1962-11-12

Mr. Speaker:: I would like the indulgence of hon. members for a few moments before we get into the routine business of the house. The matter about which I wish to speak is something which has previously given the house concern, but during the past few weeks it has manifested itself more particularly. Our Hansard records have had a rather staccato appearance caused by gratuitous interjections into hon. members' speeches by other hon. members.
This creates a very difficult situation. The interjections themselves are quite out of order. I think all hon. members recognize that, and they leave a great responsibility upon the Hansard reporters and Hansard editor to determine, in effect, what are the proceedings of the house. I think it is recognized that this is not a task which should be laid upon them, and the position of acting as censor of Hansard is not one which is sought or ought to be sought by the Speaker.
It will be recognized that within, shall we say, earshot of the Hansard reporters, hon. members on both sides of the house appear to interject a great deal in debates and, frankly, some speeches are just riddled with interjections which are not heard either by the member who has the floor or by the Chair.
They actually consist of a sort of secondary debate by an hon. member who has not got the floor, in addition to which it permits certain hon. members to enter into a debate in a way which is not fair to other hon. members who sit further away from the Hansard reporters' table.
In this regard, I think all hon. members have equal rights in the house, but those hon. members who find themselves at the far end of the chamber and those who are much closer to the chair, if they would want to be heard in the same way would have to shout. Then of course we would be reduced to completely chaotic conditions in the house.
I offer these comments only in the spirit of maintaining the decorum of the house and the proprieties of the proceedings of the house,
and I trust hon. members will govern themselves accordingly. I think it is also known that unfortunately some very good speeches are ofttimes torpedoed by deliberate and gratuitous interjections that are not heard either by the person who has the floor or by the Chair. We cannot say that Hansard reporters or editors must themselves delete these interjections. In conclusion I ask hon. members to govern themselves accordingly in this regard.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on
November 9 the special political committee of the general assembly unanimously approved the text of a resolution on radiation put forward by Canada and co-sponsored by 41 other member states. The vote was 79 in favour, none against, with 11 abstentions. The 11 abstaining countries were the Soviet union and its allies.
The Canadian delegation played a leading role in the drafting and negotiation which led to the unanimous adoption of this resolution. The resolution is divided into two sections. In the first part it asked the scientific committee of the United Nations to continue its assessment of radiation risks as well as its review of ways of increasing man's knowledge of the effects of radiation. It also calls the attention of all member states to the scientific committee's finding that "the exposure of mankind to radiation from increasing numbers of artificial sources including the world wide contamination of the environment with short and long lived radio nuclides from weapons tests, calls for the closest attention", since the effects of radiation increases may not be fully manifested until long after exposure has taken place.
The second part of the resolution commends the world meteorological organization for the plan it has prepared for the world wide monitoring and reporting of the levels of atmospheric radioactivity, and invites the organization to put a plan into operation as soon as possible after its final formulation. On an initiative taken by Canada last year the general assembly recommended that such
1500	HOUSE OF
Canadian Radiation Resolution Approved a plan for monitoring and reporting should be formulated, and implemented if found feasible.
I am sure all hon. members will realize the importance of such measures taken by the United Nations and associated agencies to promote the closest possible scientific cooperation at the international level, with a view to expanding man's knowledge of the effects of atomic radiation on human health. The approval of this resolution without opposition in the special political committee represents a significant forward step toward the achievement of this goal.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house will appreciate the importance of the passing of this resolution unanimously at the United Nations for the purpose of monitoring and measuring the effect of radiation in the atmosphere. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree with me when I say that even more important is agreement at the United Nations to put an end to those activities which bring about the necessity for such measurement.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a word in this regard. I think the progress which has been made is encouraging, particularly as the resolution we are speaking about was passed with complete unanimity, and points towards the ending of nuclear testing. Certainly we have been made more aware of the dangers of radiation. We mentioned at the time of the Cuban crisis that some good might come out of that near tragedy, and certainly I think this is one of the things that is helping to bring people to their senses in regard to the dangers which face us and the possibility of our own destruction in this world of civilized progress.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, nature already provides sufficient hazards to human health without our also having to combat the man-made hazards resulting from nuclear testing. I am sure all hon. members will consider the resolution which has been passed at the United Nations, providing for the measuring and monitoring of the effects of radiation, to be a forward step. I am sure all of us will feel that the important step is to reach the stage where nuclear testing can be discontinued by unanimous agreement and under international inspection and control.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I would like to withdraw motion No. 29 standing in my name, providing for the holding of a world's fair in Montreal, appearing on page 31 of today's order paper. I think it is well known that I have been very active for several years in promoting this matter, and with the co-operation of the municipal, provincial and federal governments I hope we will realize this great potential.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed the motion shall be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-77, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, the only
change suggested is the adding of three words, "or habeas corpus" at the end of subsection (1) of section 691.
It has been decided in the case of re Shane that a prisoner has no right of appeal from an order of a judge refusing a discharge under habeas corpus proceedings, neither can he apply from judge to judge of a court until he obtains a decision in his favour. Action to resolve the condition of affairs which now exists was suggested by the chief justice of the high court of Ontario on May 20, 1959.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MacEachen: Is it the intention of the government to spend any money in 1962 on the airport at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and, if so, what amount is involved and for what purpose will it be expended?


Mr. McBain:: Annual operating expenses, approximately $70,000.
Building repairs, $8,000.


FINANCIAL AID RESPECTING RECREATIONAL CENTRES
Mr, Lalulippe: Has the government given consideration to the granting of financial assistance to sports organizations which own recreation centres in order that these organizations may amortize debts incurred when the said recreation centres were built?


Mrs. Casselman:: At this stage funds under the fitness and amateur sport program are not being provided for local recreational facilities. Because of the federal assistance already available to municipalities under the municipal winter works program for the construction of local recreational facilities, the position has been taken that aid for the construction of these facilities should be met to the extent possible through that program.


BROADCASTING IN RELATION TO PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Have the "Report from Parliament Hill" radio broadcasts been cancelled all across Canada for November 14 because of the Quebec provincial election and, if so, was this done because of section 17(1) <b) of the Broadcasting Act?
2.	Has consideration been given to amending the act to permit broadcasting on the day of a provincial election and on the two days immediately preceding provided such broadcasting originates outside the province in which the election is being held, and, under normal conditions, cannot be received in the said province?


Mr. Halpenny:: 1. The "Report from Parliament Hill" radio broadcasts are produced in Ottawa and distributed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters as a service to the individual private stations who are its members. I do not know whether or not the broadcasts have been cancelled for November 14. I assume that if they have the action has been taken by the private stations themselves to conform to section 17(2) of the Broadcasting Act.
2.	No.


FEDERAL BUILDINGS TRANSFERRED TO MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Knowles: 1.	In each year since January 1, 1950, what buildings formerly used by the federal government (former post office buildings and others) were transferred to municipal bodies?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the transfer, was the property turned over gratis or was it sold and, if it was sold, what was the price in each case?
3.	What is the present policy regarding such buildings, when municipal bodies are interested in obtaining them?


George Ernest Halpenny: With regard to this question, I have spoken to the hon. member and he has agreed to withdraw the question and resubmit it.
Order discharged and question withdrawn.
Questions


*D0RVAL AIRPORT    LAND FOR HOTEL AND GOLF COURSE
Mr. Rock: 1.	For what period of time has the land lease been granted by the government to Hilton-Dorval Ltd.?
2.	How many square feet of land have been leased?
3.	How many square feet are allotted for the golf course?
4.	In what area is this land situated?
5.	What is the amount of rental per annum received by the government?
6.	From what date do rental payments start?
7.	Will this hotel and golf course pay municipal taxes according to the real value of assessment?
8.	Was it the government or the D.O.T. that asked that a hotel be built within the airport?
9.	Were public tenders requested?
10.	Is there any more land available, on a rental basis, for similar enterprises?
11.	Was the member of parliament for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle informed of these transactions?


James Alexander McBain: With regard to parts 1 and 8, the Department of Transport has no land lease with Hilton-Dorval Ltd., and no representations were made to that organization requesting the erection of a hotel near the Montreal international airport. The other parts of the question are consequently not applicable.


* ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL AIR TRAVEL
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What is the policy of the Department of National Defence in respect to officers and other ranks travelling by air on commercial carriers?
2.	Which ranks are entitled to first class accommodation?


Mr. Harkness:: 1. Travel by air on commercial carriers is authorized only when it is the most practical and economical method of travel.
2.	Existing regulations entitle officers of all ranks to first class travel in North America and Europe; officers of the rank of colonel (or equivalent) and above are entitled to first class travel on transoceanic flights or to countries other than in North America or Europe. However, although the entitlement exists, first class air transport is frequently not granted.
The regulations are now being amended to restrict first class commercial air travel in normal circumstances in North America and Europe to officers of the rank of brigadier (or equivalent) and above, and for transoceanic flights to officers of the rank of major general (or equivalent) and above.


CRUMLIN AIRPORT, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Thomas: Has consideration been given to the relocation of Crumlin airport, London, Ontario, and, if so, what reasons would make such a change desirable?

Questions


James Alexander McBain: Consideration has not been given by the department to the relocation of the Crumlin airport, London, Ontario.


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CAUSEWAY, BRIDGE SECTIONS
Mr. McWilliam: Has the government given consideration to sufficient bridge sections in the proposed Northumberland strait causeway toward safeguarding all species of Miramichi fisheries in their migration to Miramichi waters and, if so, how many sections of this proposed transportation link will comprise bridge sections and in what lengths?


Mr. MacLean:: Yes. Present plans contemplate 20 to 25 per cent of length in open sections.


ROGER BOURBONNAIS, C.B.C. NEWS SERVICE
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Has the head of the C.B.C. news service, Mr. Roger Bourbonnais, been suspended and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was any other position offered him and, if so, what position?
(Translation):


George Ernest Halpenny: The C.B.C. informs me that this is a matter of internal administration. It is not customary to ask public corporations to give information about their employees or other matters of internal administration.
(Text):


BERNARD LEGARE, C.B.C. OTTAWA NEWS SERVICE
Mr. Boulanger: Has Mr. Bernard Legare, head of the Ottawa C.B.C. news service, been recently promoted or transferred and, if so, to what position and/or to what city?
(Translation):


George Ernest Halpenny: The C.B.C. informs me that this is a matter of internal administration. It is not customary to ask public corporations to give information about their employees or other matters of internal administration.
(Text):


STUDIES OF EFFECTS OF TARIFF SUSPENSION
Mr. Laing: 1.	Has there come to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce a report entitled "Tariff reductions and United States imports" by Dr. Howard S. Piquet (house ways and means committee, foreign trade policy No. 231)?
2.	Is any thought being given to parallel studies in Canada on the effects of tariff suspension?


Mr. Nesbill:: I have now had an opportunity to review the report "Tariff Reductions and United States Imports", which is a memorandum submitted to a subcommittee of the ways and means committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The subject matter of the report is the effect of reductions in tariffs on imports into the United States, and on the competitive position of United States industries in relation to imports.

The Canadian government constantly studies the likely effects of tariff changes or possible changes on trade, including Canadian export and import trade, and on Canadian industry. Such study is conducted on a continuing basis jointly by the government departments concerned.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION PERSONNEL, PACIFIC REGION
Mr. Berger: 1.	Has there been any increase, during the last four months in the Pacific region of the unemployment insurance commission, in the number of personnel employed in investigating (a) applicants and applications for benefit (b) persons already in receipt of benefit?
2.	Has there been any increase, during the last four months in the Pacific region of the national employment service, in the number of personnel employed in investigating applicants for employment?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1 and 2. No.


* COLOUR TELEVISION
Mr. Rock: Has there been any plan to have the C.B.C. television stations transmit television in colour and, if so, when will such transmission commence?


George Ernest Halpenny: I am advised that the C.B.C. has been keeping in close touch with colour T.V. developments in the United States and in other parts of the world. Corporation engineers are aware of the latest technical developments in colour T.V. and have prepared plans for the conversion to colour of its existing plants, when the corporation is able to proceed.
The introduction of colour T.V. into Canada will involve the C.B.C. in large expenditures of money. Those viewers who make the relatively large investment in colour receivers will expect the C.B.C. to provide them with colour programs. As a national service the C.B.C. must provide not only U.S. programs, but Canadian colour programs in both languages. Moreover, the corporation must plan to serve a coast to coast audience, rather than the residents of a few large centres.
The C.B.C. would like to provide a national service in colour when all the factors make the time appropriate.


JACQUES CARTIER-LASALLE CONSTITUENCY POST OFFICES
Mr. Rock: 1.	Has any decision been taken concerning the opening of a new post office in the city of Lasalle, Quebec, and, if so, (a) will the government rent an office or build one (b) where does the government intend to build or rent this post office?

2.	Does the government intend to build or rent other post offices in the county of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle and, if so (a) where will such post offices be located (b) when will they be opened?


Mr. McCleave:: 1. Yes. (a) Construction of a new building is being considered, (b) In the vicinity of Lafleur street, near Clement or Jean Milot streets, Ville la Salle.
2.	Yes. (a) Construction is contemplated at Roxboro (Ste. Genevieve de Pierrefonds). (b) The scheduled completion date in the construction contract for Roxboro is August 18, 1963.


REMOVAL OF TOLLS, WELLAND CANAL
Mr. Fisher: 1.	When did the Prime Minister announce that tolls on the Welland canal would be removed?
2.	When was the announcement implemented by official action?
3.	How was official action taken?
4.	Did consultation with American authorities take place before the Prime Minister's announcement or after?
5.	Did the Americans have any objections or qualifications or suggestions regarding the removal of tolls on the Welland caneil and, if so, what were they?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1. June 15, 1962.
2,	3, 4. Following the announcement of the government's intention, diplomatic notes on the subject were exchanged between Canada and the United States. The canal is wholly within Canada and revenues from it are not subject to the sharing arrangement between the two countries, but the exchange of notes was carried out in order to modify the tariff of tolls that had been incorporated in a previous exchange of notes of March 9, 1959. The suspension of tolls was made effective on July 18, 1962, under the authority of order in council P.C. 1962-1032 of that date. The St. Lawrence seaway authority then issued an amendment to the tariff of tolls in the master's handbook. On July 23 the effective date of suspension of tolls was announced and the texts of the exchange of notes were made public. The notes were tabled in the House of Commons on October 5 and in the Senate on October 9.
5. No.


UNEMPLOYED PERSONS TAKING VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many unemployed persons were taking training under shedule M to the agreements under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act in Canada in each month during the year 1962?
2.	How many unemployed were taking training thereunder in Ontario in each month during the year 1962?
Questions


Mr. Starr:: 1 and 2:
Canada Ontario
No. in training under schedule M at	January 1, 1962 .	. 4,020	1,287Enrolled	in	January 	. 5,640	1,425Enrolled	in	February ....	. 5,586	1,194Enrolled	in	March 	. 2,378	1,260Enrolled	in	April 	. 1,614	614Enrolled	in	May 	. 982	516Enrolled	in	June 	. 908	762Enrolled	in	July 	. 1,156	965Enrolled	in August	. 1,002	694Enrolled	in	September ...	. 2,996	1,200


* PICCADILLY, NFLD. WHARF
Mr. Batten: Has a contract been awarded for the construction of a wharf at Piccadilly, Newfoundland, as listed in the public works estimates, 1962-63 and, if so (a) to whom was the contract awarded (b) when was the contract awarded (e) will work on this project be started during the present fiscal year and, if so, when?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes: (a) Diamond Construction (1961) Limited of Fredericton, New Brunswick; (b) August 8, 1962; (c) although no actual construction has been performed at the wharf site the contractor has carried out certain preliminary works in connection with this contract including preparation of an access road and a quarry.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY HELICOPTERS
Mr. Malheson: 1.	How many helicopters has the Canadian navy in operation for anti-submarine service?
2.	Are such helicopters now being replaced on a regular scheduled basis?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1. Five.
2. It is intended to acquire new anti-submarine helicopters, not only to replace those now in service, but to increase the anti-submarine warfare helicopter capability of the R.C.N.


