Manitoba Hansard — 15 April 1987 (Sitting 29, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-29

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA Wednesday, 15 April, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phil lips : Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pr esenting Reports by Standing and Sp ecial Commit tees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speak er. � I'd like to table the Actuarial Report on the Public Service Group Insurance Fund as of Dece mber 31, 1985. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. J. DOWNEY introduced, by leave, Bill No. 16,

An Act to Amend The Electoral Divisions Act. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speak er, I'd like to make a few comments in explanation of the reason for the requested amendment.

Not too long ago we had a report from Statistics Canada indicating that 60 percent of the mun icipalities in Manitoba were losing residents, that tnere is a reduction in rural population, and that with the Electoral Bounda ries Division being reassessed before the next election, I feel it's extremely important that rural people have someone who understands the normal trade patterns, the school division districts and the hospital districts. There are many commun ities of interest which membe rs of the Legislature have to repres ent.

I feel th at the office, or the President of the Union of Mun icipalities, would have a good understanding of those communities of interest, of the work of rural ML A's, and to have that individual, or an individual holding that office, sitting as one of the commi ssioners would be extremely helpful to give the kind of proper repres entation that is needed for our rural commun ities. I would hope that the Government of the Day would see fit to support such an important amendment to that act. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. A. DRIEDGER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 17,

An Act to Amend The Muni cipal Assessment Act (2). 1023 MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . According to

Section 85, I'd like to just make a brief explanation to the House about the bill. This bill stems from the commitment that was made by the then Minis ter of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Anstett, regarding the property taxation, the removal ther eof, for bible colleges. During the debate, we' ll clarify exactly what has happened, but it was a commitment that was made by the then Minister and, as a result, this is why the bill is being presented. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct attention of honourable members to the galler y, where we have 25 students from Grade 11 from the El mwood High School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Gerald Hays and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Elmwood. We have 25 students from Grade 6 from the lnks ter School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Vicky Adams, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minis ter of Finance.

We have 27 students from Grade 5 from the Brock Corydon School, under the direction of Ms. Sandra Bignell, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for River Heights. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Sugar beet industry - Kleysen Transport Ltd. MADASPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the First Minis ter.

We are within days, if not hours, of the prospect of losing a $90 million indus try to Manitoba, namely, the sugar industry; one which would see our province lose the emplo yment of 68 in the trucking industry; 93 permanent positions at Manitoba Sugar; 150 part-time positions at Manitoba Sugar; 400 producers, active farm producers of sugar beets, all having their livelihoods destroyed as a result of the stubborn refusal of this government to participate in a tripartite stabilization agreement with Ottawa. My question to the First Minister is: Has he been informed that the loss of this particular industry to

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 Manitoba would, in fact, result in the direct loss from only one contract, the sugar haul contract by Kleys en's, the direct loss of $200,000 in revenue to the Provincial Government, not including the income taxes paid by those individuals who draw their livelihood from the industry? Has he been informed of that? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agricultur e. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, this whole issue of stubbor nness is really an issue of unfairness, and I wish to indicate to my honourable friend that, as always, he has overstated the case.

Last year, the sugar beet indus try in this province, farm gate value was some $13 million in 1985, $6 million of which was taxpayers' support. Madam Speaker, this industry was the heaviest subsid ized indus try of any commodity in this province. If we were to put similar subsidies to any other industry, we would have to increase the support to hog producers, for example, 35 times. Madam Speaker, we are attempting to arrange a meeting with the Minister of State for the Wheat Board, based on his statements today in the press where he appeared to wave the possibili ty of Ottawa picking up the entire deficit.

We're encouraged by that movement, Madam Speaker, based on the condition that in 1985 they indicated to us that there would no longer be a requirement for the province to put mone y into the sugar beet industry. Madam Speaker, he now says that the legislation passed in June of 1985, only one month after we made the agreement, now prevents him from doing that. Either he misrepresented those facts to us in May or he deli berately and falsely, which I know all the legislation does is enable the Federal Government to go into tripartite; either that or he misrepresented the case, Madam Speaker. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speak er, I find it incredible that the First Minis ter will sit mute and let all of this happen around him and allow all the workers and all of the investment and all of the economic benefit go down the drain and not be so concerned . MADAM SPEAKER: Question, question. MR. G. FILMON: .. . to even answer a question.

Madam Speaker, my question to the First Minister, and I hope that the First Minister will have the courage to answer a question on this issue, is: Has he been informed that Kleysen Transport, only one of the contractors involved in the sugar indus try, has indicated that it is in the process of making a final decision on the investment of $1. 8 million of capital expenditure on a new head office and terminal facility here in Manitoba, a decision that will be cancelled should the sugar industry go down the tube as a result of the negligenc e of his government in not signing the tripartite agreement?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Mi nister of Indus try, Trade and Technol ogy. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. While the people opposite are cackling, I'd like to inform the people of Manitoba that last evening I met with a representative of Kleysen for several hours to discuss the sugar beet indus try, a representative of Kleysen, as well as the reeves and mayors of areas in all of southern Manitoba - Wink ler, Altona, Steinbach and so on - and the suggestion that somehow we're not concerned about what is going on there is something that Kleysen and those people would strenuously object to.

They und erstand that it is something tha t no Provincial Government in history has been expected to do in the past, tha t it has been the Federal Government, since John Diefenbak er, who has been prepared to subsid ize sugar in Canada and in Manitoba. They und erstand and were shock ed.

The representative from Kleysen last night, Madam Speaker, was shocked when he received a copy of the telex from Mayer saying unequ ivocally that, after the 1985 crop year, Manitoba would not be required to contribute to sugar and, notwithstanding that, Madam Speaker, I pointed out that we are contributing our proposal to contribute for the future, is a stronger commitment as a proportion of farm revenue for sugar beets than for any other commodity in Manitoba. They were quite surprised and grateful for our activity. here and they were hoping that we continue, and that's why we'r e meeting again with Mr. Mayer.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I received this commun ication from Kleysen 's today after they had spoken, and acknowledged that they had spoken, to the Minister, so I would say that they continue to be concerned about the lack of action. My further question to the Prem ier, Madam Speaker, the mute Premier who sits there unwilling and unable to respond to our concerns . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. May I remind the honourable member that references to a Minister's refusal to answer a question are not in order.

Sugar beet industry - tripartite agreement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Spea ker, I guess I really don't have to bring that to public attention, the public will be aware of it.

Madam Speaker , my question to the Premier is: Given that we are facing a very serious time deadline, Parliament will recess tomorrow until the 27th of April, tom orrow Al berta will be signing the Tripartite Stabiliz ation Agreement; in view of the fact that the union at the Manitoba sugar refinery; in view of the fact that Keystone Agricultural Producers; in view of the fact that the sugar beet producers; in view of the fact that the Federal Government have all indicated that they support the tripartite approach to stabili zation of the sugar indus try in Manitoba, will the Premier not 1024

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 stand up for Manitobans, for the sugar beet producers of Manitoba, for indeed the enti re sugar industry of Manitoba, and sign that agreement and stop his bickering with Ottawa, and stop his refusal to deal openly and fairly with the sugar industry of this province, and insure that we save the jobs and the industry for Manitoba now? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first , if indeed Parliament, as I understand is ad journing, this will give Mr.

Mayer an opportunity of returning to the Province of Manitoba and to conduct appropriate discussions with the suga r beet producers and with the business es that are affected and the workers that are affected , includi ng the Minister of Ag riculture of the Province of Manitoba, that only a few moments ago indicated that he welcomed an overture by way of a press commentary that the Minister was prepared to have further discussions insofar as amending the federal proposal.

Madam Speaker, what is more than passing strange is that we have a Provincial Conservative Opposition in this province that is not standing up for Manitoba , is not standing up for the sugar beet producers of this province, is not standing up for the businesses of this prov ince , but are more interested in negotiating and attempting to save face for their federal Conservative cousins in Ottawa. Madam Speaker, let the Conservative Opposition in this province join forces to give a clear signal to Charlie Mayer, to the Federal Government, that a commitment is a commitment, and that commitment should be lived up to.

Let the Federal Conservatives hear from the Provincial Conservatives what would be a clear, unequivocal message, rather than a kissing match between the federal and provincial parties. Sugar beet industry - preservation of jobs MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I hope that Hansard will get that one right.

Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Keystone ✓ Agricultural Producers agree with the position of this Opposition; in view of the fact that the sugar beet producers agree with the position of this Opposition; in view of the fact that the union at the Manitoba Sugar Refinery agrees with the position of this Opposition Party; and in view of the fact that the farmers, the workers, the truckers, and all of those whose livelihood depends on the sugar industry in Manitoba, agree with the Tripartite Stabilization Agreement; will this Premier now, once and for all, give up his stubborn insistence to not enter into the agreement and stand up for the workers of Manitoba , and stand up for .

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That question is repetitious . The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. MADAM SPEAKER : That question is repetitious. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I would ask you to read Hansard . That question is a different question from any of the previous ones I've asked . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leade r on the point of order? HON. J. COWAN: On the point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that he is not , nor is any member of this Chamber, to challenge a suggestion or a ruling of the Chair, and I would ask him, Madam Speaker , to withdraw any implication in that statement that . . . MR. F. JOHNSTON: He's just trying to create confusion, that's it. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: Well, the Member for Sturgeon Creek says I'm just trying to create confusion and , with him, it's too easy a task to even take on in that manner. However .. . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please.

The Honourable Government House Leader on the point of order. HON. J. COWAN: . . . the challenge would be to try to deal with the confusion that members opposite are trying to create, Madam Speaker, but the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition very clearly gave an indication that he was not accepting your ruling and all members of this House have to accept rulings without question . I would ask him to do so, as per the Rules of this Legislature . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on the point of order. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , despite the impression that is being created by the Government House Leader in trying to ensure that the questions are not asked as they ought to be asked in this House, I clearly did not challenge your ruling. I clearly did as that member, that Government House member, did on three occasions last week, ask you simply to peruse Hansard. That's the only request I made and I challenge him to withdraw that imputation that I have, in any way, challenged your ruling. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please! Beauchesne Citation 357(

d) says: "A question should not repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused." Whether the 1025

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 question is identical to a previous question is not the point; the point is that it should not be a repetition in subs tance and, ther efore, I rule the Honourable Leader of the Opposition's question out of order . Sugar beet industry - priority of Premier MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , my question to the First Minister is: Is his priority to spend the equivalent of the $300,000 that would be needed to save the sugar beet industry this year on public relations and political support staff, rather than to insure that an industry remain in Manitoba that involves 68 jobs in trucking; that involves 93 permanent jobs at Manitoba Sugar; that involves 15 0 part-time jobs at Manitoba Sugar; that involves the livelihood of 400 sugar beet producers; is his priority to have seven more public relations people on his staff and not save th e sugar ind ustry of Manitoba?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: I' ve never heard such dr ivel, regrettably. If the honourable member wants to talk about seven commun icators, maybe we could find $250,000 or $300,000 in Ottawa in Dalton Camp's remuneration honorarium from the Federal Government.

