1. ‘Protection of Pharmaceuticals as Foreign Policy: The Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement and Bill C-22 Versus the North American Free Trade Agreement and Bill C-91,’;Christopher Scott Harrison;N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg.,20001
2. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-91, 34: 8 Parliament of Canada, 8: 39-42 (December 1, 1992).
3. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-91, 34: 8 Parliament of Canada, 8: 30 (December 1, 1992).
4. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-91, 34: 7 Parliament of Canada, 7: 68-92 (December 1, 1992).
5. For a review of the evidence in front of the House of Commons in the context of Bills C-22 and C-91, see Harrison (2000-1), supra note 1, at 511-524, and Michael C. Jordan, ‘The Politics of Drug Patenting in Canada,’ 102 (August 2005) [Jordan (n.d.)] (unpublished MA thesis, University of Saskatchewan) (on file with the University of Saskatchewan, Electronic Thesis 7 Dissertation Project). In the parliamentary debate leading up to the enactment of Bill C-91, it was widely noted by several Members of Parliament that the CN $300-500 million figure had to be reduced in accordance with provincial tax incentives, which amounted to 55, 60, and 70 cents on the dollar in Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, respectively (Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-91, 34: 4 Parliament of Canada, 4: 14, 4: 39 (November 27, 1992) and ibid. at 34: 5 Parliament of Canada, 5: 38, 5: 40, 5: 91 (November 30, 1992)). During cross-examination, federal employees acknowledged that these figures were correct and that the calculations were intentionally left out of government reports on the topic leading to the hearings (ibid. at 34: 6 Parliament of Canada 6: 10 (November 30, 1992)).