UNDERWATER COMPONENT, CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. Malheson: Does the government plan to develop further the underwater component of the Canadian navy and, if so, does the government intend to continue to acquire used submarines or to acquire ships of first line standards?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No arrangements have been made to date for the acquisition of additional submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy. The subject is a matter of continuing consideration, but at present there is nothing to add to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence on April 11, 1962, as reported in Hansard of that date, page 2835.

Questions


POULTRY GRADING METHODS
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): Has the Department of Agriculture instituted new grading methods or grading standards for poultry, particularly turkeys and, if so, how do these new procedures differ from previous methods, and what is the purpose of the change?


Mr. Jorgenson:: The department has not instituted new grading methods or grading standards for poultry. However, agreement has been established between the Canadian turkey federation representing producers, the Canadian produce council representing the processors and the poultry division of the Department of Agriculture that some modification should and could be made in the amount of fat required for heavy turkeys that are eligible to be graded as Canada grade A. Agreement has also been established in the extent of the reduction desirable.
No request was made or consideration given to reducing the present standards with respect to amount and placing of meat on the bird or any other factors relating to grading.
The trend in breeding for heavier turkeys has resulted in the development of factors that brought about the need, in the interests of the industry, to modify the fat requirement in the grading of heavy turkeys: (1) Undesirable male characteristics were developing in the birds as a result of the additional feeding time necessary to attain the present fat level required, (2) The longer feeding period is costly to the producer from the standpoint of feed conversion, and, (3) It was becoming increasingly difficult to satisfactorily finish sufficient birds in this weight for the Thanksgiving market.
In view of the present popular trend to reduce fat in the human diet, it was considered that a slight reduction of fat requirement on these heavy birds could be undertaken without reducing the acceptability of the bird from the standpoint of consumer.
Agreement among the groups referred to was also reached that this new interpretation relative to fat requirement should be introduced for the marketing of the 1963 crop of turkeys.


IMPORT SURCHARGES ON PLYWOODS
Mr. McWilliam: Did the government give consideration to including in the June 24 list of import surcharges, hardwood and softwood plywoods and, if so, what decision was reached, and on what basis?


Mr. McGee:: Yes. It was decided not to apply surcharges to these items. The considerations on why some items were included while others were not were explained in the Prime Minister's statement of June 24.
[Mr Harkness.l


INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR TRADESMEN'S TOOLS
Mr. Honey: 1.	Has the government given consideration to the amendment of the Income Tax Act to provide that a taxpayer, in computing his income, may deduct the cost of small tools and equipment required to be supplied and used by tradesmen, such as mechanics, carpenters, and machinists, in the course of their employment and, if so, what is the anticipated date?
2.	If not, will the government give early consideration to the amendment of the act in this regard?


Frank Charles McGee: 1 and 2. Decisions concerning requests for tax changes are made known when the annual budget is presented.


HANTS HARBOUR, NFLD. COMMUNITY STAGE
Mr. Tucker: Has the government received a petition from the fishermen of Hants harbour, Newfoundland, requesting the construction of a community stage and, if so, has any decision been made in this regard?


John Angus MacLean: Yes. A final decision has not been reached.
Canada's commitments under oecd


Mr. Pennell: 1.	What are Canada's commitments, financial and otherwise, as a member of the organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD)?
2.	Is Canada in arrears under any of her commitments?
3.	Has the U.S.A., during the period 1960-62 inclusive, made any requests to Canada regarding Canada's commitments under OECD?


Howard Charles Green: 1. The convention on the
organization for economic co-operation and development specifically commits members to furnish the organization with information, to consult on a continuing basis, to carry out agreed studies and projects, to co-operate closely, and where appropriate, to take coordinated action, in pursuit of the general aims and undertakings of the organization as defined in articles 1 and 2 of the convention. The general expenses of the organization are apportioned in accordance with a scale decided upon by the OECD council; any other expenditure is financed on such basis as the council may decide.
2.	No.
3.	No.


FEED GRAIN SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE TRANSPORT FIRMS
Mr. Cook: Are the subsidies granted for the transport of feed grains applicable when such transport is carried out by a private firm and, if not, what are the grounds for not granting such subsidies to private firms?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Private firms may participate in the movement of freight assisted western feed grains.

Eligibility in the movement of western feed grain has been restricted to date for movement by rail and boat because verification as to destination, grain quality, volume and identity is provided.


ST. CAMILLE, QUE.  POST OFFICE
Mr. Dumont: 1.	Has a decision been taken to construct a post office at St. Camille?
2.	Have plans for the said post office been prepared and, if so, what will be the cost of such a post office?
3.	Has a contract been awarded and, if so, to whom?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. No. This is a revenue post office with the postmaster responsible for the provision of accommodation under the terms of his employment.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


BEAUCE COUNTY, QUE.  FARM LOAN APPLICATIONS
Mr. Perron: 1.	How many farmers of the county of Beauce have applied to the Farm Credit Corporation for loans in 1958-59-60-61-62?
2.	How many applications were granted?
3.	What were the amounts of the loans made?


Mr. Pigeon:: 1. 1958, 4; 1959, 5; 1960, 3; 1961, nil; 1962, (to Nov. 7) 10.
2.	1958, 4; 1959, 3; 1960, 2; 1961, nil; 1962, (to Nov. 7) 2 (6 others in process).
3.	1958, $10,000;	$6,500;	$8,500;	$3,600.
Total, $28,600. 1959, $2,700; $4,000; $3,000. Total, $9,700. 1960, $12,000; $12,600. Total, $24,600. 1961, nil. 1962, (to Nov. 7) $16,800; $6,300. Total, $23,100.


PAYMENT FOR LIVESTOCK LOST, LOWER ST. LAWRENCE AREA
Mr. Gagnon: Is compensation being paid to Kamouraska county farmers by the federal government for the loss of their animals and, if so, will such payments also be made to farmers in Temiscouata and other counties of the lower St. Lawrence?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Compensation is only paid to owners of livestock when such livestock are ordered destroyed for disease prevention purposes under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. Should these conditions apply in Temiscouata or in any other counties of the lower St. Lawrence, the provisions of the act would be applicable.


RIVIERE DU LOUP, QUE. WHARF
Mr. Gagnon: Does the federal government intend to resume in the near future the work on the wharf at Riviere du Loup point in order that it can be used for the new ferry being built for service next spring?
Questions


Robert Jardine McCleave: An item for the construction of the Riviere du Loup ferry terminal is being considered for the department's main estimates, 1963-64. To date no work has been done toward construction of this particular project.


CROFTON, B.C. POST OFFICE
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	Is the government contemplating a new post office building at Crofton, B.C., and, if so (a) has a contract been awarded (b) to whom?
2.	What premises are now used by the post office?
3.	When was the building, housing the post office, built?
4.	What rental does the post office department pay for these premises?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. Yes; (a) No. (b) Not applicable.
2.	8057 Dyke road, Crofton, B.C.
3.	1957.
4.	The Department of Publics Works pays $1,920 per annum.


LOCAL PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, N.W.T.
Mrs. Hardie: Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources changed its policy, at Hay River, Fort Smith, and Yellowknife, of making local purchases of materials in favour of direct purchases from manufacturers or wholesalers and, if so, when was the change made, and for what reason?


Mr. Dinsdale:: No change has been made in the department's purchase policy of buying goods locally in the north to the greatest extent possible.


NON-AGGRESSION PACT, NATO AND WARSAW POWERS
Mr. Mather: Would the government undertake to give consideration to proposing, at the appropriate international level, a 20 year non-aggression pact between members of the NATO and Warsaw pact powers?


Howard Charles Green: Consideration has been given for a number of years to the idea of a nonaggression	pact	between	NATO	and	theWarsaw pact powers. It has come up in the context of discussions of European security and of disarmament, and a variety of proposals have been made by both the Soviet union and the western allies. Such a pact would be repetitive of obligations assumed under the U.N. charter, but this need not necessarily rule out its usefulness. A nonaggression	pact	between	NATO	and	the
Warsaw pact powers might prove a useful adjunct to a broader settlement of outstanding east-west issues, though in itself and in isolation it would not materially contribute to the world's security. We are, however, keeping the possibility under review in consultation with our NATO allies and in the framework of the current disarmament negotiations.

Questions
1961 SUGAR BEET DEFICIENCY PAYMENT


Mr. Thomas: When will the deficiency payments on sugar beets for the 1961 crop be made?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: It is anticipated that the deficiency payment on sugar beets produced in 1961 in the province of Ontario will be made within a few days. The time of payment to producers in other provinces will depend on receipt of the necessary information from producer organizations.


RENOUS, N.B.  PREVAILING RATES EMPLOYEES
Mr. McWilliam: As of November 1, 1962, what is the number of prevailing rate employees engaged at the naval ammunition depot, Renous, N.B., who are affected by the freeze on wage adjustments?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Since the decision to defer approval of wage rate revisions apply to all prevailing rate employees, any recommendations relating to employees at Renous, N. B. would be affected. As of November 1, the naval armament depot at Renous, N. B. employed 136 prevailing rate employees.


RENOUS, N.B.  PREVAILING RATES PAID
Mr. McWilliam: As of November 1, 1962, what are the wage rates paid to each prevailing wage rate group at the naval ammunition depot, Renous, N.B,?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Prevailing rate classifications and rates of pay at Renous, N. B., authorized as of 1 November, 1962:
Hourly rate
Classification	of pay
Ammunition worker class 1	$1.39
Ammunition worker class 2	 1.43
Ammunition worker class 3	 1.58
Ammunition worker class 4	 1.81
Ammunition worker class 5	 1.97
Carpenter	 1.70
Driver	 1.38
Electrician	 1.95
Heavy equipment mechanic	 1.65
Heavy equipment operator	 1.65
Labourer	  1.30
Light equipment operator	 1.50
Machinist	 2.00
Motor mechanic	 1.60
Painter and glazier	 1.55
Painter (spray)	 1.55
Plumber and steamfitter	 1.90
Trades helper	 1.35


RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
Mr. Malheson: 1. Pursuant to the recommendations of the royal commission on government organization, what decisions have now been reached with reference to (a) re-defining the functions of the treasury board and its staff (b) transferring personnel management functions from the civil service commission to the departments and to treasury board (c) increasing the salaries of senior administrative personnel?

2. Which of these decisions, if any, have already been implemented?


John George Diefenbaker: 1 and 2. These recommendations are currently being considered by ministers and senior officials. It is not planned to reach final decision on these major points until further volumes of reports have been received and studied.


HIGHWAY TO LINK NOREMBEGA, ONT. AND LA REINE, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: Have the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario asked the federal government to co-operate in the construction of a roadway linking Norembega in Ontario, and La Reine in Quebec, and, if so, when was such request made, and what reply was given thereto?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No.


TELECAST OF GREY CUP GAME
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	Did the C.B.C. indicate to the B.B.G. that they were prepared to carry the telecast of the Grey cup game at any point during the negotiations between the B.B.G., C.T.V., C.B.C., and any other interested and involved parties and, if so, what were the terms of the proposal of the C.B.C.?
2.	Did C.T.V. offer to the C.B.C. the right of carrying the telecast of the Grey cup game without carrying the advertising that will be associated with the C.T.V. telecast of the Grey cup game?
3.	On what grounds did the B.B.G. compel the C.B.C. to carry the telecast of the Grey cup game complete with associated advertising sold by C.T.V.?
4.	Did the C.B.C. make any proposals during the course of the negotiations dealing with the Grey cup game telecast as to how this matter might be resolved and, if so (a) what were these proposals (b) were these proposals considered by the B.B.G. and (c) why were these proposals not acceptable to the B.B.G.?


George Ernest Halpenny: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes. The C.B.C. on several occasions indicated to the B.B.G. that it was anxious to televise the Grey cup game on its national networks provided that this did not involve sponsorship arrangements for C.B.C. networks that were determined directly or indirectly by C.T.V. and the corporation made a number of different proposals to this effect.
2.	The C.B.C. did receive such an offer but this offer was subsequently withdrawn.
3.	(answered by B.B.G.)
4.	Yes. (a) Certain proposals were made by the C.B.C. prior to the public hearing of the B.B.G. held August 18, 1962. These were reviewed in some detail at the hearing and additional proposals were put forward at that time. All of these form part of the record of that hearing, (b) (To be answered by the B.B.G.) (c) (To be answered by the B.B.G.)
I am informed by the board of broadcast governors as follows:

1.	If the holder of the rights agrees the C.B.C. will instal its own cameras and equipment at the Grey cup stadium and make its own pickup of the game at no cost to C.T.V. in any way. It is prepared to do this on a commercial-free basis or with sponsors of its own choice and is further prepared to provide C.T.V. with a clean feed.
2.	The C.B.C. will accept and broadcast the C.T.V. pickup of the game on a sustaining or commercial-free basis. The C.B.C. would require that the C.T.V. provide a clean feed that is without commercial or promotional material.
3.	The C.B.C. will accept and broadcast a clear feed of the C.T.V. pickup of the game on a commercial-free basis but will provide for five insertions in the broadcast of customary courtesy announcements which will name the C.T.V. sponsors and extend the appreciation of the corporation to them for making the C.B.C. coverage possible. In addition, the C.B.C. was prepared to offer commercial participation to C.T.V. sponsors on the C.B.C. network in programs prior to and following the Grey cup broadcast.
I am informed that none of these proposals were acceptable to the owners of the television rights of the game.
The B.B.G. was informed that these proposals had been made directly to the C.T.V. Television Network Ltd.
Reasons for the action of the board on the Grey cup game, November 7, 1962:
1.	Since the purchase of football rights by parties other than the C.B.C. the situation has remained chaotic and efforts to find voluntary solutions have proved futile. Some imposed solution seemed unavoidable.
2.	The Broadcasting Act, section 10, reads: "The board shall . . . regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto". The problem of the broadcast of the 1962 Grey cup game was largely one of the networks and the relations between them. The board's responsibility seemed clear.
3.	The board determined:
(a)	The owners of the rights were prepared to buy the C.T.V. network alone. The board did not feel that this solution was in the public interest.
(b)	The owners of the rights were prepared to buy the C.B.C. network alone. This solution would have provided complete coverage. However, the C.B.C. remained adamant that they would not, under any conditions, carry the commercials of the sponsors within the broadcast of the game.
Questions
(c)	The C.B.C. was prepared to take a clean feed from C.T.V. network and carry the broadcast on a sustaining basis. Because this would split the audience in the major markets, it was not acceptable to the owners of the rights.
The board has no authority over the owners of rights; its authority extends only to broadcasters, and can be exercised only by regulation.
4.	The board considered carefully the reasons for the adamant refusal of the corporation to accept the commercials for British-American Oil, Nabob and Labatt's under any conditions.
The corporation is engaged in commercial operations and has been increasingly aggressive in its commercial policy. The corporation has recently, because of reduced public revenues, found it necessary to cut its costs and curtail its service. The corporation has carried the broadcast of the Grey cup game in other years on a commercial basis. The three companies-B.A., Nabob and Labatt's -have all been acceptable sponsors to the C.B.C. over the years. The C.B.C. was willing to take the commercials of the three companies in the pregame and postgame programs; but not within the body of the broadcast of the game.
Why does the corporation find it so essential to refuse the sponsorship of these three companies at this time?
The corporation has said publicly that this year C.T.V. network and the sponsors conspired to sell and to buy the network of the C.B.C. The board knows of no evidence to support this claim. The board understands that in its contract with the sponsors C.T.V. network undertook to endeavour to secure coverage of the C.B.C. network, but agreed that if it failed to succeed in this the rights to the Grey cup game would be turned over to the sponsors. The transfer took place on October 1, 1962. The sponsors, as owners of the rights, were prepared to buy C.B.C. network alone. This proposal was rejected by the C.B.C. The owners of the rights were prepared to buy the C.T.V. network alone. This action did not seem to the board to be in the public interest.
The corporation has said that their object is to "teach a lesson" to CFTO-TV, C.T.V. network, and the sponsors, and other potential purchasers of the rights to football games, including the Grey cup game, and so to discourage or prevent any repetition of the events of the past two years. The inescapable fact is that there is now a second television network which will continue to extend its coverage and to improve its relative capacity to provide service to the population of Canada. Competition for the rights to popular events is here, and the conditions of competition on