Mada m Speak er, regrettab ly, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't appear to have li stened carefully to the information provided to him day by day, to repet itious qu es ti ons, and maybe that's why the questions are so repetitious; because if the Leader of the Opposition had lis tened carefully, the Leader of the Opposition would have heard from the Minister of Agriculture that we have commi tted ourselves to put up $3 1 5,000 for each of 10 years, for a total of $3 million and some.

The Minister of Agriculture has, at least on one, two, thr ee, four, countless occasions, advised the Leader of the Opposition to that, and the Leader of the Opposition continues, regrettably, Madam Speaker, to have neglected or failed to comprehend that which he is hearing. It would be much more productive for the Leader of the Opposition to listen, and then to respond by contacting his federal friends in Ottawa. Sugar beet industry - loss of provincial income tax revenue MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Would he be willing to sh are this information with the House as to how much the provincial revenue will be in taxes from 93 full-time emplo yees and 15 0 part time empl oyees at Manitoba Sugar Company? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll have to take that question as notice. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Madam Speak er, to the same Minister , I'm sure he maybe will take this one then also as notice, but I'l l pose it anyhow. How much provincial income tax will be lost when 68 jobs in the trucking indus try are lost? How much provincial revenue will be lost?

HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Madam Spea ker, firstl y, I don't accept the premise that was made in regard to that question, and even if one was, I could certainly tell the member that those amounts would be considerably less than the amount of mone y that the Federal Government is causing this province to spend; whether it's a fact that they've decreased equalization payments; whether or not they've decreased payments, growth payments under EPF; whether or not it's been the decrease in suppor t in areas like sugar beets; whether it's a situation like they tried to offload the Science Place Canada on the Province of Manitoba; a situation where they're saying that they're now giving gifts of airports to provinces so that they have to accept the respo nsibilit ies for those, or whether it's a situation with the Consumers Association of Manitoba where they are saying that the province now defrays the costs of that.

Sugar beet industry - attendance at tripartite meeting MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Ver endr ye with a final supplement ary. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker. No, I would like to pose a new question to the Minister of Agriculture. It has become evident that the Federal Government, th e Federal Department of Agricultur e, has had numerous meetings with Alberta and also with Manitoba in regard to the Tripartite Stabili zation. It has also become evident that our Minister of Agriculture has not attended a single one of those mee tings.

Would the Minister now assure the growers, workers and also this House, that he is willing to contact the Honourable Mr. Charlie Mayer immediately to resolve this problem and sign this Tripartite Agreement? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I want to tell my honourable friend that the day that the issue of sugar beets was being discussed at a Federal-Provincial meeting in St. John's, guess wher e the Honourable Charles Mayer was? He wasn't anywhere to be found, he was somewhere else in Canada when his colleague A MEMBER: Where were you? HON. B.

URUSKI: I was at that meeting, and so was the Minister of Agriculture from Alberta because he was presenting the paper, Madam Speaker. So much for meetings. 1026

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives in Manitoba want us to do is to sign a blank cheque, not an agreem ent. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to sign an agreement that will not call upon the Province of Manitoba to pick up any deficits in the fund. We have already stated that we will contribute more mone y over the term of the agreement, more than the first year calls for, the first-year agreement calls for $240,000 in premiums, our contribution will be $3 1 5,000.00. So let them not stand here and say that we won't sign an agreement. We will sign an agreement but not a blank cheque.

Sugar beet industry - March 30 letter from C. Mayer MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Ve rend rye with a final supplement ary. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I � appreciate that you recognized me on this final question ' to the Honourable Minister of Agricultur e. Has he responded to the March 30 letter which Charlie Mayer sent to him? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , in fact we're in a process of contact ing Mr. Mayer tod ay, but let it be very clear that letter was debated in this House the other night.

Madam Speaker , members opposite alleged that letter contained a counter offer and I challenged every member in this House. There was no counter offer, there was a total rejection, a total and complete rejection of the position put forward by myself in an earlier telex to Mr. Mayer. If there was any willingn ess on behalf of the Federal Government to discuss our proposal, Ma dam Speaker , it certainly was not contained in that letter. Health care estimates - differ from Throne Speech and Budget Address MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speak er.

My question is to the First Minister . Madam Speaker, both in the Speech from the Throne and in the Budget Speech, the government expressed an inc reased commitment to communi ty-based health services like home care assistance, using words like inten sify, priorities and 40 percent increase. But, Madam Speak er, yesterday in Health Care Estimates it became clear that the increase for this fiscal year is not 40 percent, it is 2 percent. Will the First Minister please explain to the House and to the citizens of this province why this information differs from the statements of this government?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I think that, if the honourable mem ber will check, there was an increase by way of Supplementary Warrant ins ofar as health was concerned and I believe also the field of home care. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a supplementar y question to the Minister of Finance. On Budget night, the Minister of Finance stated: "The Budge t proposes a 40 percent $9.6 million incr ease in the home care assistance budget to $33.5 million.

" Did the Minister not know that as a result of Treasury Board approval, as he should, as the Minister of Finance, that the expenditure for 19 86-87 was over $32 million, and why did he use 40 percent as a figure when in fact it should have been 2 percent? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The statements in the Budget documents are correct and they show the incr ease in expenditures year over year, budget over budget. Health programs - gov't commitment MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplementary to the First Minister, Madam Speaker.

Is his government commit ted to an innovative communi ty-based health care program, or are they comm itted to confusing the citizens of this province with flimflam? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I think the only person who is confused is the Honourable Member for River Heights. The figures are very, very clear in the Estim ates ins ofar as community care, included in which is home care. So, Madam Speaker, regrettably the only confusion rests in the mind of the Member for River Heights where it shows very clearly an incr ease from $24 million to $34 million.

That's a 40 percent increase according to my calculations. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: The Minister of Health yes terday said they had in fact spent $32 million in 1986-87. Can the First Minis ter tell me how that is a 40 percent incr ease? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, just so that we can deal with some of the basics, this is a comparison of 40 percent budget over budget. This is a comparison of the details of appropriation insofar as March 31, 1988 is concerned over the year ending March 31, 1987. So that, in fact, in between there was additional spending provided.

Ins ofar as budget over budget, which is the normal method by which the comparisons are made and the reporting is undertaken, I think that would be borne out if the Honourable Member for River Heights would check with the Provincial Auditor . There has been an incr ease of 40 percent, from $24.5 million to $34.3 million, which is approximately 40 percent. Home Care - Special Warrant re overexpenditure MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. 1027

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minis ter of Finance and the chairman of the Tre asury Board. Madam Speak er, when the Mi nister wrote his Budget indicating a 40 percent inc rease in the home care assistance, had the Minister, as chairman of Treasury Board, approved an $8. 16 4 million Special Warrant to cover over expenditur es in home care? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thought that question period was the time to seek information, rather than to regurgitate information that was provided during the Estimate process. Notwithstan ding that, in response to the question, here we have the Conservative Opposition and their Liberal friend trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say you ought not to do comparisons with actual results. When we looked at the actual results, vis-a-vis the deficit, and what is taking place this year; no, they said, well the deficit was only going to be this in terms of the Budg et you brought down so you should be comparing it to that.

You can't have it both ways; you either do one set of comparisons or you do another set of comparisons. MR. D. ORCHARD: When the Minister, since he didn't answer the question that I posed, as chairman of Treasury Board, approved the $8. 16 4 million Special Warrant representing a 33 percent overe xpenditure in home care, did the Minister, as Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, ask why the accou ntability was in a shambles in home care? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member cannot ask questions about the internal workings of a Cabinet comm ittee. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. Civil Service - salary increase reflected in Estimates MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Morris has the floor. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker , the Minister of Finance seems to be leaving a lot of confusion on the record these days. He did yesterd ay, also, in response to a question dealing with the general salary incr ease for the Civil Service of this province, as reflected within the Estimates of this year.

Madam Speaker , given the fact that the present MGEA Agreement ends September this year, can the Minister indicate what level of salary increase is reflected across all departments of government in this year's Estimates? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The level that is reflected in the Estimates is that which is in place at the present time, which is known; and that are the increases, both the general sal ary increases that were put in place last year, and any known incr ement increases.

That is what's contained in the budgets throughout all the departments. Civil Service - general salary increase amount MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, my question was very specific. Can the Minister tell me whether that's 4 percent, 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 or 12? Can he give me a numb er? Can he ident ify, in an absolute term, the increase that is built into this year's Estimates? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I don't have that number, Madam Speak er, because it varies.

It varies department by depar tment, Ma dam Speaker , because some departments may have people that are at the top of the salary range, and will not be getting any increments; in other departments they may have people that are getting increments during the year. So it provides different levels of increases. If the member wants that detail it's available as we go through the Estima tes, department by department, or it certainly will be available when we deal with the Civil Service Commission Estima tes. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health, the other day in Estimates indicated that the incr eased percentage within that department was 8 percent. Can the Minister of Finance tell me whether that's a numb er that is within most departments, or can he not tell me what the general average is across all departments? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I've just answered that question. I indicated that it varies department by department.

The general salary increase across the board is that which was contained in the colle ctive agreement, that provided for an increase based on a formula that is in the current agreement, which is reflected in salaries for departments. In terms of the incr ements, I do not have the information. I'm afraid to admit, if that's a failing, Ma dam Speak er, tha t I do not have the information regarding all government departments and all increments at my fingertips to provide the membe r. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris with a final supplement ary. MR. C.

MANNESS: Can the Minister indicate whether within the 8 percent, used as an example in the Department of Health, whether that also covers a portion of the new agreement that may be entered into 1028

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 in the '87-88 fiscal year , or is half of the wage bill of government, half of the wage incr ease to come after '87 not been reflected in the Estimates as presented to this House? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I would suggest that the Member for Morris talk to the Member for Pembina. I know that there is some friction between the two of them, with respect to their own personal aspirations, but that same question was posed yesterday by the Member for Pembina, was answered yesterday to the Member for Pembina.

So I would suggest that maybe the y should show some cooperation and discussion between the two of them so that they will know what's going on. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker , yesterd ay, in reply to the question, the Minister of Finance said this: "All of the salary costs, as they are known at the present time, are contained in the Estimates." My question, Madam Speaker, are salary estima tes for the new bargaining year, the new contract year, '87- � 88, are they reflected in any measure in the Estimates? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The answer, Madam Speaker, is quite simple, and the answer I gave yes terday is correct.

