian Airlines has to restructure. The people of Canada had to adjust to tough economic conditions by restructuring. Canadian Airlines has to do the same.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is fine to say that Canadian Airlines has to restructure but there should be some light at the end of the tunnel. There should not be a government waiting there with their tax barrel to fill it back up again at aviation's expense.
Since the hon. member, in answer to a previous question, stated that he believes that all Canadian's employees should be entitled to vote, what exactly is the government doing to ensure that will happen?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people who are members of CUPE and the CAW have to talk to their leadership and say: ``We have heard what you have had to say. We have listened to your advice. Now we would like to put it to a vote''. I think this is an issue that has to take place between the union membership and its leadership.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice explained his inaction in the matter of casinos on international cruises by saying we would have to await a request from the Government of Quebec. However, in 1995, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a bill in this regard and, on February 27, the Quebec justice minister did indeed make an official request in this regard in a letter to his federal counterpart.
How could the minister say yesterday that he had not received an official request from the Quebec minister of justice in this regard? Is the minister telling tales, or does he not know what is going on?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I was in error.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, the record will have to show for the first time, as my hon. friends know, I was in error. The fact is I did receive a letter from the minister in Quebec. He made that request. I have been reminded that legislation has been passed and a request has been made to change the Criminal Code.
I have also learned that consultations with the cruise ship industry have begun. Shortly we will be consulting with the provinces and territories and other interested parties. In view of the hon. member's interest in this subject I will see to it that he is kept abreast of those consultations.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister must probably remember that his colleague in industry wrote him in 1994 recommending an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit the opening of casinos.
I am sure he remembers now. There was a letter to this effect, and we have a copy.
Given that a number of jobs are at stake in the greater Quebec City region and that there is a consensus, when will the minister act?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is much interest in this subject not only from the minister of the Government of Quebec but also members of my caucus have raised it with me from time to time in connection with cruise ships on other waterways in Canada.
It is for that reason discussions have been initiated with the cruise ship industry. It is our intention to consult with provincial governments in various parts of the country where this issue arises. We will look at all four corners of the issue and determine whether it is in the public interest to bring forward changes to the Criminal Code.
(1440 )
The Liberals campaigned on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs for all Canadians. At first they said 100,000 new jobs, then they said 100,000 new temporary jobs and then they said just 100,000 temporary jobs most of which we already have.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Since unemployment is back to 10 per cent and the infrastructure program has achieved so little, will the minister guarantee that there will be no infrastructure sequel, a program that has ended up costing so much for so little?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure project has met with a series of successes. The auditor general mentioned some of them in his report.
When we are spending $6 billion on thousands and thousands of projects, it is inevitable that some projects will have been badly chosen and some of the management may have been wrong. Compared to the private sector, I am sure that the government did well. That will be seen if one asks any municipality in the country.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we know the golf course did well but we cannot all get on to the same golf course. That is the problem. All Canadians need to benefit from government programs. A tax cut would have been a much better long term solution. A tax cut would have put money in the hands of every Canadian rather than in the hands of a few golfers and a few skiers. We need a fresh start.
If the President of the Treasury Board wants real jobs, well-producing, tax paying and family enhancing jobs, which are what Canadians also want, will he admit that a tax cut would have been far better than any infrastructure program, past, present or future?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that all these infrastructure projects were there to create construction jobs at a time when the rate of unemployment in that field was close to 20 per cent.
I also have a list which indicates that in the riding of St. Albert, which happens to be the riding of the member, 41 projects have been implemented, over $20 million has been spent and 350 jobs have been created. Will the hon. member now tell me that it was not worth our while to create these jobs in his riding?
When will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration put an end to the kind of practices and abuse unworthy of a democratic country that are committed by her officers when dealing with Algerian nationals seeking asylum?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I noticed the coalition held a press conference yesterday, which was attended by the hon. member for Bourassa. I read the summaries in the papers, but unfortunately, the coalition did not advise the minister, and has yet to advise the minister directly of these very serious allegations about the behaviour of certain immigration officers.
I would urge everyone, including the hon. member for Bourassa who joined this group, to communicate to the minister any details of the very serious allegations being made against the staff of the Department of Immigration.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has on several occasions advised the minister of this behaviour.
(1445)
The president of the world antifascist league, who lives in her riding, called before the conference to let her staff know they were going to have this press conference.