Questions
a commercial basis will become more nearly equal. C.T.Y. network, and its affiliated stations, will be in the market for popular events. No disciplinary action on the part of the C.B.C. will change the situation.
It has been the consistent position of the board that even if C.T.V. network does not yet have the same coverage as the publicly owned network, it should not for that reason be excluded from all the popular events which call for wide coverage. The board believes that C.T.V. network should find it possible to carry some football games, and to have some participation in the annual Grey cup game broadcast. What is needed is some orderly basis for division of these events between the two networks.
Early in October the president of the C.B.C. approached the president of C.T.V. network to discuss an agreement over a term of years which would incorporate the principle of dividing the distribution of football broadcasts. This responsible approach to the problem nearly succeeded. It failed, in part, because of unreconciled but negotiable differences on the conditions for the future; it failed, mainly, because the agreement would have provided for a solution of the 1962 problem, the C.B.C. carrying the commercials of B.A., Nabob and Labatt's The C.B.C. board of directors refused to accept this condition for a long run settlement.
It is obvious that further efforts must be made to establish a basis on which the two networks will be prepared to distribute football broadcasts-a basis which includes division of the broadcasts. The board earlier wrote to all the parties involved suggesting a meeting to discuss the permanent problem and to seek a permanent solution. In view of the move by the president of the C.B.C. and his direct approach to C.T.V. network, no further action was taken by the board. This approach having failed, the board will resume its efforts to get the parties together.


USE OF JEEPS BY POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Denis: 1.	How many motor vehicles, commonly called "jeeps", were purchased as of this date by the Post Office Department for use in carrying or delivering mall, and what was the cost of each such vehicle?
2.	In what localities are these vehicles now in use, and how many in each case?
3.	What is the average annual cost of (a) storage (b) repair (c) operation (d) maintenance (e) depreciation of these vehicles; and what are the other expenses incurred through the purchase and use of these vehicles?
4.	How many employees would the department have to employ in order to give equivalent service if these vehicles were not used?


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1. 114 Willys Jeep Dispatchers, $1,855 each.

2.	Halifax, N.S., 7; Montreal, P.Q., 37; Quebec, P.Q., 5; Pointe aux Trembles, P.Q., 1; Laval des Rapides, P.Q., 2; Cite de Jacques Cartier, P.Q., 1; St. Rose, P.Q., 4; Toronto, Ont., 7; Winnipeg, Man., 6; Vancouver, B.C., 4; Port Coquitlam, B.C., 6; New Westminster, B.C., 28; Victoria, B.C., 7.
3.	(a) $120 each; (b) $160 each; (c) $635 each (total operating cost, including storage, repairs, maintenance, tires and tire repairs, but without driver); (d) $210 each; (e) $300 each.
4.	41 additional employees.


USE OF SCOOTERS BY POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Denis: 1.	How many motor vehicles, commonly called "scooters", were purchased as of this date by the Post Office Department for use in carrying or delivering mail, and what was the cost of each such vehicle?
2.	In what localities are these vehicles now in use, and how many in each case?
3.	What is the average annual cost of (a) storage (b) repair (c) operation (d) maintenance (e) depreciation of these vehicles; and what are the other expenses incurred through the purchase and use of these vehicles?
4.	How many employees would the department have to employ in order to give equivalent service if these vehicles were not used?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 1. 41 Cushman mailmobiles, $1,275 each; 15 Gamalin mailmobiles, $1,375 each.
2,	3 and 4. These vehicles proved mechanically unsatisfactory and were turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Perron: 1.	How many finance companies are operating im Canada under a federal charter?
2.	What amount of paid up capital is required to operate under such a charter?
3.	Under which act do finance companies operate when financing (a) motor vehicles (b) purchase of furniture, and when making personal loans?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.
^CONTINUOUS JOURNEY IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS


Mr. Morris: 1.	Were Canada-bound immigrants required to enter Canada by way of a Canadian port prior to 1947 and, if so, for how long had such a continuous journey regulation been in effect?
2.	When was the continuous journey regulation rescinded; and were Canada-bound immigrants permitted thereafter to enter Canada by way of United States ports?
3.	When were regulations again imposed requiring Canada-bound immigrants to enter Canada by way of a Canadian port; and, thereafter, how many Canada-bound immigrants were permitted to enter

Canada by way of a United States port by (a) ship (b) aircraft; and were those arriving in a United States port by ship required to continue their journey to Canada by air and, if so, how many per aircraft?
4.	When was American Export Lines advised that not more than 99 Canada-bound immigrants arriving at a United States port by ship could continue their journey to Canada by surface carrier; and was the permission conditional on American Export Lines providing physical facilities at the Canada-U.S.A. border at its own expense and, if so, at what locations?
5.	Has American Export Lines provided such facilities at its own expense and, if so. at what location?
6.	Was an undertaking given to American Export Lines not to alter regulations respecting Canada-bound immigrants and, if so (a) was the undertaking written or verbal (b) what regulations were to remain unchanged, for what period of time, and with effect from what date?


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question consists of two pages of single spaced typing. May I have it printed in Hansard rather than read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances I think it should be made an order for return and deposited herewith.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather it is a lengthy answer.


Frank Charles McGee: Order for return, tabled herewith.


* PREVAILING RATES, DOCKYARD EMPLOYEES
Mr. Morris: What were the rates of wages paid to each prevailing rates trade group at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, and H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimalt, on November 6, 1962?



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

Mr. R. J. Teillel (SI. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, I presume, with reference to question No. 366, which was passed as an order for return. Would the minister mind inquiring and informing me when I may expect the answer to that question? It was passed some time ago.


George Ernest Halpenny: No. 366 is not on today's order paper, but I will make inquiries and find out.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: It was passed as an order for return the other day.


Mr. Speaker:: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that such inquiries should be made at the time of orders of the day rather than at this moment.
Grain Losses on Credit Sales GRAIN



LOSSES ON CREDIT SALES


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite, urgent public importance, namely the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture concerning the advisability of burdening western wheat growers with a portion of any loss which might be incurred through credit sales of wheat abroad and of placing upon wheat producers' organizations some of the responsibilities now borne by the Canadian wheat board.
If there is any question about the matter of urgency, I should like to raise the point that the Minister of Agriculture has asked the wheat growers of western Canada to consider these two propositions, and I submit that before constituents discuss them members of parliament should have the opportunity to discuss the implications of these two proposals, which in my opinion are simply a devious means of undermining the scope and function of the Canadian wheat board.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the application which has just been made, it is my understanding that it has always been the rule that urgency of debate is the criterion by which such matters must be determined. With respect to this instance, I would point out that we had a supply motion last Monday and Tuesday, at the end of which the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were introduced. Therefore I suggest that in due course the estimates of this department will come before the house, and there will then be an opportunity to debate the question which the hon. member has raised. I suggest that the urgency of debate is not sufficient at the present time to warrant the interruption of the regular proceedings of the house to discuss this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is a matter not only of urgency but of immediate urgency and of obvious importance in view of the actual text, which is in our hands, of the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture and the uneasiness that this speech, in some respects at least, must have aroused. Surely it is important to clarify the situation at once with regard to

Grain Losses on Credit Sales this matter, especially in respect of the following sentence of the minister's speech, when he said:
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting that farmers take the entire risk of a loss on a credit sale.
The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said that this is not a matter of urgency, in that we had a supply motion last week. That is true, but we do not know when we are going to have another supply motion when we could bring up this matter. We do not know when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are going to be brought before the house. If we were given some assurance that these estimates would be before us in the next day or two, perhaps that would be the appropriate time; but in the absence of such assurance I suggest that this is a matter of importance, and of immediate and urgent importance, and justifies the motion that has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, I think what he says is perfectly reasonable and that an opportunity should be given to discuss this matter. On Wednesday it is our intention to call the agriculture estimates, so that every opportunity will be given to members of the house to discuss this matter.
However, in view of the reference made by the Leader of the Opposition to the text of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, who is unfortunately absent on official business today, I would point out that on page 1 it is made perfectly clear that the expression of these views in no way represents government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the Opposition has quoted from the remarks made and I wish to complete the quotation. The Minister of Agriculture said:
I want to put forward a series of proposals, which are in my mind, in the hope there will be public discussion during the winter on these matters.
I emphasize that there is no possibility of any of these matters being considered until the farmers have cogitated on them and discussed these questions for a period of months. Therefore on both grounds there is not that urgency, I suggest, which would permit the adjournment of the house.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture last week end were official government policy, certainly they have aroused a great deal of concern among the farmers of western Canada and a lot of other people as well. I am pleased to


hear the Prime Minister say that we are going to have an opportunity to discuss this matter in the immediate future. I believe that it relates definitely to the international scene; and there has been enough concern and enough talk, shall I say, that does not bode for good in so far as our understanding of the full significance of many of the international issues with which we are concerned. I trust that we can go ahead with this discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka pointed out that there was a supply motion last week. The statements to which I refer were made only last Friday, and there has been no other opportunity to present this matter to the house.
May I also say that if, as the Prime Minister says, the Minister of Agriculture was speaking for himself alone in making proposals which have such far reaching implications for the wheat growers of western Canada, that is all the more reason why this house ought to discuss this matter at the very earliest possible date. I submit that a general discussion on the agriculture estimates, which cover a wide field, will really not be a substitute for a discussion on this important question and on the two proposals which have been made by the minister.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak in reply but merely to clarify one point. When I raised the question of a supply motion I did so to show that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture had been introduced for discussion and that in due course the estimates themselves would be coming up for discussion in committee. The Prime Minister has now assured the house that that will be the case, and that they will come forward promptly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It will be recognized that any motion under standing order 26 is a very extraordinary remedy, and that the matter raised must be of very grave and sudden importance. It is recognized that while there are a large number of important matters, we always go to the question of whether they are important enough that debate is so urgently required at the very moment that the house must set aside its ordinary business. That is the principle that underlies the use of standing order 26.
I would refer hon. members for verification in this regard to citation 100 in Beauchesne, which clearly indicates that there must be urgency of debate:
-when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.

In the light of the fact that the agriculture estimates have been called, that the Minister of Agriculture indicated that this matter was for consideration, that no particular plan was going into effect immediately and that he wished individuals to consider it; in view of the fact that it has been announced that the agriculture estimates will be called on Wednesday; and finally taking into consideration a further quotation from Beauchesne:
The adjournment of the house cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country.
I feel the claim by the hon. member moving this motion, that there is a great deal of consternation among farmers in western Canada, is not sufficient under this standing order.
For those reasons I consider this motion does not qualify under standing order 26 in so far as the urgency of immediate debate is concerned. Therefore the motion is not in order.
On the orders of the day:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture on Friday last. Is it now the policy of the government that farmers should themselves share in the risks involved in credit sales of wheat, in contrast to exporters of manufactured goods whose sales have been ensured under the Export Credits Insurance Act?


John George Diefenbaker: What page is the hon. gentleman reading from?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is just a question.


John George Diefenbaker: I made it perfectly clear earlier that it appears from a reading of the speech, of every portion of it, that this was more or less in the nature of a question being stated to the western wheat pools and farmers in general for the purpose of seeking their advice in connection therewith. As I said a moment ago without any equivocation, the speech when it was made was clearly stated by the Minister of Agriculture as in no way representing government policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister then, because this has a bearing on the cherished doctrine of collective responsibility, which is the basic principle of our parliamentary and governmental tradition, when the minister was putting forward "a series of proposals which are in my mind" was he not speaking as the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Fulton:: Do you not believe in public discussion of important proposals?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must confess that certain hon. members' memories are very short, considering the remarks I addressed to them at the very beginning of this day's proceedings.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should have continued and completed the sentence which read, "I want to put forward a series of proposals which are in my mind in the hope that there will be public discussion during the winter on these matters." That completes the sentence.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Were these tentative suggestions discussed with the government before the Minister of Agriculture put them forward in Regina?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, of course, has no appreciation of cabinet solidarity and responsibility or he would not be asking that question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister telling us that the Minister of Agriculture is putting the producers of western Canada to the task of discussing something which is a purely hypothetical question and has nothing to do with the government's policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently these farmers met with the Minister of Agriculture and, as has been the case on previous occasions, views were exchanged and views were sought. The Minister of Agriculture asked for the views of the farmers in this connection and I am sure, in view of what was stated, that completely answers the hon. gentleman's question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Act apply fully to export credit sales of wheat?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Export sales of wheat in certain instances may be insured under section 21.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). Does the present government intend to stand by the commitments of the previous Liberal government in regard to Sherbrooke's airport?
1512	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we entered into some agreements with the city of Sherbrooke and we abide by those agreements. A new proposal was submitted to the city of Sherbrooke and we are now awaiting that city's decision in regard to that proposal.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. Rideout (Westmorland):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house when we can expect the introduction of legislation to establish the Atlantic development board, as set out in the speech from the throne?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for the last ten days to get through a number of matters now before the house. When they are completed-and I hope the hon. gentleman and other hon. members will co-operate -then the question of other legislation will receive immediate attention.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State who reports to the house for the C.B.C. and B.B.G. Did the B.B.G. receive a legal opinion from the Department of Justice before giving its ruling about the Grey cup game broadcast and, if so, what was the purport of that opinion?


George Ernest Halpenny: wish to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question. The B.B.G. advise me that the answer is no.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the B.B.G. get a legal opinion from their own counsel?


George Ernest Halpenny: I regret I cannot say but I shall make inquiries and let the hon. gentleman know.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Lapointe asked whether I intended to interfere in a dispute between the C.B.C. and an authors and artists organization. The answer again is no. I am informed by the C.B.C. that this is a jurisdictional dispute between the federation of authors and artists of Canada, and the Canadian council of artists and authors, which should be resolved by the parties themselves. The C.B.C. has made many efforts over the last two years to bring about agreement between the two organizations, and will continue to do so. However, as the employer the C.B.C. cannot in any way intervene in the internal affairs of these two bargaining emits to impose a solution.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the announcement by the insurance companies of a very substantial increase in automobile insurance rates, will the government consider an investigation by the restrictive trade practices commission with a view to seeing whether there is any element of price fixing as defined under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that it is not the government which makes investigations in these matters. It is the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act who conducts them, and I think the hon. member can be assured that the director will do his duty.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent developments on the Indian-Chinese frontier, can the minister inform the house whether consideration has

been given to the sending of a United Nations observer and fact finding team with a view to using the offices of the United Nations to promote a neutralization of this dangerous situation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the dispute between India and China has not been brought officially to the attention of the United Nations; therefore no consideration of the type indicated by the hon. member has been given. However, a number of countries are giving this unhappy situation much thought, and suggestions for a basis of negotiation have been made. It may be that at some future stage the United Nations might be able to play a helpful role.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give the house the name of the Canadian representative at the ministerial meeting of Colombo plan countries which opens, I believe today, in Canberra, Australia?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian representative is Mr. H. O. Moran, the director general of the external aid office.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that several British ships are presently carrying freight between Canadian ports on the St. Lawrence river and that this is in opposition to the policy he set forth in this house several months ago, under which restrictions were to be applied so as to protect Canadian ships providing coastal service on the great lakes and on the St. Lawrence river? Has the minister any comments to make on this matter?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, the government has taken the necessary steps to ensure that coastal shipping is restricted to ships sailing under the Canadian flag. To achieve that purpose, we were in contact with all commonwealth countries who are signatories of the commonwealth agreement on shipping.
27507-3-96i
Inquiries of the Ministry We received answers from all those countries and we announced in the speech from the throne that an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act would be introduced with a view to restricting Canadian inland waters to ships sailing under the Canadian flag, only as far as the coastal trade is concerned. The proposed amendment will be submitted to the house during this session. I do not know of any other means that would have enabled us to expedite matters further.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister believe that the 16 months which have elapsed since his statement to the house and the answer he just gave me are a sufficient period?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, it was the shortest period in which to prepare such legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we are starting a debate that could go on and on.