All of the known salary costs are contained in the Esti mates. You can't put in what you don't know. There is no coll ective agreement in cluded, the re's no negotiations, so you can't put something in that you don't know. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, I can't hear. My question SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Potash mines - new developments MR. M. DOLIN: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

A recent media report notes that, I believe the name of the company is AMAX, has spun off its minerals development company, CANAMAX, and seems to report that their major mineral development program is in Manitoba - and it's the potash development which are expecting to be $3.2 billion - and they point out that recent flooding in Russia has created problems for the potash indus try there. In light of this, could the Minister report have there been any new developments with the development of Manitoba potash and CANAMAX? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urabl e Min ister of Energy and Mines. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker . There cer tainly are some structural changes taking place in the potash indus try with respect to the supply side of potash. There have been problems with flooding in Russian mines, and there have been some problems with flooding in Saskatchewan mines. People are trying to determine what the problems have been attributed to, and it would appear that too much ore was taken out of the mine underground, leaving insufficient supp orts and, as a result, there was some buckling and the mines flooded.

What that is doing is changing the demand-supply equilibrium for potash, and firming up very strongly the prospects for the potash mine in Manitoba. Potash - agreement, Man./Ca namax/lndia MR. D. DOLIN: A supplementary to the same Minister. The same report mentions that CANAMAX is involved in negotiations with banks to provide the financing for this, and the Manitoba Government is also taking an interest in this, and that the Government of India now has an agreement with CANAMAX.

Could the Minister tell me what is the status of that agreement between CANAMA X, the Mani toba Go vernment and the Government of India? HON. W. PARASIUK: The Indian Government is doing the technical homework to carry forward that Letter of Intent to negotiate that agreement to take up to 500,000 tonnes out of a $2 million development, and also to look at the prospect of a 20 percent equity inves tment. That work is proceeding by the Indian Government.

We 're hopeful that when the detailed technical studies are completed in June or July tha t work will be accelerated and that we would be in a position, not only with Indi a, but with the financial communit y, financial institutions and with other prospective investors or buyers, to be making firmer decisions with respect to the development of the potash development over the course of the next year or year-an d-a-half. As we monitor what is taking place on the supply side of potash, because tha t is as important in dete rmining the prospects tor selling the potash in six years, as is the demand growth. MR. M.

DOLIN: As the Minister mentions, on the supply side of potash due to problems in Saska tchewan and USSR, has this speeded up the process and can we expect agreements to be signed earlier than were previously expected? HON. W. PARASIUK: No, what it has done, Madam Speaker, is it has focused more people's attention on the potential of the Manitoba prospect, because it is the world's riche st potash deposit that has not yet been developed into a mine.

We have been timing the technical studies and the feasibility work in such a way, that we would best be in a position to take advantage of the equilibrium position between demand and supply , which we believe will occur some time about 19 92, '93 or '94. (ln terjection)- I just heard the comment from the other side, "precise. " We ll, if you're talking six years in advance, one will probably have a year, a year-and-a half swing but, let me assure you, Madam Speaker, this government is going to be far more careful with respect to its development than the Conser vative Governments across the way have been. 1029

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 Workers Compensation Board - increase in assessment MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Madam Speaker , I will direct my question to the Honourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation.

Under the heading of the Manitoba News Release, "Workers Com pensation Assessment Rises 20 perce nt." The release goes on to say "l arge incr ease in rates at this time might have a negativ e affect on the recovery and job creation, the No. 1 priority of the government." Can the Minister advise whether 93.8 percent is a large increase, an average increase - because that's what one of my constituents received in his Workers Compensation assessment - can the Minis ter advise whether this is a large increase? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mi nister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speak er, I am sure that the Mem ber for Niakwa will recall that when we formed the government in 19 81, we were in receipt of a report from Lampe, which they had commis sioned in 1979. That report stated that there were very little services being deliv ered to the injur ed workers, the widows and their dependants in this province. Since that time, Madam Speak er, we have brought the Workers Compensation Board from the 19th Century to the 20th Centu ry. Many of the services that the injured workers are now receiving they should have been receiving at the time that we did form the gove rnment.

We should also be aware, Madam Speaker , when we formed the government in 19 81, Manitoba's ass essment rates were 89 cents per 100 when the rest of Canada's rates were over $2 a 100. I think that if that government had taken a realistic approach to the increase in the assessment we would be in the position now of where we would not have to be raising the assessment rates at the rate that we have found necessar y. If they had proceeded along the rate of the cost of living, at this time we would not be having an unfunded liabil ity, Madam Speaker . Workers Compensation Board - Report of Review Committee MR. A.

KOVNATS: I'm astounded that I got such an answer to the question that I never asked. I would like to ask my next question to the Honourable First Minis ter, except that when ever I ask him he rips up my pamphlets. I wanted to table this assessment report and I don't want it getting ripped up. But I would ask my supplemen tary question to the same Minister as I previously asked, the Minister respon sible for Workers Compensation. Can the Minister advise whether he has received the report from the Review Committee of the Workers Compensation that was expected here and when will that report be released to the House?

HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speak er, the Member for Springfield seems to want to remind us that in 198 1, when we did form the government, there was no . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, to the specific question on when the Review Committee would be tabling the report, we had hoped to receive a draft copy of the report by this Friday but, unfortuna tely , one of the members of the Review Committee had a death in the family so there has been a delay to the report.

A rough draft of the report will be tabled to me on the 23rd, after whi ch time it would take approximately th ree to four weeks for printing, after which time we will be reviewing the report and we will table it after we've had an opportunity to review it. Workers Compensation Board - action taken to correct mismanagement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa with a final supplementar y. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My final suppl emen tary qu estion is to th e Min ister respo nsible for Workers Compensation.

Can the Minister advise if he is aware of what is contained in the report and has any action been taken to correct the misma nagement, the alleged mismanagement at Workers Compensation, at this point? Has any action been taken to correct the mismanagement at Workers Compensation? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, it would be presumptuous on my part to be saying ther e is any mismanagement going on in the Workers Compensation Board.

A lot of reform has happened over the last several years and we realize that there is a need for more reform, but we will be waiting until the Review Commi ttee, wh ich is made up of the ind ustry representatives, labour representatives. When the Review Committee tables the report, we will have an opportunity to sh are that report with my colleagues. After we'v e ha d an opportunity to look at the recommendations, we will be responding to that entire report. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M.

DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Elmwood, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the Hon. G. Doer replacing the Hon. L. Harapiak. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, would you please call Second Read ing for Bill No. 11 on page 3, follo wed 1030

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 by Adjourned Debate on Second Readings in the order in which they appear on page 2 and , if time allows , which I believe it will, followed by the Resolution standing in the name of the Premier on The Patent Drug Act on page 3. SECOND READING BILL NO. 11 - THE CHANGE OF NAME ACT HON. M. SMITH presented Bill No. 11, The Change of Name Act;

Loi sur le changement de nom, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister . HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I would like to intr oduce proposed revisions to The Change of Name Act. In recent years, minor changes have been made to deal with a number of problems. Today I'm propos ing revisions to numerous other subsections of the act to ensure that this legislation complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , and that it meets the needs of the public.

The proposed changes include consideration of recommendations made by the Charter of Rights Coalition , Professor Dale Gibso n of the University of Manitoba in his report on Manitoba Statutes , and the Uniform Law Conference for Canada. The major revisions deal with changing a child's name and eliminating discriminatory procedures which are currently based on the marital status of the parent .

The new act will allow adults to change their own names without spousal consent or notification and will expand the options of retaining or combining surnames after marriage without going through the legal change of name process. Also, the residency requirement would be reduced to three months from the present one year, which would make it easier for new residents and students to change their names. Various administrative changes address process ing , handling and fraudulent applications. No additional costs are anticipated due to the revisions, and the number of applications is expected to be in this .

MADAM SPEAKER : Order , orde r please . We have seven private conversations going on. I cannot hear the Minister . Could members please take the ir business elsewhere if they're not participating here? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I believe the proposed changes , which I have outlined , will streamline the administrative process , remove any discriminatory clauses and serve the needs of the general public. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: I'd like to ask a question for clarification from the Minister, Madam Speaker. 1031 On what grounds may a parent of a child who does not have cust ody object to the change of name of his or her child by the parent who has custody? On what grounds or what principles? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I do refer the member to the bill, but in general where a parent does not have custody they have fewer rights than if they do have custody.

In other cases the director will retain som e flexibility and will determine whether the change of name is necessary as it is in some cases for protection, whether it's likel y to cause confusion or inconvenience to anyone, or whether it's for an entirely frivolous reason. I'd be happy to give greater detail during the committee stage. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask a further question for clarification because the bill does not indicat e any principles or any specific reasons to be used in such an application and she's suggesting granting this authority to the director .

I'm asking, what principle is to be applied or what protection is to be there for the parent who does not have custody? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, there is a notification requirement and where the other parent cannot be located, then the applicant must satisfy the director that they have made reasonable attempts to notify, but in general the rights , the major rights do reside with the custodial parent or if both have custody then it is shared. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Kirkfield Park, that debate be adjourned .

MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourab le Minister responsible for the Status of Women , stand in g in the name of the Honourable Member for River East . MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Stand. MADAM SPEAKER: Stand . On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney General , Bill No . 4, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Stand. MADAM SPEAKER: Stand. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney General, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry . MR. C. BIRT: Stand.

MADAM SPEAKER: Stand.

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 BILL NO. 6 - THE EMERGENCY MEASURES ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Government Services , standing in the name of the Member for Gladstone . MRS. C. OLESON: I would like to have it stand in my name, Madam Speaker, but any one else may speak to it of course. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments with respect to this bill.

Certainly no one on either side of the House would dispute with the Min ister the necessity or urgen cy of every municipality or city or town in this province preparing emergency plans. But, Madam Speaker , as I read through this bill there is a significant change in the procedure that would apply to emergency situations, those being particularly that a municipality may declare a state of emergency in the province. Certain ly, Madam Speaker, every member on this side of the House is supportive of the abilities of our local councils to make decisions.

But I simply want to point out in this particular case, that a municipality given the authority to declare a state of emergency is given some very wide-ranging powers that perhaps not all members of the House or members of the government have read.

Madam Speaker, in that situation where a municipality declares an emergency and that can be done without any involvement with the Provincial Government , they have the power to acquire or utilize any real or personal property, they will have the power to require any qualified person to render aid , they will have the power to evacuate persons, they will have the power to enter into any building or upon any land without a warrant , they will have other powers incidental and similar to those that are named, Madam Speaker . So they have immense powers. Madam Speaker, what happens if they abuse those powers?

The bill provides that a person who suffers any loss of any real or personal property shall be compensated in accordance with such guidelines as may be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor -i n Council. There are no principles contained in this bill , Madam Speaker ; we don't know what we're agreeing to; we don't know what this government and the Cabinet will set out in an Order -in-Council to provide for compensation.