It is pretty obvious that in Algeria we are seeing what to all intents and purposes is a civil war. That being said, will the minister respond positively to repeated requests from the Bloc Quebecois to suspend the deportation of Algerian nationals?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after this press conference, I asked department officials to meet the coalition in order to obtain further details of their very serious allegations. If these allegations are founded, we will act accordingly.
As for sending people back to Algeria, each case is carefully examined before a decision is made.
Despite efforts by the department or department officials in recent days, a strike has been unavoidable. The public transit strike in Ottawa-Carleton has been raging for two days now.
I would like to know what avenues are open to the government and which of these avenues the government intends to follow to promote a settlement of this dispute and a resumption of services to the community.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, mediation sessions resumed last night and continued through the night and into today as well.
The best collective agreement is a negotiated one. I encourage the parties to use the services of the mediator they asked me to appoint and whom I appointed immediately last week. I hope that negotiations will continue and that the dispute will be resolved as soon as possible.
Repeatedly the Minister of Finance has stood in this place and said that he has not increased personal income taxes but that is not what the accountants at Peat Marwick are saying. The accountants at Peat Marwick are saying that since 1988, people with an income of $35,000 have had a personal income tax hike of $735.
Will the minister admit that Canadians have suffered a personal income tax hike each and every year that the government has been in power due to the government's decision to continue the deindexation of income tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know it has been so wonderful having us in office that it seems like we have been here a lot longer but we have only been in office since 1993. In fact, the inflation creep to which the hon. member refers was put in place by the previous government in 1985.
If we look at the increase in revenues anticipated between 1993-94 when we took office and 1997-98 of some $23 billion, $17 billion of that is due to increased economic activity. Over $2.2 billion is due to the closing of loopholes, the vast majority of which the hon. member and his party would like to see stay in place, but we closed them.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we get after this tax creep. Enough of the weasel words-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, this House is starting to get a little bit creepy. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.
(1450 )
Mr. Solberg: Unlike the finance minister, Reform recognizes the unfairness of this inflation tax. That is why we have decided to increase the basic personal exemption to $7,900. It would make up for this back door tax hike.
Will the finance minister admit in the face of all the evidence that the government has indeed raised taxes every year since it has been in power? Will he continue to push for the deindexation of income tax, a decision that will cost taxpayers hundreds of dollars a year in new taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the hon. member go back and look at what Reformers suggested. The main focus of their tax reduction was the elimination of the higher income surtax. It had nothing to do with helping people at the lower end of the income scale.
What Reformers are really talking about is a massive tax increase to be imposed by the provinces. They would eliminate equalization payments in Saskatchewan and in Nova Scotia. They would increase health care costs by cutting three and a half to four billion dollars out of the Canada health and social transfer. What they would really do is bring in a short term tax decrease now which would impose a massive tax increase on the next generation, and that is simply immoral.
[Translation]
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice told us that there was a way the Krever commission could have access to the documents it is requesting for the 1980-84 period. What the Minister of Justice told us yesterday is that the Privy Council, on the one hand, was not bound by section 39 to prevent the release of the documents in question and that, on the other hand, it had to obtain the consent of then Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau and John Turner.
I therefore ask the Minister of Justice, who seems to know about these matters, if he stands by his statement and if indeed the Krever commission could gain access to these documents, should the government take the action he suggested yesterday by not applying section 39 and asking Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner for their consent.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are both right. The section in the evidence act quite clearly provides that documents including cabinet documents are subject to privilege. They are secret. The custodian of those documents is the Clerk of the Privy Council.
The only way those documents can be released, and this has happened on rare occasions in the past, is with the agreement of the former prime ministers and the current government. The former prime ministers are former Prime Minister Mulroney and former Prime Minister Trudeau. The procedure requires the consent of those former prime ministers before any disclosure can be made. That process is in the hands of the Clerk of the Privy Council.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is not a memory problem. He just said so. Therefore, the Deputy Prime Minister must have heard what the Minister of Justice said.
Is it the government's intention to ask for the consent of former Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner to release these documents, so that the Krever commission can proceed with its work and bring justice to the victims who received tainted blood? Will the government stand up and ask the former Prime Ministers to do the same?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said, and the Minister of Justice said the same thing, is that there is a section in the Evidence Act, section 39, that prevents this government from disclosing confidences entrusted with previous governments.
That said, the Prime Minister did state in this House last week that he would do everything he could to shed light on this whole issue. It is clear that the only time anything like this happened was after criminal charges were brought against a minister of the crown.