REQUEST FOR TELEVISION SET TO WATCH QUEBEC ELECTION RESULTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's favourable attitude concerning the translation of Beauchesne, I am submitting another request.
Since an election will take place in the province of Quebec next Wednesday and we should like to hear the results, I communicated with the Sergeant-at-Arms three weeks ago, asking him to put a television set at our disposal. I have yet to receive a reply.
I realize that many members will want to hear the results of this election in the language of Shakespeare, which I respect, but I should like to know if a set could be made available to us, so that we may hear in French, in room 16, the results of the Quebec election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since the administration of room 16 comes under the responsibility of the Speaker, I must inform the hon. member that a T.V. set was placed there by courtesy of the C.B.C.
But there are other T.V. sets here and there in the building and if the hon. member wishes to watch the Quebec election results, he will have to find one. The government itself does not buy T.V. sets at this time.


Bernard Dumont: In that case, Mr. Speaker, should I go to the ladies' sitting room in order to allow English speaking hon. members to watch the returns in English?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Fullon:: If you wish.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the ladies' sitting room is vacant on Wednesday nights.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, we have just recently received letters telling us to stay out of the ladies' room.


Mr. Speaker:: Not on Wednesday nights.



ACTION TO PRESERVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. In the light of recent incidents reported in the press, will the Minister of Justice advise this house what action, if any, he proposes to take under the bill of rights to protect freedom of speech for members of this house, and in particular the rights of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), regardless of the views he may hold or express?	-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that question is of almost incomparable breadth. If the hon. member will make clear precisely what he is talking about and does not talk in these vague generalities, I will be pleased to answer this question if I can. If not, perhaps he would be good enough to put in on the order paper.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister then undertake to investigate the incident to which I refer? Apparently he knows nothing about it at the moment.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to announce any change in policy to assure continuation of air services on the prairies, now scheduled to be discontinued November 30?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously in the house, we are at the present time working


on this problem, and I will have a statement to make in a very short time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the government, if it has not already done so, would request the defence research board to investigate the feasibility of the proposals which emerged from the 1962 so-called Pug-wash conference in London concerning automatic sealed seismic stations for use in the inspection of a nuclear test ban treaty.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with these little black boxes referred to, so I will have to get expert advice to be able to answer that question.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Now that the senior officers of the R.C.M.P. have been granted substantial increases in salary by recent order in council, when may we expect an increase for the rest of the civil service?


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this question should be directed to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice; I am not sure which.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question relates to the fact that in February of this year he tabled and had printed in Hansard his letter to the provincial premiers and the replies received up to that date regarding a proposed amendment to the British North America Act concerning contributory pensions. My question is this. Will he bring down the letters that have been received from the provinces since that date and have them

printed in Hansard so that the record on this matter may be complete and available to all of us?
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, whatever replies have been received I will place on the table of the house and, with the leave of the house, I will have them appended to Hansard.
(Translation):



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Cantin (Quebec South):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance or to his assistant.
Mr. Speaker, I was given this morning a circular letter issued by the mint. It reads as follows:
Sir-Madam:
In view of the numerous requests for 1962 coins from the chartered banks in Canada as well as the requests for sets of coins from the public in general, we are obliged to refuse further orders for 1962.
Your order and your money are enclosed with this letter.
Yours very truly,
N. A. Parker, Director.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, that was only a preliminary statement to my question.
I wish to point out the following: (1) this letter is not French; (2) many of the words are not French; (3) there is no French punctuation; (4) such punctuation as there is is wrong.
And in the fifth place, in six lines-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has just expressed a series of opinions. I am very sorry but, even though he has not asked his question, I fail to see how, on the orders of the day, it is possible to reply to a question about a circular letter dealing with coins.


Jean-Charles Cantin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I say that, here, there are five gross grammatical errors in six lines.
And here is my question: Can the minister have this letter withdrawn from circulation and have a good French version made?
May I-
(Text):



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.
Excise Tax Act

[Stage Direction]
Resolved,-That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That the present exemption from sales tax for "books, printed and bound, that contain no advertising and are solely for educational, technical, cultural or literary purposes," be changed to read "printed books that contain no advertising and are solely for educational, technical, cultural or literary purposes".
2.	That audio tapes and materials used in the manufacture thereof, authorized by the department of education of any province in Canada for instruction in the English and the French language, be exempt from sales tax.
3.	That baler twine and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax, regardless of use.
4.	That barrels and boxes for fish, lobster crates, lobster pots, lobster traps, scallop bags, and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
5.	That drums or cans for honey and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
6.	That goods for use in sewerage and drainage systems and materials used in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
7.	That the present liability for sales tax on motor vehicles, tractors and machines and tools operated by such vehicles or tractors, that are diverted from an exempt use to a taxable use, be limited to five years from the time of the first sale by a person who would have been required to pay sales tax if the sale had not been for an exempt use, and where motor vehicles, tractors and machines and tools operated by such vehicles or tractors were imported or sold by a manufacturer or licensed wholesaler and sales tax was not payable or was refunded by reason of the intended use of the goods, any person who within five years of such importation or sale applies the goods to any other use (other than of a casual nature) for which the goods could not originally have been purchased exempt from sales tax, and the person from whom he purchased or rented the goods including the importer, manufacturer or licensed wholesaler, shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of sales tax on the fair market value of the goods at the time they are applied to that other use.
8.	That the present tax of 10 per cent on net premiums in respect of insurance against risks in Canada paid or payable by Canadian residents to an insurer not authorized under the laws of Canada or any province to transact the business of insurance, be extended to apply to net premiums in respect of any such insurance paid or payable by or on behalf of Canadian residents, where such insurance is entered into or renewed through a broker or agent outside Canada with an insurer that at the time the contract is entered into or renewed is authorized under the laws of Canada or any province to transact the business of insurance.
9.	That any enactment founded on paragraphs 1 to 6 of this resolution be deemed to have come into force on April 11, 1962, that any enactment founded on paragraph 7 of this resolution shall come into force on the date the said enactment is assented to, and that any enactment founded on paragraph 8 of this resolution be applicable in respect of contracts of insurance entered into or renewed after April 10, 1962.
[Stage Direction]
Excise Tax Act
Mr. Benidickson:: This happens to be the first opportunity I have had to face the new Minister of Finance in this debate, although certainly not the first time over the years that we have exchanged views in this house on financial subjects; because the minister has always been associated with the minister of finance, having been responsible for the Department of National Revenue and, in that capacity, joined in the preparation of budgets. In the past we have heard his defence-often, I have thought, with tongue in cheek-of certain amendments to the Customs Act which are normally finance department legislation. I know the hon. gentleman will continue to be a genial and considerate minister, and I believe he is likely thus to get his legislation through expeditiously.


The Chairman:: Order. There is a great deal of -superficial conversation going on in some parts of the committee, and I would appreciate hon. members co-operating by taking it out into the corridors, if they would.


William Moore Benidickson: 
Mr. Nowlan:: I could clear it up right now. I have an amendment to move in this connection which I think meets the point of view of the hon. gentleman.


William Moore Benidickson: I was not aware of that. I am very glad to hear the point is being taken care of.
I was pleased to find in the budget resolutions which were presented by the previous minister of finance on April 20 a provision extending sales tax exemptions to books which are not necessarily bound in the old fashioned way but which are made available as microfilms under the microfilm printing process. It happens that when I was in the ministry of finance as an assistant to the minister I asked our officials to look into this matter. It was something new at that time, of course, and we did not reach the point where it was taken care of. I drew this to the attention of the present Minister of Finance in 1959, and he courteously acknowledged that he would give that matter consideration. I am glad that in 1962, I am sure due to the representations of others too, this reference has been brought up to a more modern status.
I was extremely disappointed to find that among the items in the resolution there is nothing to take care of perhaps the only point of emphasis which was advanced this year by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I refer to their request for the exemption of farmers' fencing from sales tax. I do not think this would have been a particularly expensive remission of tax, but I find it is not in the proposals which the minister has before us.
I find also, as I have found for quite a few years, that those things that the present minister and the former minister once talked about as being worth while and deserving of sales tax exemption have not been taken care of. I recall that when the former minister of finance was on this side of the house in opposition in 1957, in his last speech in opposition with respect to financial

matters, he said that he thought it was outrageous that clothing, boots and shoes, and necessities of that kind bore this very substantial sales tax. I recall that other representations were made very frequently by people who for the past five or six years have been on the government side of the house, who previously said that pharmaceuticals and matters of that kind also should not bear this heavy sales tax. I hope the new minister will soon be in a position to review requests of this kind on his own, and we on this side of the house think we should not have at this time a rehash of the old budget of April 20. We feel that even the new minister has had plenty of time to bring before this delayed session of parliament, after an election, something new and fresh by way of a budget, particularly having regard to the economic necessities of the country at the present time, and we think the matter of a second budget cannot be delayed if we are to keep this country in good health.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Chairman, having regard to the first part of the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, perhaps this would be the appropriate time for me to introduce the proposed amendment. Therefore I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance:
That paragraph 7 of the Excise Tax Act resolution be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
7. That where a motor vehicle or tractor, or a machine or tool for operation by a motor vehicle or tractor, has been purchased or imported by a person who is the first purchaser or importer of the article for his own use and the article was purchased or imported for a use rendering such puchase or importation exempt from sales tax, or where any such article has been purchased or imported by a user to whom the sale or by whom the importation was exempt from sales tax, if within five years of such sale or importation the article is
(a)	applied by the purchaser or importer to any use (other than of a casual nature) for which it could not originally have been purchased or imported exempt from sales tax, or
(b)	sold or leased by the purchaser or importer and such sale or lease is not exempt from sales tax, the said purchaser or importer shall be deemed to have sold the article at the time of the said application, sale or lease and sales tax shall be payable on its value at that time.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make a brief explanation of this. I know it is in highly technical language. I must say I read it through myself several times, and I am not yet sure I can explain it satisfactorily. But I am satisfied of this, that the amendment meets the objection which my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River, I think quite properly, raised to this whole section. He will know, having sat on this side of the house in days when there was criticism of this, that the Department of
Excise Tax Act
National Revenue took the position that if goods were sold-tractors or whatever they may be-which were exempt from tax, and then afterwards they were found in the hands of a person other than the original purchaser, then the department could follow the machinery through and also to go back to the original vendor, the manufacturer or whoever it may be.
In an attempt to meet this criticism-and I personally must say, having been minister of national revenue, that I thought there was some merit in the criticism-my predecessor, the former minister of finance, had an amendment introduced in his budget last year which imposed a five year limit during which these steps could be taken. Following that objections were raised by manufacturers, agents, brokers and so on, who were handling these types of machines, similar to the criticism raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River a few minutes ago, namely that it was unfair to hold liable for tax the original purchaser, or the broker who had sold a machine bona fide for tax exempt purposes, for instance a tractor for lumbering operations, the broker having satisfied himself that the purchaser was going to use it for such lumbering purposes, which purposes were tax exempt. That being the case, the purchaser or the original agent should not be held responsible for the fact that somebody sold it for a taxable purpose within five years.
Therefore the section is being amended so that if a machine is bought for a tax exempt purpose, and the original vendor or manufacturer has satisfied himself as to the purpose, he could not then be held responsible for the tax because later on the machine had got into the hands of somebody who purchased it for a taxable purpose. In other words, a man buying a tractor for lumbering operations could sell it to a farmer and it would still be tax exempt; but if it was sold to a contractor, shall we say, for the purpose of road building or something of that kind, then the tax could be collected from the person who bought it. But you cannot go back to the original vendor who had made the sale honestly, after advice and investigation, and believing he had made a bona fide sale to a bona fide purchaser for a tax free purpose. Tax could not be collected from that person. I think that despite the rather lengthy, involved and technical language, this amendment boils down to the very complaint which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River raised.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have that assurance in the minister's plain language, but when the bill comes up for second reading we will all have an opportunity to examine the formal language in

Excise Tax Act
statutory form. However, from what the minister says, I think those engaged in this industry, and there are many of them, will much appreciate the action the minister has taken.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman, if the committee wishes to carry the amendment, I have a few remarks I wish to make but they are not on the amendment.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Then shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations about lobsters. I am naturally pleased, as I am sure every member is who represents a fishing riding, especially where lobsters or any of the other fish are caught which would be affected by this paragraph 4, by the recognition of the government that these lobster pots and other contrivances are no longer to be subject to sales tax. If I could have the attention of the ex-minister of national revenue, now Minister of Finance, for a moment, I was both astonished and incredulous when told the other day that, while the government is asking parliament to make this concession here, the customs tariff surtax applies to lobsters. If the minister can give me an assurance that it does not apply in any way, shape or form, I would save the committee from listening to what I have to say. However, I was absolutely incredulous.
As everyone in the committee knows, we are tremendous exporters of lobsters to the United States. I believe that any lobsters imported from the United States are mostly imported for re-export. However, I have been told that the customs surcharge imposed on June 24 in an extraparliamentary way applies to lobsters coming into Canada, and moreover that there is no drawback when these lobsters are re-exported. If the minister cannot give me a categorical assurance about that matter, I wonder whether he could have it looked into at once, or if the Minister of National Revenue could have it looked into at once and report to the committee as soon as possible.
The reason I think the matter is an extremely important one is this. As all hon. members from the Atlantic provinces will be aware, there is a constant effort in the United States to get a tariff put on Canadian lobsters. If we put an impost of any kind- I refer to a surcharge or anything else-on

United States lobsters coming into this country, it would of course provide a tremendous argument for the advocates in the United States of a duty on our products.
As I say, I would not have raised this matter if I had not believed there was some substance in it. I have not been able to find out definitely about it. As Your Honour knows, these surcharges have never been brought before us here for examination. However, it seems to me that this matter could be of sufficient importance and that it ought to be cleared up as soon as possible.