So, Madam Speaker, I simply wish to point out for the record, my concerns because I would like to see the Minister giving some evidence to this House that there has been a situation occur in this province where a municipality has been delayed in any way or any harm or damage has been caused in declaring a state of emergency because I'm certainly not aware of any at this time, Madam Speaker, and I don't believe that there is any proof of damage that is being caused by any delay that would justify the granting of this power to a municipality.

I'm sure that this government or any other government that follows it or any other government that preceded them has always acted willingly and conscientiously in assessing the situation and granting a declaration of a state of emergency as required, will meet quickly, it can be done quickly we all know that, if necessary, Madam Speaker, but instead of having one authority for the declaration of a state of emergency in this province we're going to have over 200 authorities for declaring states of emergency .

I'd like the Minister to justify the reason why the province has to abdicate their overall position and responsibility in this situation, Madam Speaker, because I don 't think there's been any problem to justify this. Second ly, if it's going to proceed I have great concern over the powers that are being given to muni cipali ties under this bill, without any in volvement from the province. These are imm ense powers .

Thirdly, Madam Speaker , I'm concerned that this bill does not give member s of the Legislature any basis upon which they can approve what compensation for loss would be given because all we know is that an Order-in -Council may be passed. We don 't know what's going to be contained in that bill. There 's no principle that's contained in this bill and we've known in the past that there have been significant concerns expressed by people who 've suffered losses in emergencies in this province and a great deal of delay.

So, Madam Speaker, those are my concerns and I hope the Minister will , in concluding debate on this bill at some later date , because there are a number of people on this side of the House who wish to make comments , address the concerns that I have expressed and they 're certainly not to be considered in any way derogatory of the local municipalit ies and their elected representatives in this province.

It's just that, Madam Speaker , this is such a great departure from the existing procedures that I would like to know the justification for the abdicat ion of the provincial role and some advice from the Minister as to how such immense powers can be given to over 200 municipalities in this prov ince and how the public can be protected and what will be the basis of compensation, because this bill doesn 't give us that , Madam Speaker? It only says an Order-in-Council would be passed .

I would like to have a commitment on the record as to the principle behind any Order-in-Council that would deal with the question of compensation. I'd prefer to see it in the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member fo r Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

I rise to speak in support of my colleague's comments and bring a couple more points to the attention of the government, because it is what I would consider unprecedented power not only given to the council of a municipality, which again in principle we have no difficulty in them governing their own affairs; however, that is not only the council that have been given that power, but it can be either the mayor or the reeve of that council who can act without the full council support and that they can , as an individually elected mayor or reeve, carry out the same powers that the Minister has in his or the Lieutenant-Governor 's hands. 1032

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 It is, I would say, a fairly heavy piece of equipment to put in the hands of, not only councils, but the individual of a mayor or a reeve.

As well, the fact that the removal or the termination of that power is again in the same individual's hands, that the mayor or reeve or council, it says - and I know we're not su pposed to get into detail, but I just want to touch on part of it - "Termination of a state of local emergency when in the opinion of the local authority an emergency no longer exists in any area of the municipality for which a declaration of a state of local emergency was made may terminate the declared state of local emergency and shall forthwith send a copy of declaration to the Minis ter. " (Mr. Deputy Speak er, C.

Santos, in the Chair.) So not only can they declare it a state of emergen cy, it's in their opinion when it should be lifted without the appeal or possible action by the government. It's a lot of power to be given and my colleague is absolutely correct that there should be, I would think, some suppo rtive evidence that would have shown the reason for bringing it forward. I know that there are situations that can develop and I would like to know what the c urrent situation is.

I think that in any cases that I have seen or been invol ved with or heard of that there is an appropriate mechanism there that can in fact act in the best interests of the public at large. I'm not sure that the system is working as well as it should be, but the commun ication system should be there so that the government can be contacted, the Ministers of a government can be cont acted in an immedia te way th rough the Emergency Measur es system or in fact some other commun ication system in a direct way that can activate the kind of decisions that have to be made.

There is another area dealing with compensation and I'm not exactly clear on it. My colleague refers to the Cabinet making the amount of compensation known and making that det ermi nation without appeal or without any guidelines. But as I read through the bill, and my understanding of it is, if there are expenses incurr ed by the province on behalf of municip alities, that the government have the power to order payment by those munici palities to make compensation to the province. I again think, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, that that, in my estimation without having any guidelines drawn up, could well impose an additional or unfair charge to a municipality if in fact there were some dis putes. So it's not a bill to be taken lightly in any way, shape or form. I would advise that each member take a pretty careful look at it and make sure that we are not transferring power and/or responsibilities of expenses to individuals who are not able to be protected or the citizens who are not able to be protected against.

So I think that I would absolutely advise that careful consideration be given to the powers that are being transferred to another level of government that do not want anyone to think that we don't believe in local or municip al gove rnment. We do , but ther e is a res ponsibility when given those powers that they are not to be abus ed in any way, shape or form. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker . This bill stands in the name of the Member for Gla dstone. 1033 BILL NO. 10 -THE QUEEN'S BENCH ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 10. The Ho nourable Member for St.

Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We 're prepared to pass this bill on to comm ittee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTION THE PATENT ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next item is the debate on the motion by the Honourable First Minister, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Lakeside, but under the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr . Deputy Speak er, I had made comments on this resolution the last time it appeared on the Order Paper.

My comments will be essentially to reaf firm those thoughts that I expressed at that time because I believe the same ques tions have to be asked.

The main question that I asked at that time of mem bers opposite, the mover of this resolution and indeed at those who are showing the kind of unwarranted opposition to what I consider to be a well th ough t-out measure on the part of the Federal Government that does and will continue to provide for two thi ngs : Ess entially the deliv ery of th ose pharmaceutical products that over the years Canadians have relied on at no incr ease in cost, although knowing my friends opposite, any natural inflationary pressures on some incr eased costs will, of course, be attributed to this bill by them.

But that's not being fair and that is not being accurate. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is a wilful distortion of what in tact is being proposed by the Federal Government in their patent drug legislation. It is scare tactics. It is fearm ongering, particularly among some of the more vulnerable members of our socie ty, the aged who of course legitima tely are concerned about any un necessary incr eased cost of medication that all too often they are heavier users of than the general public at large, although that's a generalization which one should not perhaps make. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in having asked the question when I last spoke to this bill, name me a life-saving drug, name me any drug at all that has ever been produced by a generic drug manufactu rer, and you can't. Of course, there is none. They're not in that business. Mr . Deputy Speaker , they're in the business of reproducing, copying excellent drugs that have been developed in the private sector or by individuals - and I'l l deal with the comments from the Attorney-General in a moment - but who then of course have some right to recover the, in some instances, extremely high developmental costs, research costs.

I know members opposite shudder at the word profit, but of course profit in my langua ge should not be shd away from.

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 Acknowledge that it should be a fair and acknowledged return for risk capital having been put up for any kind of a program or endeavor undertaken by the private sector in this case. Now, Mr. Deputy Speake r, the Attorney-General names particular drugs that have not been developed in this way.

I'm the first one to acknowledge that there have been significant pharmaceutical products that have come onto the market as a result of an individual or a un iversity research team working in the public sector and have, in that manner, brought life-saving and other - I use the word life-saving, meaning pharmaceutical requirements that from time to time are required by our population to sustain our hea lth , to help the insurance companies grow fonder of us as our life expectancy keeps gr owing older and ol der.

But obvio usly, in total, the health care of the pharmaceutical indus try along with the health care that we have, along with hopefully a better, you know, attitude towards certain lifestyles has all contributed to our general well being, which has mo st figura tively , you kn ow, dem onstrated the overall benefit by our longevity and our lifespan, which has slowly but steadily increased. While we do many things wrong, Mr. Deputy Speak er, there are obviously a num ber of things that we do reasonably right in terms of adminis trating to ourselv es when we are ill. Mr .

Deputy Spea ker, having acknowledged that the public sector plays a role in it, surely the same people will also acknowledge that, all too often, today and yesteryear and will again tomorrow, that researcher working in a public facil ity often is on the basis or on the threshold of some good promising pre liminary work, but then requir es and finds that the public institution that he is associated with, whether it's a un iversity or whether it's some other kind of public health facilit y, then cannot find - particu lar ly, and I suggest that it will take place much more often - the necessary risk dollars, the necessary capital to develop that drug.

So we have very common occur ances wher e we have a team of researchers working, very often on the public payroll or in a public institution, coming cl ose or at least with a germ of an idea. Then we're taking that to the private sector who are prepared to raise the risk capital and, in some instances, the many millions of dolla rs and the years of testing before a safe pharmaceutical product can be put on the market. Mr. Deputy Speaker , the vast overw helming majority of everyday drugs that we use have been developed in that way. Yes, there are singular exceptions, insulin was mentioned as one.

A MEMBER: And the Salk vaccine. MR. H. ENNS: And the Salk vaccine may be another . But if you look at the array of pha rma ceutical requirements that are considered necessary to the well being, to the health of the general public, the vast overw helming majority are produced with the help of private risk capital. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what opponents to this bill are suggesting is that that is wrong, and that we ought not to encourage the continued development of future needs, future requirements for continued good health in this province.

I suggest to you that the extremely important difficult problem that we face in searc hing out for a vaccine, a drug, a cur e for the AIDS problem that faces us will likely come from some company that is now spending the millions of dollars in their frantic rush to find a cure for that lethal disease. The members opposite are saying they're not really that concerned about whether anybody finds a cure for that disease.

They'r e more hung up about the ideology of whether or not it should be found in a public institution, which may take decades, or given the opportunity of a private organization that could perhaps find it in the next year or the next five years, the next four years, whatever it takes. Mr. Deputy Speaker , to suggest that our public health systems and our public health institutions and our universities in the next decade will have made available to them the kind of funds that I am sure every research department and every un iversity and every medical school would like to have just flies into the face of reason.

Look at your own bud gets. Look at what you are doing to our un iversities right now. Look at what you j are doing to our hospitals right now. You are cutting � back on those funds, and for unde rstandable and good reasons. We unde rstand the whole fiscal problem that all governments face. You've imposed an un precedented $400 million of new taxes on the people of Manitoba, and that $400 million doesn't hire a single nur se, not a single teacher , doesn't pave a single mile of road, doesn't look after one little park in the Province of Manitoba.

All of it goes to interest ch arges to be paid to the moneylenders around Zurich, Tokyo, London and in Canada on our debt. Interest on our debt charges this year is some $438 million, and I believe the budg et that you brought in this year imposing a host of new taxes on Manitobans brings in about $403 million in total.