The matter is already in the hands of Privy Council Clerk Jocelyne Bourgon. She is looking into the possibility of following this procedure in the absence of criminal charges.
[English]
The minister wants Canadians to believe he stands for protecting the environment but Canadians are rather concerned with the sale of the Candu reactors to China because no environmental assessment has been done. It even looks like the government is going to get sued on this point.
Can the minister explain why a project of this nature that is funded by the government and is carried out by federal authority does not need a federal environmental assessment?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question was answered previously by the Minister for International Trade.
To further elaborate for the hon. member, I would like to point out that the sale of the Candu reactors is being financed by crown corporations outside Canada. We have no intention under those rules, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to require that the Canadian rules be applied in other countries.
We know that the Candu itself is a safe reactor. It has been tested in our own concerns. China itself has signed all of the proper international safeguards and has done its own assessment. When we sell abroad we abide by the rules abroad. That is the basis by which we recognize the whole question of extraterritoriality. We do not want to apply that to other countries.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on November 7 the environment minister tabled orders in council for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act so federal projects outside Canada are subject to an environmental review, except crown corporations, despite a Liberal promise to promote sustainable development throughout the world.
Will the minister explain why he purposely did not go the distance to table the necessary regulations to make crown corporations like Atomic Energy of Canada subject to environmental assessments?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like the enthusiasm of newfound converts. I recall quite distinctly not so long ago that the member along with all members of his party voted against the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Now he is claiming it as being sacred and sacrosanct. They cannot have it both ways.
I would point out for the member's education and edification that under the new regulations there are requirements for screening to take place for outside projects that can be triggered by the minister responsible. We are ensuring that there is a process in place.
The hon. member might want to go back to his own members with the same enthusiasm to support proper Canadian Environmental Assessment Act procedures in Canada.
Last week the minister announced changes to the Income Tax Act to prevent the use of certain tax shelters. These shelters have been used by the foreign film industry in British Columbia to raise funds for productions in my province.
Did the minister take into account the adverse effects these changes will have on the film industry in B.C.?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): The answer to the question is yes, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly do understand the interest and the concern of the hon. member in posing this question. Foreign films are produced in Canada for a variety of reasons including the expertise and efficiency of Canadian production crews and more favourable production costs.
The changes we have brought about obviously do not change these fundamental factors. They simply make sure that those applying for the shelters match their expenses with their revenues. As the hon. member understands, these tax incentives are for public policy purposes and what we want to do is make sure that there is no leakage.
The measures in the employment insurance reform that will have the most serious impact on the unemployed are going to be implemented in early January. However, not only are the regulations required to implement the act not ready, but there is also every indication that employment centre personnel, officers and managers will not get any training or guidelines before the act comes into effect.
Could the minister tell us when the regulations required to implement the new part of the employment insurance legislation will be ready and available?
(1500)
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently looked at this issue and I thank the hon. member for Mercier for her interest in it. I looked, among other things, at some interpretation documents concerning the act that will ensure everyone can properly inform beneficiaries in the coming weeks, since we are, of course, perfectly aware of the importance of the new interpretation.
These documents are being prepared. They are already circulating in a number of employment centres.
Which minister will stand up today to defend government secrecy over public safety?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the member would extrapolate that I have any interest whatsoever in protecting Brian Mulroney.
I want to ask the Minister of Health whether he expects, or is working on the Minister of Finance in order to obtain, or whatever may be the case in Liberal circles, in order that another Liberal promise might be kept. Seventy-four per cent of Canadians would like them to keep the promise to do something about reducing the patent protection of drugs in order to bring down the cost of drugs
and save our health care system. That was a Liberal promise. It is one of the problems with our health care system. When is the Minister of Health going to act on that?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will be aware that the Patent Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry.
The hon. member should be aware that under the provisions of the Patent Act and particularly the Patented Medicines Review Board the companies which are responsible thereto have lived up to their commitments in terms of keeping the price below the CPI. They have also lived up to their commitments with regard to the moneys they had earmarked for the purposes of research in this country. So on those two points they have lived up to their commitments.
However, the hon. member is correct that drug pricing in this country is all too high in many jurisdictions and I hope that we can co-operate with the provinces, including the province of Saskatchewan, where they might delegate the powers to the Patented Medicines Review Board so that we might have a full study of pricing both for generic and brand names in this country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.