George Clyde Nowlan: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that this is a matter of primary importance to all hon. members from the Atlantic region and to Canadians generally. Frankly, I did not know about any surtax on lobsters. Of course I would point out to the hon. gentleman that if there is one, then there must have been a tariff on them previously, inasmuch as a surcharge is a percentage of an existing tariff. So if there is a surtax on the importation of these lobsters, then there was a tariff there in advance. However, I will look into the matter.
As I have intimated in conversations about the progress of legislation, I would hope that we will be getting on with these bills in the immediate future. One thing that is sure is that we are not going ahead tomorrow with any bills on this matter, as the house leader suggested on Friday, as I think it is important that we allow some time to elapse after the bills are introduced. Whether we go ahead with them on Wednesday or later is a matter for the committee to decide.
However, as I said, if there is this factor in the situation-and I frankly admit I do not know-then it is based on an existing tariff and is something we ought to look at as a tariff matter rather than as a surcharge matter. I can assure the committee and the hon. member that I will take a look at it and we will be able to discuss it when we go into committee on the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am thoroughly satisfied to have the minister do that, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I am not sure, but I have had this matter brought to my attention very recently by people who are more knowledgeable about this matter than I am, and I felt that the minister would be just as anxious as I would be to have the matter cleared up promptly, and the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Fisheries would as well.


George Clyde Nowlan: My recollection is that there was some tariff item such as this and that it was repealed a year or two ago, although I am not quite certain. However, I will check on the matter.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the minister will find that his statement is not quite in order in a broad way, when he says that he knows that if they bore no duty prior to the so-called surcharge order in council of June 25, they would not now bear the surcharge. As I understand it, the order is tied up with the question of whether or not the item was subject to any duty whatever even under the general tariff. We import practically nothing under the general tariff, or had not done so in the past until this surcharge manipulation. It is possible that we imported no lobsters under the general tariff, but we could have done so under the most favoured nation category, or it may have been under the British preference from commonwealth countries.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is quite possible.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to hear the minister say that.


Mr. Patterson:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister one matter with the hope that he may see fit to put in an extra clause or do whatever is necessary to meet this particular condition. It seems to me that this is about the only place where I shall have an opportunity to refer to it. In the province of British Columbia and perhaps in other areas we have a new type of farming known as commercial trout farming. At the present time the feed brought in from the United States is subjected to a fairly high charge, and those engaged in this particular industry are therefore placed in a difficult position.
The matter was brought to the attention of the minister on another occasion. However, I should like to say this. Those engaged in this industry are finding the Canadian feed provided for this particular industry is far from satisfactory. It has been used; it has been tested; however, it has been found that instead of thriving on the Canadian manufactured feed, the fish gradually lose their vitality and die. However, with the product imported from the United States this difficulty has not been experienced. In fairness, therefore, to those engaged in this new type of farming, and in order that they may compete with those who import live fish from the United States and then market it, we feel that consideration should be given to allowing them to bring in this feed duty free. I hope the minister will take this matter under advisement.


George Clyde Nowlan: That would be a matter for the Customs Act. However, I should be glad to take a good look at the matter and discuss it on the Customs Act.
Excise Tax Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I support the representations made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. He has stated the case correctly. I have had persons who are operating private trout farms inform of these circumstances. I suggest that the minister give consideration to allowing them this consideration until such time as a suitable feed can be obtained in Canada. I think that is a reasonable suggestion.


Mr. Barnett:: I was about to rise in order to speak on the same matter, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it will indicate to the minister that this is a matter of some general interest and concern if I say that I have also had this matter drawn to my attention. As I understand it, under item 133a fish come into Canada duty free to the trout farms. This particular problem seems to arise with those who are attempting to raise their own trout from the egg stage. Certainly, according to the information that has been given to me, the trout farmers in my area and in other areas are finding this problem, namely that they cannot find a suitable form of fish feed produced in Canada. I understand that tests have been conducted with two types of feed, and that up until now at least the only suitable feed is one which is imported. This fact has been made evident by the comparative rate of growth of two test tanks of young trout. I hope the minister will look into this matter before the bill comes in.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not wish to get involved in a long dissertation upon the relative qualities of trout on the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast. I may say that I took my grandson out catching trout in a fish pond this spring and we obtained smart, virile fish. I suspect that we on the east coast do not have the same trouble as that experienced on the west coast, and therefore we on the east coast are not obliged to import our feed as are those on the west coast.
I would point out that this is a matter of the Customs Tariff and not of the Excise Tax Act. I know that the hon. member for Fraser Valley and other hon. members who have spoken have made representations to me with respect to this problem. I realize that it is something that deserves careful attention, and I would be prepared to take a look at it when we revise the Customs Tariff. In the meantime I would ask members of the committee to confine their remarks to the excise tax. I propose to go ahead immediately with a very brief analysis, if the committee is willing, of the Customs Tariff Act, dispose of that and deal with the bills later on in the week.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, as it appears we are drawing to the close of the discussion on the excise tax resolution, perhaps

Customs Tariff
I might move one further amendment which is of a relieving nature. I move:
That paragraph 9 of the Excise Tax Act resolution be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"9. That any enactment founded on paragraphs 1 to 6 of this resolution be deemed to have come into force on April 11, 1962, that any enactment founded on paragraph 7 of this resolution shall come into force on the date the said enactment is assented to, and that any enactment founded on paragraph 8 of this resolution be applicable in respect of contracts of insurance entered into or renewed after December 31, 1962."


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance to study this additional amendment but I was just about to rise because I noted that section 7, the amended section, was dealt with differently in so far as coming into force is concerned and this raised a question in my mind. Would it be possible that someone who sold an article five or six years ago would still be a collector for the Department of National Revenue whereas from the time of coming into force of this legislation people would be exempt?


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
1. Resolved,-That schedule A to the customs tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 206b, 237a, 296g, 409f, 431h, 440m, 440n, 611a	(4) and
696 (1), and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Gordon Campbell Chown: We will now proceed to consider the Customs Tariff resolution which consists, as members of the committee will note, of two parts. Will we consider the parts separately or shall we consider them together?


George Clyde Nowlan: There are two resolutions, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps I might make a short general statement first and then leave it to the committee as to what action they wish to take after that. As I have said earlier, Mr. Chairman, after these resolutions are passed, if the committee sees fit to pass them, we will bring forward the bills dealing with income tax, excise tax, estate tax and the customs tariff. We will be prepared then to deal with them at any time after tomorrow that the committee wishes to deal with them, but they are not to be dealt with tomorrow in accordance with the arrangements that have been made.
There are only ten tariff amendments in these resolutions, and I might say that is the smallest number in any tariff resolutions for a great many years. They are all of a

relieving nature. Five of them provide for the extension without change of statutory provisions which have terminal dates of July 1, 1962. In other words, there are some provisions here which would have expired on July 1, 1962 were it not for the budget that was introduced in April. These are postponed in one case for one year and in other cases for two years.
The other items involve the removal of duties either through the establishment of a new free item or by expanding the scope of existing free items. For instance, there is something about blood plasma there and some element entering into it, the name of which I frankly could not pronounce if the committee asked me to do so. This has now been placed on the free list. There are several items of that nature but altogether we are dealing with a resolution with ten items, five of which extend the time and the other five of which are relieving in nature. There is nothing which increases the incidence of the tariff burden in any way.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I expect to be brief at this stage. As the minister says, the actual number of items is unusually small but I must take issue both with the language that the new minister has used today and that used by his predecessor when he introduced the budget and said that all the amendments would be in a downward direction. That might have been true last April. However, just as was the case when we were discussing the matter of lobsters under the Excise Tax Act a short time ago, it is quite possible in my opinion that while it was true then that all these changes would have been of a relieving nature and the duties would have gone down if the changes had been made by parliament, the fact is that I believe that these items before us in the schedule are not free throughout the three categories and will bear some duty under the general tariff. The general tariff was normally meaningless but as a result of the action taken by order in council last June to impose surcharges these items will bear duty from that date and in some cases a substantial cost of duty.
I am thinking of items such as aircraft or aircraft engines which I would imagine we would never import under the general tariff under any circumstances but rather always import under the British preferential tariff or the most favoured nation tariff, both of which provide free entry. As a result of the surcharge order in council, which we claim is illegal if not ratified by parliament, these aircraft items will bear duty from now on of at least 5 per cent. I have not checked to see whether they are in the 5

per cent surcharge category or 10 per cent or 15 per cent. I want to point out that as a result of the so-called austerity surcharges anyone importing an aircraft or an aircraft engine, which is a very costly thing, of a type not made in Canada will have to pay a rate of duty of 5 per cent at least.
When we come to the discussion on second reading of the bill I hope the minister will give us more information than he did in answer to my question the other day. As found on page 1275 of Hansard for November 5, I asked about the negotiations with reference to the surcharges and GATT. In essence he simply told me that all we were entitled to know was that negotiations were proceeding. Having regard to the world trade situation and the world interest in tariffs, I hope that the minister will have more to say with respect to the relationship of these surcharges and the general amendment of the Customs Tariff Act, because as far as I can see the general agreement on tariffs and trade contains no provision which contemplates import surcharges such as Canada has established.
While we on this side do not propose to hold up the minister this afternoon on the details of these amendments, I want to indicate to him that we feel that on second reading of the bill it would be appropriate for him to give us a little more information than what I would term the brush-off answer he gave in reply to my question the other day as well as in reply to the hon. member for Rosedale, I believe, who asked a similar oral question last week.
There is one other matter I should like to put before the minister and perhaps his parliamentary secretary would help me with regard to it before we come to the debate on the bill. I wonder what the procedure is vis-a-vis the surcharge order in council with respect to an item in the schedule that was not in the tariff schedule before the budget of last April. I am thinking of item 220b. In looking over the order in council of June 25, I find no reference to item 220b although it is an item that does call for a general rate of duty. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will advise me on the procedure in that regard. I am simply wondering how it was dealt with. Does it escape the minimum 5 per cent surcharge simply because it was an item introduced for the first time in the budget of last April or is it an oversight in the four days panic of surcharge schedules, about which we have been told?


George Clyde Nowlan: Are you going to talk reasonably or are you going to start a debate?


William Moore Benidickson: We were told that in four days it was possible for the administration to decide what items on which it was wise to impose a 5 per cent tariff, those
27507-3-974
Customs Tariff
on which it was wise to impose a 10 per cent tariff and those in respect of which it was wise, economic and proper to impose a 15 per cent tariff.


George Clyde Nowlan: I anticipated that the hon. member would raise this point, and I am glad to see that he is not in a panic in any way. I would suggest that when we get into the bill I would then be better prepared to answer these questions, which he knows are rather difficult to answer at this stage of the debate and on this day.


William Moore Benidickson: I had forgotten that the minister has not got his officials with him today as it is a holiday, Remembrance day.


George Clyde Nowlan: If we can pass the resolutions this afternoon then I shall try to the best of my ability to answer the questions on committee stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the position taken by the minister, in all the circumstances, is a most reasonable one and I take it that if we forgo any lengthy discussion today we shall not be faced with any entanglement of points of order and things of that sort at a later stage. I must say that the minister, unlike some of his colleagues, does seem to toy to deal with points brought up in the house instead of trying to hide behind a smokescreen, although at times he is pretty good at producing smoke himself.
I do not want to say anything that can possibly be taken out of context and used in the next election so I am being careful to qualify what I say about him. In the circumstances this is a very important matter. Here we are in November making what purport to be tax reductions that have been in effect since last April. On some of these items a tariff has been put by order in council which is possibly much greater than any of these reductions, and we would naturally like to know all about them.
As for the very interesting point brought up by my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River I think this government, even with a secret opinion from the deputy minister of justice, would hesitate to use the Customs Tariff Act and the Financial Administration Act to pass an order in council about something which had never been passed by parliament at all, as these resolutions were not.
(Translation):


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) a small question. Would the minister be able to tell the house the approximative total loss which the elimination of customs tariffs on that part of

Introduction of Bills
our imports will mean for his department, on the basis of the present import rate in this country of the aforementioned items?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, it is rather difficult to give complete details on the intravenous solutions. The total value of imports last year was $10,000. As for phenylketonuria, if my hon. friend can pronounce it, there was no record kept of imports last year. Imports of heavy water and uranium metal totalled $125,000, and no separate record has been kept of sodium calcium. Imports of the others are very small. Unfortunately I cannot go further than that this afternoon because, as the hon. member knows, I do not have the officials available to supply the information, but on committee stage of the bill I can answer in more detail.
Items 206b, 220b, 237a, 296g, 409f, 431h, 440m, 440n, 611a and 696 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2. Resolved,-That any enactment founded upon the foregoing resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the eleventh day of April, 1962, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said resolution imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

George Clyde Nowlan: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-78, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


ESTATE TAX ACT
George Clyde Nowlan: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-79, to amend the Estate Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXCISE TAX ACT
George Clyde Nowlan: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-80, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
George Clyde Nowlan: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-81, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mon-teith for the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house but, speaking for a certain number of people in the country, there are a few points I should like to bring before the house for consideration. First I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) when we were considering the bill previously. All members of the house recognize and appreciate the interest of the hon. member in the thalidomide tragedy. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be fair to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) if we let the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) pass without referring to them. I would like to quote just briefly from the speech of the hon. member for York Centre on these particular amendments, when he said:
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) felt it was necessary to take what I feel is a retrograde step in this whole tragedy and go back to the place where we were last July, when public utterances were made by some people who were not personally acquainted with this tragedy, and attempt to find out who was to blame and leave it at that.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking to this bill he was speaking as an individual who is highly concerned with this particular tragedy and highly concerned with and interested in the health, welfare and safety of the Canadian people. What he said is backed up, supported and appreciated by all members of this particular group. As the hon. member for York Centre indicated when he was addressing the house, surely nobody in Canada is interested in attempting to make political hay out of the thalidomide tragedy. What we are interested in is looking to the future. We agree it is not appropriate that we should concentrate on the past exclusively.
Therefore, we criticize the government, yes, for some of the things that were done and not done; but we do so, we hope, constructively. We seek not to blame any particular individual or any group, but rather to impress upon the government and the departmental personnel concerned the need for change and the need for safeguards for the safety of the public. Thalidomide, as it happens, is in the spotlight and has been for some

time; but the scope of the whole drug industry is really involved in these particular amendments, because surely when we are talking about the Food and Drugs Act we are concerned with the whole spectrum of the drug industry in Canada and its operations as they bear on the health, welfare and safety of the people.
We pay tribute, of course, with all others to the wonders of science in this age and to the dedicated scientists and other personnel in our food and drugs directorate. But at the same time it is not sufficient to be sorry for tragedies that have taken place. We must be resolved that we are going to protect the consuming public, those people who are using drugs and those people who must use various drugs. We must protect them against the over-anxious drug profiteers; and we have some of them. There are some people engaged in the drug industry who are not particularly concerned with the health of the individuals consuming these drugs; they are interested only in the profits they can make as a result of engaging in this particular industry. Certainly we agree with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) that we do not want to place restrictions in the way of the industry so as to impede valuable research and hold up the discovery of new drugs. Certainly we want, with all others, to defend the right of the industry to seek reasonable profits as they cautiously pursue the objectives of their industry. But regardless of our interests in not impeding research and in protecting the rights of the industry, surely it is of just as much importance, if not of more importance, that we look to the safety of the public. It is with this particular aspect that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and, I am quite sure, many other hon. members of this house-is concerned.
During the course of the debate the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Mar-coux) made some contradictory statements with regard to the role of the government in the food and drugs industry. For his information and for the information of some people who may not be so sure that the government has a proper role to play in this field, I would like to refer to the timing involved in the thalidomide tragedy, pointing out the extremely useful role played by the food and drug administration in the United States. I think this becomes very evident when we recognize that thalidomide was first introduced to Canada in April of 1961. I repeat, April of 1961. It was removed from the market on March 2, 1962. But in the United States a government agency-granted, as a result of the efforts and the vigilance of
Food and Drugs Act
Dr. Kelsey-discovered that there was the possibility of some undesirable features, some threat to safety, in February of 1961. This was a result of research which had been conducted in the United States beginning back in 1959. Therefore in the United States it was discovered that there was a degree of unsafeness with regard to thalidomide in February of 1961. Nevertheless, two months later, in April of 1961, this same drug was placed on the market here in Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, we return to the main points of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he was speaking on these amendments some days ago. One of the steps we must be concerned with is staffing our department so that in future they will have a sufficient number of personnel and enough desirable equipment to prevent this type of tragedy occurring. We need more people; it is as simple as that; and we need more and better facilities. It is an established fact that unsafe drugs can reach the market. It can be established that their immediate withdrawal at some point in the future would be desirable. Swift and decisive removal would be the order of the day. Therefore it seems to us that the federal government department concerned should give some consideration to introducing legislation which will give them this right and which will give them the power to quickly, and without any question, have a drug removed from the market at the penalty of the manufacturer and the retailers concerned. But more important again, steps must be taken by the government to make sure that the drug does not reach the market in the first place.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to be brief. One of my colleagues will have a little more to say a little later on about this legislation. We are looking forward to the report later on this session of the restrictive trade practices commission into the whole question of drug prices in Canada. But for the moment I would like to suggest to the minister that it is about time that we in Canada started placing some responsibility on the drug manufacturers in this country to prove, not only the safety of their compounds, but also the value of the particular article which they are purporting to present to the public with some advantageous result on their health. They should be required, also, to discover and indicate to physicians, pharmacists and patients undesirable side effects in their drugs. We would suggest that a complete analysis, for example, should be sent along with samples when they are forwarded to practising physicians. We would suggest that consideration should further be given so that advertisements of drugs, whether on