When you add up every conceivable fee that you've increased, the sales tax that you've inc reased, the payroll tax that you've inc reased, the 2 percent net income tax that you've introduced, all of that, it can be said and can be said honest ly, provides not a single cent of social benefit to our hospitals and to our un iversities. Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you rule me out of order , let me bring it right back to it because there, I suppose, is where proponents to this legislation are looking for to find the next inventor , the next developer of insulin or a Salk vaccine. But I say to you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that if you look at the financing crunch that is on our research centres, on our un iversities, on our hospitals, it is less and less likely that will happen. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker if there was no alternative, then we would look at a bleak future in terms of signi ficant medical research, pharmaceutical research being carried out in our public institutions, but that is not the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Thank goodness, there still is in this country and in other countries the will on the part of the private sector to put up risk capital, very often working in association with public institutions and public people to develop the drugs of tomorrow to help us combat the diseases of today that we don't have answers for and the diseases that may appear in the future. We have the private sector saying to governments, allow us, give us the opportun ity, create the cli mate that'll enable them to raise the necessary millions of 1034

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 dol lars to find tha t breakthrough in research, phar maceutical devel opment. Sur ely, it is not unr easonable that those millions of dolla rs have to be repaid, and it's not unreasonable that there should be a measure of profit for the risk, for the endeavour on the part of such a company that develops future life saving drugs. Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, I will tell you, those people suffering who are under death sentence because of an AIDS-infl icted dis ease right now, I'm sur e they would find this argument very trivial and annoying, to think that we will stop or not make possible the development of an effec tive vaccine or an effective drug that com bats the lethal disease of AIDS on the basis of the ideological argument that is being presented on this floor. That's really what it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when it comes right down to the bottom line. Anything else is a distortion on the part of those who oppose this bill.

Present drugs, drugs that we all rely on, drugs that we use every day, there is no change. We are talking only about the introduction of new, as yet not invented, as yet not found out, not developed pharmaceutical drugs that will require millions of dolla rs of research for them to be, but to encourage that clima te so tha t we have that type of research taking place here in Canada. Or are we, as Canadians, coming to the point that we'll just copy whatever some other country does? Even then, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the legislation specifically sets out a time frame of 10 years or less, at which time there may be an additional charge involved, at which time that new drug can then be reproduced, can then be manufactured by the generic drug manufacturers. Mr. Deputy Speak er, what should disturb Canadians is our escalating health costs, and we are just now dealing in the Department of Health.

We lis ten to the Minis ter of Health and he, no doubt, is sincere when he thr ows up his hands and says, "I just don't know how I'm going to find the money to keep our hospitals running, to keep provi ding the health care that we all want. " I think he's sinc ere. I don't think the Minister of Health of this government - I kno w an NOP Government does not take any particular pleasure out of closing hospital beds, as they did in Brandon, as they will do in Winnipeg, as they'll do throughout the province.

I don't think they particularly take pleasure in lengthening the waiting list for health services that Manitobans now have to undergo. We ll, then why won't they acknowledge that, if there is some assistance available, in this case through the private sector in one aspect of it, pharmaceutical research, development of new beneficial pharmaceutical products. We have been told by the private sector that they are prepared to do that, but we require a business cli mate that offers them some reasonable assurance. They have to, in fact, borrow this money from their investors.

They have to encourage people to invest into their companies. To do what, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Sometimes to lay out hundr eds and hundr eds of thousands of dollars for years and years running before perhaps a quali fied and suitable saleable drug is brought onto market. For that, they ask some reco gnition of those risks, some recog nition of the money put up by private investors, that that ought to be, in an orderly way, returned. It's not a question of price gouging, Mr. Deputy Speak er, and it is not a question of unduly raising drug costs in Canada. What it ensures, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is that Canada will have an opportunity to continue in the forefront of medical research, of pharmaceutical research. It ensu res and encourages, at a time when public funding of health care is in a crisis situation, the introduction of more private money into an area that is of critical importance and, at the same time, controls and provide s all the existing benefits that generic distribution of drugs has in Canada. It doesn't disturb any of them, and to say anything else is not being honest, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take exception to the resolution being introduced by the First Minister .

It is a callous political bit of distortion, which our socialist friends are regre ttably adept at and famous for. They like to go into the senior citizens homes and frighten the be-jesus (phonetic) out of the people. They like to go to the people who are most vulnerable and say, this is what's going to happen, when in fact that is simply not true. They know it's not true, but they say it anyway because they count votes that way. If there was some intellectual honesty on members opposite, then they would not suffer that kind of nonsense. In fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , there would be a willingn ess on the part of the First Minister to withdraw this reso lution. It is responsible legislation that is being passed by the Federal Government, legislation that will ensure that Canada gets its fair share of research here in Canada, and partici pates in other countries of the world. It ensures that a significant number of new dollars will enter the health field, in this case the pharmaceutical field, an area that is under extreme pressure from getting adequate funding through the public field. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it just makes no sense, and surely no one can have a great deal of intellectual satisfaction in opposing this bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, having been at one time Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when this matter was being debated with the then Federal Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, Monsieur Cote, and having had an opportunity to not only read the Eastman Report but to have a full presentation of the Eastman Report made, having had the opportu nit y to peruse much of the material associated with the debate, having in fact been prepared to support what was the initial federal position before the President of the United States said, "No, that's not good enough, " and they changed, I have some little knowledge of this area, and I want to just put a few things on the record with respect to it.

The first thing I want to address is the last remark of the Mem ber for Lakeside when he talks about scare tactics and fearmongering. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was no suggestion at all - and I have the res olution in front of me - that the Premier, in introducing this resolution, was doing anything else in terms of the resolution but talking about the future impact, refer ring of course to the record of facts in terms of the amount of money saved by generics in Canada in order to project the lik ely impact of the prop osed change between now and 19 95. That particular portion of the 1035

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 resolution talks specifically about the costs of delayed entry of new generics will be over $2 million in the first year after the changes, and could total $44 million by 1995. That was with specific reference to new drugs. So let not the Member for Lakeside talk about the Premier of this province in those terms when, as a matter of record, he was being very clear what was being talked about. The second thing I want to draw to your attention and to the attention of the Mem ber for Lakeside, is this nice little sleight of hand by talking about the benefits to Canada.

Let 's be absolutely clear; whatever benefits - and I'll come back to that - may accrue are benefits to Central Canada at the expense of the Prairie s and at the expense of the Maritimes. It's the same old game that's being played at the expense of Western Canada, time and time again, on behalf of the multinationals and their branch plants in Ontario and Quebec.

All of the 15 ,000 emp loyees in the pharmaceutical industry in Canada are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario and there isn't the sli ghtest suggestion that there will be any transfer of that industry to Manitoba; but we know, categorical ly, from the record, that Manitobans, and particularly senior citizens in our Pharmacare Program, will pay from our pockets to the branch plants of the pharmaceuticals in Ontario and Canada. Nothing changes. There's no reason why you should support it.

And the Member for Lakeside keeps on telling us in that wonderful philosophical manner of his, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, I want to tell you, the system up till now, since 1969, not only ain't broke, it's worked wonderfully well. So why this sudden lust and thrust to change it? Because - and the President of the United States empha sized the question of intellectual property in the free trade context - the giant pharmaceutical manufacturers are putting on pressure like no one has ever seen before in order to do this. No one would deny them the kind of economy in which we exist.

What is being sought to do is to defend super profits. When valium, for example, can be obtained in a generic copy for 2.31 per thousand tablets here, and in the U.S. for 349.93, we know that we'r e not talking about devel opmental costs which for that drug have been paid for 20 years ago. We're talking about super profits. When I hear the pharmaceutical manufacturers, these giant international cartels, saying - "Oh, we're so anxious to spend on research and development; please gi ve us the ch ance to spend on research and development.

Just give us the blank cheque." - well, whose money do you think they'r e going to be spending on research and development? They're going to take the money out of our pockets, give us back a tithe or a tenth of it, and say, "Look how nice we are." The notion that since 1969 till now, because of the present system that we have, the compu lsory licensing under The Patent Act, there has been no research and development, that life-saving drugs have not developed, is palpable, patent, egregious nonsense and you know it.

You are rising to defend an action, an indefensible action of the Conservative Government, which only reached its present stage of development because the President of the United States and his legions ins isted that that has to be done as a price for the free trade package that the Prime Minister of this country feels is going to be his political salvation. There is no question about it. There is no question about it at all. Developmental costs have been covered for these drugs - very few of them, incidenta ll y, which are life saving. I mean that's always thrown in.

They do the Florence Nightingale kind of scenario for us when they're talking about some "robber baron" instead. The developmental costs have been paid for time over time over time, again and again and again. There's just no question about it.- (Int erject ion)- Wel l, yes. We ll, an aspirin, it turns out, on analysis, to be something closer to a killer drug than even a painkiller, Mr. Deputy Speak er. You know, the members opposite, in rising to defend federal legislation, that's all they're doing. They really don't un der stand the issue. They really hav en't researched the issue.

They haven't read the Eastman Report. They're not aware of the statistics. They haven't paid any refere nce at all to the concentration of the industry in Canada, in Ontario and Quebec, mostly in Quebec. They haven't paid any refere nce at all to the fact that the money will be paid out of the pockets of the people of Manitoba and the western provinces in 4 order to maintain jobs in Ontario and Quebec. Even on that, let me digress for a moment.

What we have from the pha rma ceuticals and from their spokespersons in the Government of Canada and across is the notion that un less we do this, those 15 ,QOO jobs are going to disa ppear. That is blackmail; that's absolute patent nonsense from the patent drug indust ry. It is absolute nonsense. Do you know why? Examine the economics of drug manufacturing, even through the branch plants. They're making so much money they wouldn't cl ose down one branch plant.

They'll th reaten to, they'll do a little bit of smoke and mirrors by moving one branch plant from here to there to frighten a few communi ties and to send fears and trembling up the backs of the Member for Stur geon Creek and others there, whose deference to the captains of indus try is nauseating at times. I mean we're talking about "robber barons" - that's what we're talking about - living off the illn ess and the ailments and the pain and the suffering of the people of this world, and wanting to maintain a monopoly position in there when the facts are absolutely unm istakable.

Over the 16 years of compu lsory licensing, jobs in the drug indus try in Canada - and I'm talking about the pharamceuticals, leaving aside the generics - have incr eased not decreased. New drugs have come onto the market in ever-increasing numb ers and haven't decreas ed. The super profits of these industries, there's no more profitable indus try in the world than the drug indus try because it lives off the pain and suffering and fear of people. And you want to give them more? You want to give them more, and then you talk to us about us scaring the old people?

What you're showing is your contempt for the seniors of this province, and you are afraid not of what we're saying, but of what they are thinking and what they know. I talk to a lot of seniors in my constituency - (Int erject ion)- Yes, I do, I'm one of them myself, very close to it. I go around and I talk to them and I don't ask leading questions. I say, "Ho w are you; how are your children; how are your grandchildr en; what's new?" and they say, "Do you know what they're trying to do, that rotten bunch in Ottawa?" 1036

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 They know - they'v e been around a long time and they're the pioneers and builders of this country and they've got a lot more political sophistication than you give them credit for - they know the difference between Flor ence Nightingale and a "robber baron ," and don't think for a moment they don't.

All one has to do is show them the facts; indeed, they have the facts and they know precisely what is being talked about. (Ma dam Speaker in the Chair.) Madam Speaker , the fact is that not only with insulin, not only with the Salk vaccine, but most of the major signi ficant developments in the sign ificant drugs have been developed through the un iversity base, and it's true - I would be the last to deny it - that significant research grants are given to the un iversity base by the major pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Why not? it leads to the kind of product from which they can profit - why wouldn't they? - and they will continue to. But you know what builds up research in a un iversity is not so much the research grants that are obtained from particular compani es as the kind of people that you have working in those establishments, who build a research department because of their skill and their knowledge, they are not there to do their work on behalf of narrow inter ests and they don't.

My colleague, the Member for Kildonan, when he has a chance to speak, will be able to point out, I'm sure, other examples of significant drugs that have been developed on the university base. Indeed, sometimes a startl ingly good individual, like Dr.

Mark Nickerson, who came here in the Fifties from the United States, and started with the research department of one and built it into a research department of 50, was able to attract grants in the clima te that has existed in this country with respect to the manufacturing of drugs because of the quality of work that was being done in the un iversity base, not because of some super profits that were being promised to the monopolists in this particular area. They talk about the - and this may be my concluding remark - private sector putting up risk capital.

Indeed, in some instances, the private sector does and have to factor that into their cost. But with respect to research and development, in the first instance, most to my knowledge, research and development costs are written off as part of the cost of the operation. In terms of the operations of those particular companies making, as I say, super profits, measured in return on the capital base of 30, 40 and 50 percent, I mean, we're talking big mone y. They have a profit before tax which indeed they are more than anxious to have written down in terms of their research and development.

They will continue their research and development to the extent that they do any additional research and development in Canada, and there are no real gu arantees of that at all in the legislation. It's going to be paid for by the extra money they take out of the pockets of Canadians, in general, but specifical ly, out of western Canadians in particul ar. Let there be no doubt about it. You people are making a very serious political error in supporting this legislation. You're doing it as you were doing with respect to the sugar beet policy in order to support your federal colleagues.

At times, when it's uncomfortable, you try to dis tance yourself from 1037 your federal colleagues. But the game washes thin, when we see time after time as with sugar beets, and now it's with pharmaceuticals, that you 're trying to bail them out. The people of Manitoba will not be fooled on either one of those. You're making a grievous political error because you are fundamental ly comm itted to the Mulroney government; there's no mistake about that.

Even more, on the long-term basis, you're fundamentally commit ted to the notion that these "robber barons" of the monopolies of the world are the great benefactors of soci ety. That's what you've been repeating time and time again in your speeches on this issue, and your defence of the notion of risk capital. I'll tell you what it is with risk capital in this particular industry and I have studied it. The Member for Lakeside, of course, comes from a very moral background, but you know that's a long time ago, I understand that.

He may not have played -(Interjection)- Atheist, he called me an atheist, my God, so to speak - atheist, oh, my God! It was a wonder I was able to swear my oath of office as an atheist. Think of another one.- (l nterjection) There you are, Communist, atheist, now we're getting it. What next? But I was going to say - the Member for Lakeside doesn't take offence when I talk about him personally; he just doesn't want the public to know that I know him that well. I don't know if you'v e ever played dice. No, have you? You don't have to admit it.

But, you know, a good crap player, and these pharmaceutical monopolists are good crap players, how do they do it? First of all, the dice were loaded to begin with. So they throw the dice, and then they continue to let the pot swell a bit. Then they clinch as it's called - right? They take back everyt hing that they invested to begin with, but they'v e still got other people's money in the pot. Then sure, they're prepared to take risks with other people's money. I was in the Army, I know quite a bit about that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Whose Army? HON. R.

PENNER: The Member for Pembina says "whose Army," knowing full well which Army I was in, and he shouldn't denig rate the Canadian Army. I volu nteered to join the Army the day I turned 18, so don't tell me about that. But, you know, that is the point that I've been making, name ly, that the money they say that they're prepared to "risk" in the development of drugs is the money that comes out of the pockets of the people of Canada, and will come out in the main from the pockets of the people in other than the central provinces of Canada.

That political error that you'r e making will be driven home again and again, let there be no mistake about it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate, particularly after we've heard the rhetoric of "robber barons" and multinational, all the usual ultra left-wing rhetoric that only the Attorney General will be able to articulate to the doting applause of some of his lesser lights over on that side of the House, who just love it when the Attorney-General gets into his multinational, "robber baron," corporate welfare

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 bums, all of the good left rhetoric that doting Sams on the government side of the House love the Attorney General to get into. Madam Speaker, the Attorney-General, I'm sorry he isn't here to answer the question because probably he could, but I wonder how many li fe-saving pharmaceuticals we've ever imported from the USSR in their research and development pro gram. The Attorney-General might be able to answer that, but I don't know whether anyone else can.

Madam Speaker, my honourable friends opposite seem to think that something is funny in terms of the deba te on this resolution because they're yapping and chattering and giggling away from their seats. But, Ma dam Speaker , I guess there is room for open discussion on this bill. Because, as I understand it, it was a bill that was worked on by a previous Liberal administrat ion, a concept was worked on by them and was further advanced by the current administration.

Now, presumably in comments that I believe have been mentioned by the Liberal leader in this House, that her reason now that the federal Liberal Party is not supporting it, is because all the protection has been withdrawn that they had worked into the bill or some such rationale. I'm not prepared to deba te right or wrong on that. I suggest the Liberal Party in Ottawa is taking away the support for a bill they originally created, because th ey see qu ickl y the mistruth campaign of the New Democratic Party may be undercutting their support in the left wing.

So that the electorate of Canada appears, accord ing to polls, if weOieve polls nationally , that the New Democrats are picking up, therefore, John Turner and the federal Libe rals must do a me-too on this Patent Act. It appears that way. But, Madam Speaker, I simply want to point out to my honourable friends opposite, that the NDP position on the federal legislation to change The Patent Act has been foremost an effort at scare tactics; scare tactics, the special interest groups, senior citizens, etc., etc.

If you see the kind of letters that are sent out by federal Mem bers of Parliament, NDP federal Members of Parliament in this province, they talk of several thousand percent increase in drug costs as a result of this legislation. No. 1, that's not true, Madam Speaker. But it does fit with the New Democratic Party standard mode of operation of fearmongering, scare tactics - don't ever tell the truth to the people of Manitoba when you'r e sitting in Opposition in Ottawa, but merely raise fears about this legislation. When you have people frightened and afraid, they won't listen to any other side of the argument.

First of all, Madam Speaker, I am not saying that the federal legislation is perfect, that it does not need amendments. Lord knows, after watching five years of NDP bungling in this Leg islature, I know that when governments introduce legislation it often needs amendments. Ask any Cabinet Minister over there and you will find that most of their legislation of major intent has to be amended. Ask the Minister of Agriculture how many times he tried with major pieces of legislation.

So, Madam Speaker, I'm not saying the legislation, as drafted, is perfect, but what I am saying is that conceptually it does something that all of us in this country should want to see. Conceptual ly, this legislation is designed to put Canada back into the research and development field of pharmaceutical production. Now, Madam Speaker, that may not be an objective that is lauded by the New Democratic Party, but is one that most Canadians would like to have as part of the business fabric, if you will, the investment fabric of this nation. Madam Speaker, let me just deal briefly with the resolution itself.

The first "WHERE AS" has a qualif ier in it which says, "the avai labili ty of safe pharmaceuticals." Madam Speak er, when you ask for safe pharmaceuticals, what are you ask ing for? I presume you're not wanting any more thalidomides to be lic enced and I tell you there won't be anybody who would disagree with that. But, Madam Speaker, what does that entail, to produce safe pharmaceuticals for consumption in this nation? It requires a great deal of rese arch and testing which takes untold amounts of money before new pharmaceuticals reach the consumer market, you and I who may need it.

Now, the Attorney-General, when he talked of robber barons in the pharmaceuticals and those multinationals 4 and the Industry, Trade and Technology Minister - imagine that, Industry, Trade and Tec hnology, all of the things that we're talking about in this bill, sat there giggling and tittering in support of the Attorney-General when he was mentioning robber barons in the pharmaceutical company.

Would either one of those Minis ters be laughing and giggling and tittering if they were in a life-th reat ening disease position for which pharmaceuticals developed by those same robber barons were available to cure them? Would they, on the principle they so eloquently espoused this afternoon by the Attorney-General, giggled at by the Member for Rossmere, the Indus try, Trade and Technology Minister, would they on principle refuse those life-saving drugs if they needed them? Oh no, Madam Speaker, they would be the first ones to gulp them down with a drink of water to save their lives.

But the moment they were cured, they would get back on the bandwagon of robber barons in the pharmaceutical indus tries, the multi nationals that just saved their lives, they would stand up on their first healthy breath and decry the ability of those companies' profit. Madam Speaker, the Member for Rossmere says, huh, huh, huh, you are so dumb. Madam Speaker, he is dumb if he doesn't understand through his portfolio of Industry, Trade and Technol ogy, all thr ee involved with this bill, that it could have benefit to Manitoba if there was anything but a New Democratic Party Government in this province.

Madam Spe aker , I'll explain that later on. Madam Speaker, this resolution further goes on to say tha t it provides few al ternat ive benefits to Canadians. Now notice, Madam Speaker, it doesn't say no alternative benefits. The NDP have even had to move slightly and say, yes, there are benefits to this legislation, and having admitted that, Madam Speaker, they turn to the first RESOL VED and say that they must withdraw the bill comp letely. I guess that's where I have my difficulty with this New Democratic Party and its position.

Because, Madam Speaker, if this legislation has future benefits for Manitobans, for Canadians, why would a 1038

Wednesday , 15 April, 1987 New Democratic Party want it simply withdrawn. If they have not said there are no alternative benefits, if they had said that in the resolution, I could agree with their request to withd raw the legislation, but they are admitting there are benefits to that Patent Act changes. They are admitting it, but yet they don't want to see any of those benefits for the people of Canada. I would support a position if my honourable friends could come across and say, these are the amendments that should be made to the legislation. But oh no, they don't say that.