Food and Drugs Act
radio, television or in the press, should summarize the dangerous side effects in relation to any particular other condition that may exist in that particular patient.
We are also concerned that in presenting drugs to the public they should be provided with the generic name of the drug as well as the trade or brand name, in order that they might really have the opportunity to buy their products in a competitive market place. In short, it is quite evident that within the scope of the whole drug industry in Canada our safety standards are somewhat dubious and the present levels of profits in this industry are certainly questionable, if not excessive.
In concluding, I say once again that the main points we are asking the government to consider are those put forward by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-the need for a stronger food and drug department, the need for additional staff to work in this field, and the need for greater protection for the public who are using these drugs daily.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: The
purpose of this bill is to protect the health of the Canadian people. That is a laudable object, but it is unfortunate that in bringing forth this measure the government should have restricted itself to a most narrow construction of the problems which confront it.
It is unfortunate that, faced by the dangers which have now become apparent as a result of the use of the drug thalidomide, the government should merely be proposing a holding operation. It is proposing a couple of amendments intended to plug a few of the more obvious leaks in the legislation we now have. It is a pity, in my opinion, that the government did not take this opportunity to enact bolder legislation based on a detailed study of the extensive investigation which was made by the Kefauver committee in the United States Senate and also by the director of research of the combines investigations branch of the Department of Justice here in Canada. Had this been done, the bill we are considering at the present time would have been vastly different from the one which is now before us.
It is not enough to say that the measures which are now being proposed are worth while. We should be considering further steps which would be of equal or greater importance to the Canadian people.
It is, of course, impossible to be completely certain that all dangers have been eliminated when a new drug is put on to the market. If we waited long enough for that, there would probably never be new drugs on the market. But the Canadian people have a right to expect that all reasonable precautions have

been taken and that adequate clinical tests have been made by responsible, objective and conscientious authorities. I wish to make it clear I have no criticism to direct against the people in the department-the people who work for the federal government. I must say I found the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) completely incomprehensible, because without the protection given by the government departments both here and in the United States we would be left completely at the mercy of the private drug companies, and there is ample evidence that these are more interested in making profits than they are in the health and welfare of the people they supposedly serve.
If we are to have the kind of careful research which is needed, one thing is obvious, from the report of the Kefauver committee and, indeed, from the report submitted to the Department of Justice: the practice we have followed in the past of depending to an overwhelming extent upon the research facilities of the private drug companies is simply not good enough. For one thing, the research facilities of the Canadian drug companies are lamentably limited. One could spend days, or weeks, going over the records, particularly with regard to the research and marketing methods used by drug companies in the United States. I refer to them because to a large extent the Canadian drug companies are controlled and dominated by their parent United States organizations.
Dr. Kempe, professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Medical School says that "advertising claims made for each antibacterial agent are always unduly enthusiastic and sometimes misleading. In many cases," he said, "these multiple drugs reflect the competitive nature of the drug business rather than therapeutic need." Advertising pressure on doctors by the drug companies has been fantastic^ Charles Pfizer, one of the largest drug companies in the United States, circulated doctors in 1958 about a new broad spectrum antibiotic stating that it was highly effective and clinically proved. The advertisement sent to doctors gave names and addresses of doctors who had apparently used the new preparation. Upon investigation by the editor of a reputable scientific magazine, these names and addresses were found to be fictitious. Drug companies have been loath to police the industry, and the doctors themselves are too busy to check all the claims which are made for new drugs by the drug companies.
Where else but to the government may we turn to give protection to the doctors who will have to prescribe these drugs or to the

patients who will use them? It is obvious that the staff we presently have, competent though it may be, finds itself unable to do more than the very minimum of spot checking of the thousands of new drugs which appear on the market every year. Dr. William Bennet Bean of the Iowa State University School of Medicine and chairman of the board of regents of the national library of medicine said in testimony before the Kefauver committee:
The scientific and medical people (in drug companies) who make and test drugs find themselves at odds with the marketing, advertising and sales divisions but without a strong voice in controlling events. The business promotes the interests of the stockholders . .. the stockholder's appropriate interest is in income. The richest earnings occur when a new variety is marketed before competing drugs can be discovered, improved, named and released. This bonanza time may last only a few months. Unless there are large earnings, the quick kill with the quick pill, the investment does not pay off. Commercial secrets must be kept dark, lest a competitor get the jump.
Long tests as to use and potential dangers are not practical, since they have to be done in hospitals and medical schools where secrecy cannot be tolerated. While we ourselves have such a small staff it is idle to expect the Canadian people to be protected against drug companies which are interested in getting their products on the market as effectively as possible. There is only one agency which can provide this protection for the Canadian people and it is the appropriate department of the federal government in co-operation with the various medical schools and other scientific departments of the universities. In introducing the bill the minister made no suggestion that we could expect an extension of staff such as would make this possible. I want to suggest to hon. members that the fine words expressed by the minister in introducing this bill will be of little use to the Canadian people unless there is also a sharp increase in the personnel of the department so that the protection of the act as now amended can be better afforded than it has in the past. I make it clear, once again, that in saying this I have no criticism to direct against those who are now working in the department. If there be a criticism here, and I think there is a very strong one, it is of the government, and of parliaments of other years, for not supplying the necessary financial means so that this important task can be carried out.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on his remarks with regard to the provisions of this bill dealing with the distribution of drug samples, and I trust these provisions will really be carried out. Any druggist in this field, and I must say I have spent some years in the business, will realize what
Food and Drugs Act
a tremendous flood he has to cope with every day of the week. These regulations are long overdue. The testimony given before the Kefauver committee by Dr. James Bowes, a Salt Lake City gynaecologist, showed that he had made a calculation, which I think would be substantiated by almost any doctor in Canada, that if the 150,000 doctors in the United States received the drug advertisements which he himself had received, it would take two railroad cars, 110 large mail trucks and 800 postmen to deliver the daily loads of drug circulars to doctors. Then after being delivered it would take 25 trash trucks to take away the material and to burn it on a dump pile, and the blaze would be seen 50 miles away, so large would it be. The same doctor has calculated that the value of drug samples left in offices of doctors by detail men-that is the polite way of naming salesmen from the drug companies-in one year was $576. If you multiply this by the 150,000 doctors there are in the United States, then the drug industry spent $86 million a year on samples to doctors. I would remind hon. members that this $86 million was paid for, not by the drug companies, but by the purchasers of medical prescriptions, because the drug companies add on the cost of the samples to their cost of operation.
Most of these samples were thrown out, but as I have already said they were paid for by the sick in the cost of their prescriptions. Dr. Bowes has calculated the cost of promoting the drugs in the United States at $210 million a year, not counting subsidies to medical conventions, which are very substantial, or the tremendous expenditure on medical journal advertising. This is more than the $194 million spent in the United States on drug research and more than 10 per cent of the $2 billion annual gross sale of prescription drugs. If this tremendous promotion were discontinued, it would reduce the cost of drugs to the patient by at least 10 cents in every dollar, Dr. Bowes calculated. So, Mr. Speaker, if the minister can do something to bring this distribution of free samples into some reasonable semblance of order, he will be doing the people of Canada a tremendous service. I will wait with interest to see how the regulations will be implemented, and I hope they will be implemented more effectively than in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I am also very interested in the remarks of the minister about the special consideration which will be given to new drugs. Our regulations up to now have supposedly given ample protection to the public. Manufacturers have been required to file with the department a submission containing all available information with regard to the drug in question. Information on experimental and clinical trials involving the drug concerned

Food and Drugs Act
must be supplied. In view of the fact that hundreds and thousands of new drugs are being produced every year, the provisions of the new act are really academic and will be of little value if the department does not have the staff necessary to check into the new drugs which are introduced. Because they have not had the staff up to now, and in fact have had to depend on the honesty, the good will and the objectivity of the people now concerned in the business

the drug companies, who as I have already mentioned are not in the business primarily to look after the patient, but to make a profit.
Although this is not the time to discuss the question of profits, nevertheless they have been very substantial, to say the least. Senator Kefauver estimated that the profits of the United States, and Canadian drug companies are distinguished by one thing only, and that is that they charge 15 per cent more than do the United States drug companies. The United States drug companies' profits have run at about two and a half times what United States business as a whole has been making, whether you calculate them on sales volume, or whether you calculate them on the amount of money invested by the companies in their businesses. So I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the department will be able really to have a look at the new drugs which are being produced.
The minister has said that our Food and Drugs Act is a model which has been used by countries all over the world. This may be so, but I suggest that the terms of a bill, which may be a model in writing, will mean very little to the people unless they are really observed. For that we need real enforcement of the act, and that will only come when the department has the facilities to do the job- the staff, the research facilities, the laboratories, and everything else which is required. I say again that we have no questions about the technical competence of the department, but we will certainly be asking questions when we come to the estimates with regard to the adequacy of the size of the staff.
I want to say a few words about the reference made in the bill to the drug thalidomide. I do not think I need reargue the matter; it has already been mentioned by almost every speaker. I do not think that we in Canada can be faulted for having permitted use of the drug. From what I have read it seems to me that it was thought, with a good deal of justification, that there had been ample testing of the drug. But as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) has already mentioned, I think we have the right to ask why it took four months, before it was finally withdrawn when pretty
[Mr. Orlikow.l
solid evidence was coming from Europe that there was a good deal of question about the drug. It may be that we did not have the necessary power under the act. It may be that this is the reason that we are now amending the act. We must have had some power, because the drug was finally ordered to be withdrawn, and if we did have the power so to order, why did it take four months to withdraw it? Was it because the department really did not have the legal authority, and they had to go cap in hand and ask or plead with the company concerned, and depend on their good will with the company?
If that is so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the department should have asked for authority much sooner than it did, and should have demanded from the company concerned that it co-operate much sooner than it did. This question is of tremendous importance to the people, because more and more people are depending for maintenance of their health on these new drugs which are being developed for use. Yet the people have little to say about these drugs. The drugs are prescribed by the doctor for the patient. The patient has no say in what drugs are used. He has no knowledge of them. He has no say in the type of drug which is used. He has no say about whether the drugs prescribed by the doctor will be prescribed under the generic name or the trade name. Yet this is a matter of tremendous importance not only with regard to the health of the patient but with regard to the price; and the price has a good deal to do with the health of the patient. We have had many cases in which patients have been obliged to pay as much as $1, $2 or $3 a day for the use of some of the new drugs such as cortisone or the new antibiotics. Yet in many cases had the doctor prescribed the drug by the generic name the patient could have had the drug at a fraction of the price he was charged. I know of one case which took place while I was still in the business and in which a patient was charged in the neighbourhood of 20 cents a tablet and was using 10 a day. The drug was developed completely in France and was being sold retail in France at that time for 2 cents a tablet. Why did it cost that much here? The reason was that one company had a patent. One company had a complete monopoly to use that product.
In closing I wish to say that I regret the fact that the minister in introducing this bill did not take the opportunity to bring in one which would be broad enough to give the people of Canada the protection they need and to which they are entitled. I refer to protection not only with regard to two or three specific drugs but protection over the

whole field of quality. I think almost as important as protection in terms of quality is protection in the field of price. This is a field in which we in Canada have not even begun to study the tremendous problems which arise and to take advantage of the tremendous and widespread investigations which have been made in other countries.
While I think this bill is a step in the right direction, it is only a very floundering step and is another indication of how the government has failed to take care of a big problem and has dealt with only the beginning of the problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? I must caution the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to make. As has been mentioned by hon. members who have previously spoken, all our hopes and sentiments that have been expressed here today and at other times about there being some way-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member if he has already spoken on second reading?


James Edgar Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then he is not permitted to speak again. I was sorry to interrupt him but I was not sure about that matter.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all those who have participated in the debate. I would thank them for the objective way in which they have approached the bill, the amendment now before the house to the Food and Drugs Act. I would point out that when we get into committee I shall be very happy indeed to answer all questions asked in order to give as full a picture as possible concerning the food and drugs branch.
I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that at the time it will be shown that many of the fears he has are groundless. There are one or two things I should like to mention at this stage in closing the debate on second reading. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) expressed an interest in the results of the federal-provincial conference held last August on the subject of assistance to victims of thalidomide malformations, and also enquired about subsequent negotiations which have taken place with respect to this matter.
Food and Drugs Act
I have already made several public statements concerning the conference but I will be happy to summarize developments for the information of the house.
Hon. members may recall that on August 1,
I announced that a conference was being convened with the provinces in order to discuss the most effective methods of providing some measure of relief to those affected by the thalidomide situation. I indicated at that time that the federal government was prepared to share with the provincial governments the cost of providing programs of assistance in this field.
On August 17, a meeting was held in Ottawa at which all of the provinces were represented. In opening the discussions, I outlined the various areas in which the federal government was prepared to make assistance immediately available. These included assessment of individual cases involving medical, psycho-social, and economic features. Transportation costs for infants and parents were also cited as coming within the scope of the federal offer.
I pointed out that various features of the national health grants could be used on a matching basis for surgery, medical care, prosthetic devices, rehabilitation therapy and training. I stated that we would be prepared to ensure that the health grants program was capable of providing this type of assistance and would undertake to make any modifications that might be required. Necessary hospitalization would, of course, be available under the existing federal-provincial insurance agreements.
In addition, the federal government indicated that it was prepared to make funds available on a matching basis through the new welfare grants program with respect to maintenance costs and related welfare services considered essential to the well-being of the malformed children in question. This would include assistance with the cost of care in the child's own home, assistance with maintenance where it is considered to be in the best interests of the child that he or she be placed in a foster home or institution, and assistance with case work and counselling services. It was pointed out that such assistance would not in any sense establish a precedent affecting other welfare programs.
These are the general outlines of the federal offer which I might say was favourably received by provincial representatives and which the latter agreed to present to their governments for immediate consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It now being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as

Private Bills
provided for in the order paper, it being notices of motions, as found on page 27 of today's order paper.


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motions:
September 27-No. 7-Mr. Lessard (St. Henry).
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately remove all tolls on the Champlain bridge in Montreal and henceforth adopt a uniform policy with respect to tolls on bridges crossing navigable waters so as to avoid, in any particular area, one section of the population being unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with, as is the case for the people being served by the Champlain bridge. (Called October 31st).
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to ask whether the house would be willing to give unanimous consent to allowing my friend the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) to proceed with this motion in the unavoidable absence of the sponsor.


Mr. Speaker:: It is proposed that the hon. member for Verdun shall proceed with this motion in lieu of the hon. member for St. Henry. This procedure requires the unanimous consent of the house. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: This notice of motion was called the first time on October 31, 1962. If not proceeded with when called a second time it disappears from the order paper pursuant to standing order 48 (1).



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motions:
September 27-No. 12-Mr. Maclnnis:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the concrete implementation of a long-range, positive and comprehensive program of economic development for the Atlantic provinces of Canada, and to provide, in particular, for the following short-range and long-term measures:
(1)	To assure that existing employment in the basic iron, coal and steel industry be fully protected until alternative employment opportunities can be developed in the region;
(2)	To launch a major program of public capital construction in co-operation with the provincial governments; and,
(3)	To establish a department of Atlantic development, responsible for the overall co-ordination of efforts by all federal departments and agencies in the formulation of positive, long-range and
[Mr. Speaker.)
comprehensive measures designed to promote the economic rehabilitation of the Atlantic region, and for the administering of a large-scale development fund for financing the creation of essential industrial capital.
Mr. Knowles:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: At the request of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it stood at the request of the government, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member is present in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: This is the first time it has been called. Item No. 13.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed-


Mr. Speaker:: There was a request that it stand and then the house leader indicated that he was willing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the house leader gave any indication.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be under a misapprehension but I thought the house leader had.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be informed who is asking to have this motion stood. I am not certain whether it is the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or the mover of the motion.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am making the request that notice of motion No. 12 in my name stand for the moment, with the permission of the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.
Order stands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motions:
September 27-No. 18-Mr. Knowles:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing a measure to be known as "The Canada Full Employment Act", and that consideration should be given to including in the said proposed measure, inter alia, the following provisions: (a) a clearcut recognition by parliament of the importance of full employment as a national policy; (b) a declaration that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take the steps that are necessary to provide and maintain a full employment economy; (c) the establishing of a council of economic advisers, empowered to make regular reports containing economic analyses and projections based on objective research, such reports to be made public; and (d) a requirement that there be an annual report to parliament, by the minister responsible for the administration of the act, on measures taken under its provisions, with

opportunity for scrutiny and debate, so that parliament might make sure that the purposes of the proposed act are fulfilled.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that this motion stand. I wonder whether I might raise a question of privilege. My question of privilege is this. I think the reason we are in this awkward situation-
I speak now as the whip of this party-is that there was a general understanding that the first resolution under this heading was to be proceeded with. I know that unanimous consent means that every member of the house must agree but surely this place works best when understandings arrived at amongst the four parties are carried through. I was asked if our party would agree and I asked later whether the understanding was general and I was told it was. Therefore I told all our members not to be ready with their motions today.


Mr. Speaker:: I hardly think this is a question of privilege but I thank the hon. member for the explanation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will please recognize the fact that the Speaker is standing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: I will say that when the first motion was called and the Chair asked if there was unanimous consent it seemed to the Chair that there was rather strong opposition to the hon. member substituting for the original proposer. It was not a case of an isolated one or two members opposing. I, of course, am bound by the rules in this regard and I think the hon. member will recognize the only thing I can do is to go through all of these motions and come back to No. 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to you that I was asked about this matter by the whip of the Liberal party and I consulted with the deputy whip of the Conservative party and after two or three rounds I was told that there was general agreement. If some of us kept quiet when you asked for unanimous consent, we thought that was the best way to give unanimous consent. If members had had any warning at all they would have been ready but because of this situation arising they will all have one strike against them owing to the fact that their resolutions are being called once. I wonder whether Your Honour would go back and seek again the consent of the house to proceed with No. 1?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since Your Honour has permitted the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Notice of Motion
Centre (Mr. Knowles) to say something, perhaps I could say a word about this matter.
I too approached the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre about the matter and I did not consider that he bound anyone. He said he thought this arrangement would be all right.
I proceeded in good faith. I did not make any protest though I was very much tempted to because Your Honour will recall that on a very recent occasion we were very accommodating to other hon. gentlemen in similar circumstances and I had expected a reciprocity, particularly in view of some things that happened when we were dealing with government business earlier today.
I must say that I really felt rather disappointed and let down but I did not feel I should protest. It may be that some hon. members did not know there had been some discussion about this matter and I have the feeling that if the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the house leader, would join in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre this whole problem might perhaps be solved.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that a misunderstanding has arisen in this instance. When the matter was put before me by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I saw no particular reason why, in the absence of the hon. member, someone else might not move the motion. I think what has happened is that there are other hon. members away who have expressed the view that they would like to participate in the debate when this motion came up. Consequently I believe that is why some hon. members, acting on behalf of their friends, did not agree to its being raised at this time. It would be better all round if we could make arrangements behind the curtains in advance with regard to some of these private members' bills and motions, and normally that is done. This is one occasion on which our communications fell down.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it then that we are not going to revert. Certainly the Chair would not wish to say that we will revert to two minutes after five o'clock and strike out everything from the record because I remember that the last time that happened the Chair got itself into some difficulty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is the suggestion. I think the suggestion was that we should reconsider the decision. If I understood the Minister of Veterans Affairs correctly he would have no objection to that being done, particularly in view of the fact that this motion will go off the order paper entirely, as Your Honour indicated, if we do not deal with it.
1530	HOUSE OF
Proposed Abolition of Tolls on Bridges


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to put it to the house to resolve this matter. Is it agreed that we will revert to item No. 1 on today's order paper under private members' notices of motions and is the request of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the hon. member for Verdun substitute for the hon. member for St. Henry as the proposer of this motion agreed to unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: At the risk of a reference to a former precedent, with which this Speaker does not wish to be associated, anything that was done in respect of the subsequent motions shall not be considered as having happened.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wishes to protect itself.
-Orders numbered 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 having been called and allowed to stand:



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun) for Mr. Lessard (Si. Henry), moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately remove all tolls on the Champlain bridge in Montreal and henceforth adopt a uniform policy with respect to tolls on bridges crossing navigable waters so as to avoid, in any particular area, one section of the population being unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with, as is the case for the people being served by the Champlain bridge.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members of the house for their consideration and tolerance in this particular matter. I for one would have been very upset had this particular notice of motion disappeared from the order paper. Its purpose is to remove the tolls from the Champlain bridge which, as most hon. members know, is the new bridge joining the metropolitan area of Montreal to the south shore. It was opened on June 24, this year. As most hon. members also know, the metropolitan area of Montreal has a population of over 2 million. This population lives on the island of Montreal and therefore it is very obvious what a tremendous role bridges play in the economic growth of that community.
Not only do the bridges leading to it carry thousands upon thousands of workers daily to and from the island, but they are the medium by which thousands of tons of raw materials and finished products are brought to and from great factories. It is no secret that the building of bridges has not kept pace with the economic growth of Canada. For that matter
[Stage Direction]

this is true with regard to countries all over the world because the building of new bridges is admittedly a very costly task.
I should like to confine my remarks to three bridges, namely the Victoria bridge, the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Champlain bridge, because these are the three which serve the industrial centre of the island of Montreal. The first of these, the Victoria bridge, was built around the turn of the century primarily as a railway bridge and no amount of modification in subsequent years has done anything to change it from its purpose as a railway bridge to a bridge the prime purpose of which would be the transportation of automobiles.
The Jacques Cartier bridge, built in 1934, is more suitable for motor traffic, but as early as 1950 it became obvious that the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges could not cope with the many thousands of new automobiles being introduced on to the roads. Giant traffic jams were the rule rather than the exception on these bridges. In fact radio commentators spoke with wonder when traffic on the Jacques Cartier bridge was not held up.
Then in 1954 the St. Lawrence seaway became a reality, and I may be excused for saying that I think it is a monument in the history of Canada to a time when we had a government of action rather than a government of words. It quickly became apparent that the St. Lawrence seaway would do much to encourage and foster the potential growth of the south shore and therefore, in conjunction with the building of the St. Lawrence seaway, the Liberal government passed legislation in 1956 providing for the construction of a new bridge. In saying that I would like at the same time to pay tribute to the Conservatives in that when they took office they carried on this legislation. Even if the new Champlain bridge was not opened until a week after the election I congratulate the Conservatives on making a good try and just missing the mark by a few days.
This bridge was primarily designed to alleviate traffic jams on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges, and is ideally located for that purpose. It is situated just a mile or so from the Victoria bridge. It is a magnificent structure and a real tribute to engineering skill in Canada. It is a six-lane bridge which spans the south shore and comes into the heart of Verdun and over into the city of Montreal. As I say, it was ideally designed for the purpose it was to serve. But what is the situation today, six months after it was opened, and why are cars still lined up bumper to bumper on the two old bridges?
It is a standing joke in the city of Montreal that a motorist who drove up from California, upon being asked if he ever felt alone on the
[Stage Direction]
journey, replied that the only time he felt alone was crossing the Champlain bridge, that in fact for a moment he thought there was a hole in it because there were no cars going with him and no cars approaching him.
I cross the bridge on Sunday mornings and I do not find six, eight, ten or twelve toll booths open. There are usually only one or two.
In its edition of June 2 the Montreal Star had this to say:
-the bridge was built to relieve Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges and to help south shore development. None of these objectives has been achieved. The old bridges are carrying more traffic than ever and south shore development shows few signs of materialization.
Why is this bridge not being used to its full capacity? Certainly we do not need another royal commission on bridges to find out. The answer encompasses two fields, first the tolls and second, the unfinished approaches.
Unfortunately in its haste to build the bridge in time for the last federal election the government forgot the necessity of building adequate approaches; and so, while the population of Montreal can see the bridge from the vantage point of Mount Royal, they have not as yet found out how to get to it. It is a common thing for people to leave their homes on Sunday afternoon and see if they can find the opening to the bridge inside two hours. They exchange views and jokes about it the following Monday, but it is really not a joking matter.
Why are the approaches not ready? The answer is that that spirit of domination which characterized the Prime Minister's behaviour at the commonwealth conference, that same spirit of domination which characterizes the government's negotiations with British Columbia, has permeated to the municipal level and civic authorities are unable to get along with representatives of the harbour board.
One day we find representatives of the city of Montreal telling us in all good faith that a second approach to the bridge is not needed, while the next day representatives of the harbour board say not only are approaches needed but they are actually under construction.
The notice of motion deals specifically with the question of tolls. It is well known that for many years tolls were charged on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. The federal government made repeated requests to Mr. Duplessis, the late premier of Quebec, to co-operate in removing these tolls but always to no avail. Just before the election, however, when surveys showed the
Proposed Abolition of Tolls on Bridges amazing Liberal sweep that became reality in June on the island of Montreal, our Tory friends looked desperately for something to restore their prestige and something to save the seat of the Associate Minister of National Defence. Therefore they approached Mr. Jean Lesage, premier of Quebec with a view to removing the tolls, and to their amazement Mr. Lesage put politics aside. He also realized there was a federal election in the offing and he consented to the alleviation of the tolls on the two older bridges. Here is what the Montreal Star had to say at the time:
There is general happiness, of course, that traffic moves without tolls. But this is tempered, at least among some of those who launched the campaign, by the politics which brought about the desired results... The fact that the southern end of the bridges is in Mr. Sevigny's riding helped too- particularly in view of the date of the federal election, in which the associate minister of defence would like to be returned to parliament. And if any politician has any influence on a political decision relating to his riding it should be a cabinet minister.
Politics is glorious.
So are toll free bridges.
Mr. Speaker, if that was the purpose in removing the tools, at least the government was successful because the associate minister is again a member of this house. But I am more concerned with the injustice that has sprung up as a result of this toll removal. No longer is the new Champlain bridge operating under precisely the same conditions as the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. We have the intolerable effect that the Champlain bridge is now at the disposal of those people who can pay for it, and the ordinary motorist who can ill afford the toll on the Champlain bridge must once again add to the confusion, chaos and over burdening of the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges.
I say that this is an insult, not only to the riding that I represent at the mouth of this particular bridge but indeed to all the taxpayers in the west end of Montreal. Here is a bridge conceived for one particular purpose, to alleviate traffic on the other two bridges. That was its prime objective. Second, it was to encourage development on the south shore. What did the federal government do after rushing the completion of this bridge? They immediately placed it under a handicap so that those people who, for geographical reasons if nothing else, are prone to use this new highway are forced once again to go back to the old structures if they want to avoid this toll which, after all, in this day and age is simply another form of indirect taxation.
There is another effect upon which I would like to dwell, if only for a moment. In their
1532	HOUSE OF
Proposed Abolition of Tolls on Bridges
desire for their pound of flesh the government has refused to remove the toll on the bridge so that one can get from one part of the city of Verdun to another. We have a large area called Nuns island that we, the citizens of the mainland of the city of Verdun, must pay a toll on this new bridge to reach. Hence this whole area, crying for development and which could provide thousands of jobs in the housing industry, lies dormant until the government decides to live up to its promise and at least remove the toll on that part of the bridge between Verdun and Nuns island.
I would urge the government to at least rectify their error. There is a growing suspicion in the city, indeed in the whole country I think, that this toll placed on the Champlain bridge is but another manifestation of the inefficiency that has characterized five years of Tory government. I would ask this government to at least show they are big enough to rectify a mistake that no doubt was caused in their haste, in their anxiety to get that big voice of French Canada back into parliament, the Associate Minister of National Defence. Therefore I would urge the government to do three things. First, remove the tolls. Second, speed up the building of the approaches to the bridge; accelerate this by putting more money at the disposal of the city of Montreal and the national harbours board. Third, at least spend a few dollars in an organized campaign for placing advertisements in the local newspapers, the weekly newspapers and spots on the radio, anything that would acquaint the people of Montreal as to just where this beautiful, mysterious bridge is located.
I would suggest to the Minister of Transport for whom I have great respect, that he come down there himself and see just what his record would be in the obstacles race. I assure him that at the present time strangers at the Mount Royal hotel trying to find the Champlain bridge can complete this obstacle course in a little under two hours. I would suggest that the minister come down himself and see if he can better that time. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think there has been great discrimination against the people of the western part of the island of Montreal for whom this bridge was designed. This toll, besides being a form of indirect taxation, is having the effect of defeating the very purpose for which the bridge was constructed.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order at this time. It refers to this resolution and the fact that a private member seeks to change or alter in some way the revenues of the crown. I have not had an opportunity to put


my hand on all the rules in Beauchesne's work with respect to this matter, but I would refer Your Honour to page 214, citation 249 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Section 2 is pertinent:
A motion requesting the government to introduce immediately legislation granting retirement allowances to all citizens over 60 years of age is out of order because it involves an expenditure of money.
And section 3 of citation 249 is also pertinent in that it declares:
An amendment declaring that government action in any matter should be taken forthwith and giving a direct order which, if approved by the house, would compel the government to adopt measures involving an expenditure of public money, could not be moved by a private member.
On the following page, 215, there is this quotation. I will skip the first part of section 1 of citation 250 and quote this paragraph which is in quotation marks:
"If any motion, or bill, or proceeding is offered to be moved, whether in the house or in a committee, which requires, but fails to receive, the recommendation of the crown, it is the duty of the Chair to announce that no question can be proposed upon the motion, or to direct the withdrawal of the bill. In like manner, after the question has been proposed on an amendment, and it has appeared that the amendment would vary the incidence of taxation or increase the charge upon the consolidated fund, the Speaker has declined to put the question".
Also, Mr. Speaker, in another citation of Beauchesne I recall, although I do not have the exact citation here, that if any amendment or change were to be made similar to this, it would of course have to be made by a minister of the crown. I merely submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this type of resolution was allowed to go forward unchallenged, it might give some precedence for a further motion in this regard. There are probably other hon. members who wish to speak on this resolution, and Your Honour will decide whether you wish to take it under advisement or rule on it at the moment. However, I put this point forward after glancing quickly, as I did, at this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Does any hon. member wish to speak on the point of order?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say-


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot recognize the hon. member; he is not in his seat.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one word on the point of order raised by the hon. member, for your consideration. It is this. Surely we should expect the government members of this house, with their vast army of resources, statisticians and what have you, if there is going to be a question as to the legality of any particular

notice of motion, to bring it forward long before now, and certainly not any later than when this particular notice of motion was called. Why do they wait until an hon. member presents his case in a very understanding, appropriate manner, and then try to interrupt the debate at this particular point?