They simply say, throw it out enti rely. There is nothing good about this in their opinion, except they didn't say that in the resol ution. They said ther e are few alternate benefits, i.e., there are alterna te benefits. But they are willing to throw all of those out so that they can continue with their fear-mongering campaign amongst the people of Manitoba, particularly the senior citizens so that they can continue their robber baron bashing, their multi national pharma ceutical bashing and now, the newest rev elation, their bashing of Central Canada. That's the new goal, to defeat this.

They say all of these things will benefit only Central Canada. We ll I wonder, if their federal leader, who would not stand up in the House of Commons and refute the awarding of CF-18 to Montreal, would also agree with tha t statement made by the Attorney-General of Manitoba that, because all the benefits are going to Ontario and Quebec, this legislation shouldn't be passed , or would we see another flip flop by our New Democrats provincially and a flip flop federally.

Would they be on two different sides of the fence and would they, when the New Democrats got the Premier of this province down to a convention in Montreal, would they have the Premier back down on this resolution as they got him to back down on the CF -18; because, after all, this New Democratic Party beli eves they can make some brea kthroughs in Quebec politically?

So now, all of a sudden, what is impo rtant to Quebec, like the CF-18, they will silence the Premier of this province at their national convention as they will silence him on this reso lution, because Ed Broadbent and the Federal New Democrats hope to win seats in Quebec and Ontario. So let's not try to fool the people of Canada and the people of Manitoba that you'r e doing something beneficial. This is cold, raw, opportunistic politics that you are putting to the people of Canada through a fear monge ring campaign of immense proportion and incredible distortion and incredible untruths.

Madam Speaker, what are we talking about? We are talking about patent protec tion. That's what we're talking about in this legislation. The examples and the information given by New Democrats provincially and federal M.P.'s would leave you to believe, Madam Speak er, that passage of this legislation will increase the cost of existing generic drugs. That's what you are led to believe by the proponents of the NDP position on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I cannot use the langua ge that describes the untruth of that statement, because I would be called to order by yourself because the word that fits it properly is th ree letters, it starts with "I," its middle letter is "i," and its third letter is "e," but I can't use that. That is what it is, it is not truthful. Yet the people of Manitoba, the senior citizens, if they listened to New Democrats, would belie ve that existing 1039 generic products that they use are going to go up in price because of this legisla tion. It's not factual. It's simply not factual.

Madam Speaker , I want to just mention one thing in terms of what patent rights will be protected . At present only 15 percent of new drugs introduced into the market are copied during the first 10 years, and what does that 10 years ring a bell in? That's the amount of patent prote ction that's being extended, 15 percent introduced are copied during the first 15 years. In fact, of the 14 5 new drugs that have entered the Canadian market in the last seven years, because that's the existing provision, only one has been subject to generic competition.

We 're not thwarting any indus try with this legislation, Madam Speak er. We 'r e not preven ting any generics from coming into this country. We 're not denying the benefits to anyone that exist today with the passage of bill - I won't give the numb er because I might not have ii right, but this legislation in Ottawa - we're not denying anybody anything.

As a matter of fact this legislation has a very strong price review component in it, so that if any company tries to gouge their drug prices that are subject to review, this probably has more price protection involv ed than the existing system and there may be substantial savings from that Price Review Board alone. Only time will tell. But our NDP friends want that all thr own out because of their fear-mongering campaign with the senior citizens. I can't agree with that, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker , what are we facing in terms of health costs? Modern man today, modern mankind today . MR. H.

ENNS: Pers onkind, person kind. MR. D. ORCHARD: No, no, mankind is still a word, is it not? A MEMBER: Yes, it's still alive. MR. D. ORCHARD: But modern mankind today, in most of the indus trial ized nations, has a subs tantiall y lengthened li fespan. Women still outliv e us, but nevertheless we'r e all living a lot longer. Why?

We ll, there's been advancements in our lifestyle, in food, and a number of things, but, Madam Speaker, I think some thing that has happened is pharmaceuticals, prescription drugs, which have saved lives at birth, in the very young years through immuni zation and vaccina tions, through pharmaceuticals used to cure illn esses that used to kill you. It was only 45 years ago when pneumonia often ended up in death. Are we forgetting that?

And, Ma dam Speaker , what has given us our opportunity to live lon ger, more vibrant lives has been in some degree those robber bar on-multina tional pharmaceutical companies that the Attorney-General and those of his present political persuasion tend to like to hate. But those robber baron multina tionals, Madam Speak er, have given us the opportunity to live longer and to li ve healthi er. They have provided pharmaceuticals that the senior citizens today allow them to enjoy a lifestyle without the acute pain of arthritis and other debili tating diseases. Those are the benefits that the robber baron-

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 multi national pharmaceutical companies and other research organizations have given to the people of this nation and the people of the free world in general. Now what's in danger right now in the free world, nationall y, is the whole aspect of what we are able to do with patent protect ion.

And I digress sligh tly, Madam Speak er, from the strict pharmaceutical area because I'm not aware of wh ether this happens in the pharmaceutical industry, but I simply give you an example as given to me by an individual who works with Hoechst Corpora tion, whi ch is a major farm chemical manufacturer in West Germa ny.

The Hoechst people have developed a chemical called Hoe-Grass whi ch is used extensively in the farm commun ity today for a diversity of weed control problems in the farm economy and, I have to say, has probably contributed to the feeding of many millions of hungry people throughout the world because of incr eased production on our farms. Madam Speaker, their chemical is patented for a given number of years and then through some more testing, etc., a generic copy may eventually be made of Hoe-Grass.

But the on e thing the indi vidual at Ho echst Corporation told me was that one of their problems is that the Chinese and the other Eastern Bloc in the Commun ist Nations will simply buy some pails of Hoe Grass, tear it apart in their labs and make it thems elves witho ut paying any due respect to the patent laws that are international patent laws. They simpl y copy it. Now, Madam Speaker, those on that side of the House may say that's great because the Chinese or the Soviets need grain production.

We ll, as they say that, remember that both of those countries are substantial customers of our Canadian farmers, and our Canadian farmers are availing thems elves of Hoe-Grass at substantial cost required because we put laws in place to protect our consumers so that the chemicals used in the farm industry are safe and effect ive and have no side effec ts.

Our farmers are using those chemicals and are paying for those development costs in the cost of every pail of Hoe-Grass, and the argument is there that they're paying too much; but nevertheless, whether we get involved in whether it's too much or too little, they're still paying for it. And now we have the circu mstance where the Chinese or the Soviets can take a pail of Hoe-Grass, develop it, and then use it to produce grain more cheaply and take the market away from our farmers who are required and are paying, because of the free-world system, the cost of developing that chemical.

Now is that the system that you want to see happen across this world? A MEMBER: They do. MR. D. ORCHARD: Of course, they do. And you can't take it away from and isolate it just in the farm commun ity. If it's happening there with farm chemicals, I know it's happening in pharmaceuticals. Now, Madam Speaker, that's what we did in 19 69 in Canada, is we allo wed generic dupl ication of pharmaceuticals. At the time we did that, the rationale was that we could lower the price to our consumers, which happened.

But at the same time, Madam Speaker , how many countries in the world can do as we did in 1969 before the pharmaceutical companies in Great Britain, before the pharmaceutical companies in West Germany , before the pharmaceutical companies in France, before the pharmaceutical companies in the United States of America say, "I'm afraid we can no longer undertake the multi-billion dollar efforts of research into developing new pharmaceuticals for the benefit of mandkind because we simply canno t recoup our costs because countries are willing to allow their generic manufacturers to take our research products and duplica te them without any compensation for our efforts in development and researc h." It might be fine for Canada to do it as an individual nation right now.

But what happens when Mexico does it; when all of South America does it; when all of South Africa does it; and Africa, period, does it? Not just South Africa but Africa, period. We already know that the Commu nis t Bloc Nations have no particular adhe rence to patent laws. They're probably doing it already. But then what happens to the loss of the revenue pools that are going to provide future research and development into new chemicals? � And I ask my honourable friends opposite: what are 'II we facing today? We 're facing growth disorders among individuals.

We're facing mental health problems, we're facing diabetes, we're facing can cer. We 're facing rheumatism and arthritis amongst our senior citizens. We 're facing heart disease, kidney disease. We 're facing the unknown factor of AIDS. Mada m Spe aker , are we sa ying, are we so comfortable with the status quo today that we are willing to say there should be no research into further pharmaceuticals which may help to relieve pain in anyone of those diseases or cure anyone of those diseases?

Is that what the New Democrats are saying today, that they are comfortable with the status quo that we do not have a cure for AIDS, and they're satisfied with the status quo that we do not have a cure for arthritis and rheumatism for our senior citizens? Are they saying that we're satisfied with the status quo and that no future research into pharmaceuticals should be done?

Because that's what denial of this Patent Act is saying to the people of Canada: we're willing to allow that research to go on somew here else in the blind hope that it will continue to go on there before too many other nations pirate the kind of drugs that are made available to cure the AIDS, to cure the heart disease, to cure the kidney dis orders, to cure the diabetics. But they don't care about that, Madam Speaker. They prefer to live in the status quo.

They prefer to have a fear-mongering campaign for political gain on the short run today while meanwhile sacrificing the long -term health of the citizens of this province and the citizens of this nation. That is what they're doing, Madam Speaker.

I have to tell you that I genuinely am sorry that the New Democratic Party today is of so little vision that they would want to promote future human misery amongst the citizens of this province and this nation for the short-term, fear-mongering political game of the current misinformation campaign they are putting out to the people of this province and the people of this nation. Where is your vision for the future? Madam Speaker, I don't need to talk anymore about NOP visions. Any vision this NOP Government has had 1040

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 has turned into a nightmare for the people of Manitoba . So I don't have to tell you , Madam Speaker , about vision . But by their intransigent position on this resolution - it does not say, Madam Speaker , that the bill should be amended - it says the bill should be withdrawn and thrown out . That means there is no opportunity to bring in a better piece of legislation if it is flawed. They just simply want it withdrawn.

So what the NOP, Madam Speaker , is saying to all of those university graduates of the University of Manitoba, or the University of Winnipeg , or the University of Brandon who are graduating in science with degrees that give them the capability of doing pharmaceutical research, I'm sorry future graduates, future researchers of Manitoba , we're not interested in having you do anything . We don 't value what you can do for the future of this province or this country . We don 't want you to locate anywhere in Canada .

We want you to go down to the United States , to go down to Minneapolis and join pharmaceutical research firms in Minneapolis. We want you graduates in Manitoba to leave this country and go to the United States . That's the vision . That is the future that a New Democratic Party offers to Canada and to Manitoba graduates in science, who have the capability, the brilliance , the talent, the intelligence, the training, paid for by taxpayers in this country, all of those things paid for by the taxpayers, they want them to leave this country to practise their trade. That's what they 're saying .

If they're not saying that, Madam Speaker, then I detect another more ominous thing and I want my New Democratic friends to clear the air. They are saying , well, it maybe isn't that we don't want pharmaceutical research in Canada, we maybe want it but we don 't want it to be in Ontario and Quebec. Now, are you saying , is the New Democratic Party advocating a policy of separation in this country? Is that what we're talking about now, that if something happens in Ontario or Quebec that it's not good for the nation?

That's the kind of attitude , Madam Speaker, that brought the National Energy Program that squashed the economy of Alberta and I want to remind my honourable friends when that happened we were in government and they supported the Federal Government in the squashing of Alberta through the National Energy Program. But now , Madam Speaker A MEMBER: Oh, you've got him riled up. You're getting riled up. MR. D. ORCHARD: I'm sorry , I missed what stump legs was saying there amid all the roar and bafflegab coming from that side of the House.

MADAM SPEAKER: Refer to other honourable members by their appropriate responsibility. MR. D. ORCHARD: I thought I had, Madam Speaker . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh , oh! MR. D ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education has earned that reputation from twice having the legs cut out from under him by his Premier and it's an affectionate name we have for him of "old stump legs." MR. H. ENNS: Actually some of us call him stump . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: ... but I suppose I shouldn't use that and it's on the record and I apologize, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: That's right. MR. D.

ORCHARD: It's an affectionate term we have and we shouldn 't use it in this House, I realize. Madam Speaker, one thing that will guarantee the NDP's greatest fear that if and when this legislation is passed, that the research is done in Ontario and Quebec , is their position on this resolution because they have essentially said in this resolution, research companies in this country need not apply to come to Manitoba . That's what they 're saying in this resolution.

The NOP are saying to - I don't know how many companies there are - any pharmaceutical company that would undertake research, don't do it in Manitoba , don 't come to Manitoba, because we don 't support the efforts you 're trying to do. We don't believe in what you 're doing . So what the NOP, in their position on this resolution has done, is they have said you're not welcome in Manitoba and made them more welcome in Ontario and Quebec where they fear all the research is going. Well, Madam Speaker , I find that difficult to agree with .

I find that difficult to understand why a New Democratic Party Government who wishes to have job creation investment in this province would have such a negative attitude towards their abi lity to attract those kinds of research jobs to Manitoba. Why would they not want to have them here? Why would they not want to have research jobs associated with the private sector marriage of researchers from private sector married with research at the University of Manitoba? Why would they not want to have that, Madam Speaker?

That's why I said earlier on, when the Ministe r of Industry, Trade and Technology giggled and tittered at the robber baron analogies from the Attorney-General - it just tickled his fancy. This is the man who is supposed to be guiding th is province in industrial development and in research and in technology . What industry represents research, jobs and technology more than pharmaceutical research? And he giggled and tittered from his seat at the stimulatio n by the Attorney-General.

Madam Speaker, now the Minister of Industry , Trade and Technology has asked the appropriate question , how many jobs will this provide in Manitoba? This is the NDP solution - none, because this legis lation won't pass and that is what we're saying . Ye, who are so blind, you canno t see, have finally answered your own question . None. Because you opposed this legislation upon which has hinged research , jobs, investment and dollars in this country.

That's why you can correctly say no jobs will be created in Manitoba because you don 't want it to happen . 1041 Madam Speaker, isn't that an incredible admission for the Industry, Trade and Technology Minister of this province to make, that he does not want any jobs

Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 created in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry in this province. And that is exactly what he said and that is exactly what his Premier said.- (Interjection)- The Member for The Pas said that isn't what we said . Read your Prem ier's resolution. He wants this bill withdrawn, not amended; he wants it withdrawn . So what you people are saying is you don't want any research in pharmaceuticals done anywhere in Canada, let alone Manitoba. Now, Madam Speaker, I find that rather short-sighted.

I find that rather opportunistic by my honourable friends in the Opposition because they are playing on the fears of senior citizens and others in this province for short term political gain on this resolution and on this federa l legislation purely to try to fatten their political fortunes in the next federal election . They have not a wit of a concern for any Manitoban or any Canadian who can be helped through the development of new pharmaceuticals through the research that would be done in this nation with the passage of this legislation.

No one on that side of the House yet - Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left? MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has nine minutes . MR. D. ORCHARD: Excellent . Madam Speaker, no one in the New Democratic Party has yet said one single word about one very important component of this legislation and what it can do.

The purpose of this legislation, I suggest, is to have us in a position in this nation , where there is research into new pharmaceuticals; pharmaceuticals that can maybe provide a cure or relieve pain from any one of the number of diseases and conditions of our society that exist, ranging from AIDS to heart disease, kidney disease, growth disorders, diabetes and cancer. Now, we're talking about pharmaceutical research to develop cures and/or relief to any one of those . Madam Speaker, how short-sighted can the New Democratic be? They profess concern about future health costs .

What would save the Minister of Health more, Madam Speaker, because I want to tell you the Minister of Health just this week - pardon me, last week - told us that every AIDS victim in Manitoba will cost us between $85,000 and $100,000 per year medical costs . If the pharmaceutical industry comes up with a cure for AIDS, those robber barons, those pillaging multinationals, if they come up with a cure for AIDS , that saves us $100,000 per year in medical costs for AIDS victims alone.

So no one on the NDP side of the House has talked one word about the future saving to the health care system with a development of new pharmaceuticals that cures the disease. They just want to scare and put their fear-mongering tactics which they are adept at, skillful at, and very good at. That 's all they want to do, but the Minister of Health in a moment of quiet reflection I think would say, yes, we can save money with the development of new pharmaceuticals, and we would have the benefit in Canada, if we developed them here, of having those kinds of patent revenues flowing to Canada to do further research.

What is the matter with that, Madam Speaker? What is the matter with that? Because it has been estimated - and I will use this estimate and I will tell you that it came from a discussion I heard by the Federal Government. So I naturally want to identify the source so that my honourable friends can deny it. But it has been said by federal proponents of this legislation that increased costs, yes, will occur, because now there is a lengthened period of time before generic duplicates can be made . Therefore, there will be some price increases.

But they guesstimate that will be approximately $2 per person per year, somewhere in the area of $2 to $3 per person per year. Madam Speaker, I have a family of five, and I'm willing to donate my $15 right now, Madam Speaker, if someone can provide a pharmaceutical that will provide relief to my mother-in-law's arthritis, as one example alone and a small one.

And I will put my $15 up every single year in the pharmaceuticals that I buy, and I'll put up $20 every single year for the pharmaceuticals I buy if some researcher in this nation , through this legislation, will find a cure to AIDS which is goi ng to kill literally thousands of Canadians before this century is over. Madam Speaker , I will pay my $15 to $20 gladly for my family every year, if someone comes up with a cure to the kind of kidney disease that took my mother's life in 1975. Madam Speaker, this is what we are talking about. This is not a multinational-bashing piece of legislati on.

This is a piece of legislation that deals with life and suffering. The New Democrats want to have no truck or trade of legislation which can, in the long run, provide the research capability so that Canada will take on resear ch into the development of new pharmaceuticals that will cure disease, prevent suffering and prolong life. I can't be against that, Madam Speaker. I say to my honourable friends opposite that this legislation may well not be perfect, and I give them the example of many pieces of legi slation they bring in which need amendment.

But , for heaven's sakes, use some common sense and use some vision for the future, and suggest those amendments so the legislat ion is made bett er, instead of crawling back into your 19th Century position of hating the mult inationals and saying it should be withdrawn entire ly, thereby denying literally thousands of young graduates opportunities in high technology research in the pharmaceutical indust ry, because that's what you're doing. That's what you're doing to our Manit oba graduates . Madam Speaker , we have been chastised and we have been challenged by members opp osi te.

The Memb er for Kildonan, I believe, was one. He said, just for once, don't agre e w ith your federal party; just for once show you're different. Well, I would sugg est that message could be give n to the New Democratic Party in Manitoba . Separate yourse lf from Ed Broadbent and his fear-mongering campaign to get more votes for the next federal election, and do what is right and what is principle and what is correct for the people of Manito ba in the future.

If there are amendments that need to be made, propose them, but don 't throw the baby out with the bath water, because that's what you 're doing with your 19th Century rhetorical response to this, that it's multinational, it's - what was the word that the Attorney General used? Oh yes, the " robber barons, " sort of the corpor ate welfare bums. Why are you still in that mentality? This is the 1980's, and Manitobans and Canadians wa nt better health . They want new 1042

/ Wednesday, 15 April, 1987 pharmaceuticals ; they want life-saving drugs; they want drugs that will relieve suffering of themselves and their loved ones. This legislation is one small step to providing that. It may not be perfect , but don't reject it completely. Simply suggest amendments if you see flaws, and get on with the job of bringing Canada into the 21st Century in research in pharmaceuticals and life-saving drugs .

Stop your political posturing for votes to be gained over the next year-and-a-half to two years, and start showing some vision for the future and some concern for Manitobans yet unborn and for senior citizens yet to come , who may well enjoy the quality of retirement much better if they have new pha rmaceuticals available to prevent suffering and relief from such things as arthritis, heart disease, kidney disease, and I go on and on and on. Stop being short-sighted; stop being political opportunists.

Start being responsible governors of this country , and stop supporting blindly your federal party's ambitions to take control of the Federal Government. Just start telling the truth on this legislation . Quit your fearmongering, and get down to the business of governing for the future of this province and this country. MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Madam Speaker, it's always a delight to follow a member opposite after a 40-minute flurry of rhetoric and of condemnation from the highest and the loudest of his voice that he's capable of.

Madam Speaker, the issue before us today is Canada 's landmark legislation . It was passed back in 1969 , which gave a break to Canadians that other citizens of other countries around the world are asking for as well. That's one of the prime reasons why there 's such a lobby from the pharmaceutical industry and all the way up to the United States President to try and get Canadian 's protective legislation thrown out. That"s what we're discussing here today.

When the Member for Pembina talks about fearmongering, who is fearmongering in this Chamber , if he's running around the countryside - and I'm sure he is - telling people that , if we don 't get this change in legislation, people with arthritis aren't going to get any treatment; that there's no possibility of a cure for people with AIDS in Canada because the drug won't come into this country; that people with cancer can 't expect any future drug development worldwide which will be of benefit to Canada , because the companies won 't send the drugs into the country . That is what is fearmongering. Madam Speaker .

It's not fearmongering to tell the people of Canada what the additional costs are going to be, Madam Speaker , if this poorly-drafted legislation goes ahead that the Federal Government is proposing today . The fearmongering , Madam Speaker , is coming from the members opposite, not from members on this side . We are not telling anybody t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-29
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 29.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a18b9b86f16a4a37fb6befc4381916b0b8f89d8c

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).