Mr. MacEachen:: I am wondering, personally, about the validity of raising a point of order at this particular stage. Surely the time to have raised a point of order was earlier in the proceedings, if the motion has the imperfection alleged by the parliamentary secretary. I understand the question is now before the house for consideration and, as I say, I am wondering about the regularity of raising a point of order on a motion after it has been moved.
However, the more important point I wish to make is this: we all understand that these private members' motions are, in fact, suggestions to the government and that they are normally preceded by some such form of words as "the government should give consideration to the advisability ..." and so on. Thus, the objection raised by the hon. gentleman is removed. I am sure all of us looking at this motion understand that it complies with this condition even though the words do not specifically appear. Certainly, there is no objection to adding those words, with the consent of the house, in order to satisfy the hon. gentleman. The debate could then continue without difficulty.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not
suggesting that the debate should stop. I merely happened to glance at this resolution, in connection with which I have no departmental responsibility, and suggested that it was deficient. I am putting the point forward merely as one for consideration in order that we may not establish a bad or weak precedent.
The following quotation from Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 205, section 244, subsection 3 is not exactly to the point but it may be useful as guidance:
Amendments proposing, in a money resolution, to substitute a loan for a subsidy; to change the destination, purpose and conditions of a subsidy; attaching a condition to a subsidy; affecting the ends and provisions of a subsidy, must be moved by a minister with the recommendation of the crown.


Mr. Speaker:: May I deal with some of the preliminary points first? As to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, there is nothing in the rules which precludes an hon. member from raising a point of order at any time if a motion is found to be deficient. I would submit to the
Proposed Abolition of Tolls on Bridges hon. member, without arguing with him, that if he is in the position of coming into the house, and is first seized with the matter, he could either raise a point of order with regard to it at the first opportunity, by interrupting, the speaker who had the floor, or he could wait until the hon. member who had the floor had finished his speech. I will say the same to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond with regard to the preliminary point which he raised.
As to the other point which the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond put to the Chair, hon. members all recognize the intent of the motion; but in this house, unfortunately, the words of a motion must speak for themselves.
However, I am not going to rule the motion out of order. I will take it under advisement. I find that perhaps the use of the words "should immediately" is not as specific as the-words "the government shall". This may be indulging in semantics. However, I should be prepared, without considering this as a precedent, to let the debate continue. My own view is that the motion could have been better worded, but without considering this as a precedent establishing that an hon. member may move a motion which would affect ways and means, I think the sense of the house is that we deem the motion to be generally in order. So, without saying too much more about it, we shall carry on.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: It surprises, me that we do not have a host of Montreal members clamouring to receive your approval to speak on this motion, Mr. Speaker. It certainly is a motion which is of primary interest to Montreal members and Montreal citizens, although the recommendation that as a general policy tolls on the bridges crossing navigable waters should be so arranged as to avoid one section of the population being; unfairly and arbitrarily treated would seem to make it a national issue. For example, hon. gentlemen who come from Cape Breton are aware that there are tolls on the Canso causeway in respect of which the provincial and federal governments have an agreement, and an argument could well be brought forward: why should a structure which is partly paid for by the federal government in Nova Scotia-have tolls applied to it when we-seem to be in the process of wiping out tolls around Montreal harbour?
Our party agrees it is wrong to have tolls on structures and harbours. That is the policy we advocate, so we can approve of this motion. However, I was dismayed at the partisan line taken by the hon. member who spoke first on the motion. I was dismayed because the record of the toll bridges he went


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the floor for only a few minutes. I should like to give the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) the assurance that we, in this group, will support his motion, because it concerns all bridges built over waterways which come under federal jurisdiction. But I completely disagree with the way this motion was brought before us in this house, that is by giving it a touch of political interest.
Proposed Abolition of Tolls on Bridges (Text):


Mr. Graffley:: Shame.
(Translation):


Marcel Lessard: If he had
wished to kill his own motion, he could not have done any better than to introduce it in that way. Since he chose to give it a touch of partisanship, I think he deserves the disapproval of the house.
We agree that the tolls on bridges should be removed, but it should not become a political matter. Oh, I know full well that he is in a better position than anyone else to speak that way, since he belongs to the Liberal party.
Jacques Cartier bridge, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said, created a scandal a few years ago, and no Liberal member is entitled to teach a lesson to government members on that point.
I do not have to praise the present government for having removed the tolls on Jacques Cartier bridge at the time it was done, for they also acted for political reasons.
In any case, it would have been in order for the hon. member to put forward a motion for the removal of tolls on different bridges across certain waterways, without showing the political partisanship he did.
Be that as it may, we support the motion because we are in favour of its principle, which applies not only to the province of Quebec but to all the other provinces in Canada.
I passed over that bridge several times myself and I found that it had been built for nothing, since it is practically unused.
The obvious solution would be-and the government will have to do something about it as soon as possible-to remove tolls on that bridge with a view to easing traffic on the other ones. Since the government deemed it advisable to build that bridge-they even made an issue of it-they should make it available to the people who paid for it.
So the hon. member can be assured of our support and I invite the government to carefully consider this suggestion.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the other members who spoke this afternoon.
The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) who was the first to speak delivered what I felt was a partisan speech.
I think that the hon. member had better make a few sound suggestions in an attempt to correct a situation which requires the co-operation of all governments, at the federal,, provincial and municipal levels.
1536	HOUSE OF
Proposed Abolition of Tolls on Bridges
I think that all the hon. members who spoke this afternoon made very responsible speeches. This motion affects the welfare of all my fellow citizens.
I will readily admit that when I was crossing the Champlain bridge over the St. Lawrence river, the other day, I was practically by myself while there was a traffic jam on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. That is a problem which the house should consider seriously.
(Text):
When I heard the hon. member for Port Arthur discussing this subject I could not help thinking of Galbraith's approach to this whole matter of public and private spending. Bridges in Montreal are certainly a prime example of how the public sector of the economy can lag sadly behind the private sector. Here we just built a third bridge near the centre of the island, when the real and crying need comes forward for the construction of a fourth bridge at the east end.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was more than amused when the hon. member who spoke first this afternoon said, "Let us now talk about an important situation on the island of Montreal which is above politics". Then he delivered a speech concerning something as simple as bridges and, may I say, in my opinion it was a very distasteful partisan speech. I do not know too much about bridges, but there is one thing I know about them. There are many bridges in the province of Quebec; and all over the province of Quebec today, as for the last two months, you can see thousands of Liberal supporters with paint brush in hand painting those bridges. Whether they need painting or not, the Liberal party in my province has certainly put many people to work painting bridges.


An hon. Member:: Temporarily.


William Heward Grafftey: You must be a supporter of or a worker for the Liberal party in order to get that work painting those bridges. However, as the hon. member for Verdun said, we must keep politics out of bridges.


An hon. Member:: And off bridges.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member now boasting that there is that great number of unemployed in the province of Quebec under this beneficent government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Under Lesage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: I am only suggesting that in IMr. Grafftey.l

order to paint bridges in Quebec you must be a supporter of or a worker for the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is not partisan, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know there are certain susceptibilities in connection with a forthcoming event. I would ask those hon. members who were here in the house this afternoon when it opened to cast their minds back to the words I used at that time. Those who were not here then I would advise to read today's Hansard in this regard. I think we are getting into the record far too many extraneous incursions by members speaking from their seats rather than standing.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the whole problem of bridges and tolls on the island of Montreal should be discussed briefly under two headings. I fully realize the fact that there exists in the country at the present time a paradoxical situation in relation to bridges and public works of this type. On some bridges we have tolls and on others we have none. However, I feel that the problem in relation to Montreal must be discussed with two things in view. First of all, Montreal is an island with a population of over 2 million. In order to get off the island the people must use bridges. There is absolutely no choice involved.
As hon. members who have spoken have already pointed out, we have three bridges in the general area being discussed under the present resolution. Years and years ago the Victoria bridge was constructed. It became extremely antiquated and only recently have conditions been improved on this bridge. After the Victoria bridge, the Jacques Cartier bridge was constructed. Then recently the Champlain bridge was constructed. The situation which exists now, and hon. members have already discussed it, is that tolls have been removed from the Victoria bridge and the Jacques Cartier bridge. What do we see? I agree with the hon. member for Verdun. I travelled on the Champlain bridge the other day. It is extremely difficult to get on to it. I again suggest to him that he use his good offices to correct this situation or to help to correct it. Apart from this fact, however, the fact is that while tolls have been lifted from the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Victoria bridge, traffic is naturally very heavy on them and hardly anybody is using, comparatively speaking, the Champlain bridge. At least up until the present time that is the situation; I do not know whether future conditions will correct it. The government might say that in order to pay for the

construction of the bridge in the future, or in order to amortize the cost, tolls must be maintained. However, I simply suggest that if nobody is going to use the bridge because of the existing situation, we would perhaps only be kidding ourselves by continuing this present comedy. I should therefore like to join with other members in suggesting the abolition of tolls on the Champlain bridge.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Heward Grafftey: At the same time it might be suggested that when governments build such structures, they must be paid for. I can only suggest that possibly the governments involved will just be obliged to figure out other ways of paying for them under present conditions. Hence I make this recommendation along with other hon. members with two things principally in view. The first one is this: Montreal is basically an island community.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Monteith for the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I had been outlining, in closing second reading of this debate, the progress and developments at the federal-provincial conference which was held on August 17 in connection with this subject, and I will go on from that point.
Another important subject which came up for discussion at the conference was the problem of obtaining accurate information as to the number of children with malformations associated with the use of thalidomide. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec did not have reliable information on this matter at the time but indicated they were conducting surveys to determine the extent of the situation within their respective jurisdictions. The remaining provinces reported
Food and Drugs Act
that they had information indicating a maximum number of some 15 children where the drug thalidomide had definitely been associated. These appeared to be restricted to western Canada since no cases had been reported from the Atlantic area. I might say that we are still awaiting final word on the number of cases involved on a national basis.
In this connection provincial representatives were informed of the progress being made with respect to a special pilot project which the department had initiated in the Ottawa area some months previously. Carried out with the full co-operation of the local medical profession, pharmacists and hospitals, this study is designed to obtain as much information as possible respecting the distribution of thalidomide and particularly as it might have been used during pregnancy. The project is still under way.
During the meeting several significant steps were suggested and received general acceptance. These had to do with the setting up of national expert committees to foster improvement of knowledge and facilities for dealing with severe disabilities, particularly in young children. Among other things it was proposed that birth records should reflect malformations in greater detail to permit better information being available.
Within a matter of weeks after the August 17 conference all provinces advised us of their willingness to co-operate in this program. As far as the federal government is concerned, of course, we have been ready at any time to act on projects to be submitted by the provinces in respect of individual cases.
Following on the recommendations of the federal-provincial conference, a meeting was convened in Ottawa on September 17 of specialists in the field of rehabilitation. Under the chairmanship of Dr. J. C. Rathbun of London this committee gave careful consideration to the problem of phocomelia rehabilitation and made plans with a view to ensuring the availability at a national level of expert advice on rehabilitation measures and prosthetic devices for children at an early age.
A special subcommittee was established which early in October visited selected centres in the United States in order to obtain the latest information on surgical and rehabilitation procedures and prosthetic appliances. The full committee held a further preparatory meeting in Montreal on November 7 and a third meeting is to be held in Toronto later this month to which provincial representatives have been invited.

Food and Drugs Act
A second expert committee has been established on the subject of congenital anomalies. This will hold its first meeting in Ottawa about the middle of November and will be charged with consideration of all aspects of the occurrence of congenital malformations, and not only those that may be attributal to thalidomide.
I hope that this summary review of steps taken in connection with assistance to thalidomide victims will indicate to the house the vigorous way in which the federal government has exercised leadership in this matter. I am aware, of course, that the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) feels that the federal government should assume "full, final and ultimate responsibility to see that the program of rehabilitation will be carried out". I trust that I have given sufficient evidence to indicate that we have taken a firm lead in this matter and have worked out arrangements co-operatively with provincial authorities with a view to ensuring an effective program.
In placing this undertaking on a joint basis we are following the traditional pattern of health and welfare programs in Canada which I am sure all hon. members will agree have been most successful and effective. The hon. member for York Centre indicated concern about the possibility of difficulty where a parent of a thalidomide victim moved to a province where there had been no necessity for the development of an assistance program. I can only say that we are not unmindful of this type of complication and it is one that is being borne in mind in developing our arrangements with the provinces.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley), to whom I extend warm congratulations on his maiden speech in the house, indicated his intention to introduce amendments to cover what he described as "omissions". The government will certainly be very pleased indeed to consider these amendments when they are put forward. In particular he referred to the problem of rapid withdrawal of a drug from the market. As I have mentioned, we are at present awaiting the report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons on our new drug procedures and this may well be one of the matters that will be dealt with in its recommendations. In any case I can assure the hon. member that the point he has raised will not be overlooked and that in the development of new regulations everything possible will be done to facilitate and expedite whatever action may be warranted. Indeed, the bill in its present form contains authority for prohibition of the sale of a drug under schedule H and this by itself should 
meet the problem in that it makes the sale of such a drug illegal.
The hon. member also suggested that the department should consider placing a special liaison officer in each drug company undertaking the development and evaluation of a new drug. This appears to be a suggestion of some substance. However, I would point out that the clinical testing of new drugs does not take place at the headquarters of the company. While in most cases the bulk of the testing occurs abroad, such testing as is done in Canada of a clinical nature takes place in our larger medical centres. With this in mind I might say that we have been exploring the possibility of establishing closer liaison with these medical centres. I do not wish to elaborate on this matter further at the moment as it may well form one of the principal subjects in the report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons.
In closing this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my personal appreciation to all hon. members who have supported this measure. I should also like to thank hon. members who have expressed sympathy and understanding with regard to the problem that developed, and particularly those who have urged that the tragedy involved transcends political considerations. Finally, I would express a personal word of congratulation to Dr. Frances Kelsey. Like other hon. members, I am also proud that she is Canadian born. Having regard to the size of the United States, her action may very well have averted what might have been a major catastrophe. I can only commend her for her foresight.


Mr. Harley:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has closed the debate.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Could I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is prepared to answer.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: In view of the recommendations of all other parties in the house, is the minister prepared to send the bill to a special committee?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not at this stage Mr. Speaker. I did say in my opening remarks that I would propose going into committee of the whole house and discussing the matter at some length, where everybody would have ample opportunity of asking questions, and then subsequently, if it seemed desirable at that time, it could be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.

On clause 1-Exception.
Harry Cruickshank Harley: Could the minister explain to us if there is any intention at the present time to bring forward the "prescribed conditions" that are listed in subsection 2, and what is the intent of these? One drug which will be mentioned later on, the drug L.S.D., renders a patient defenseless and much more amenable to psychiatric therapy. It is therefore very useful in the treatment of alcoholism, and following its use in a series of cases in Saskatchewan, 50 per cent of alcoholic patients stopped drinking.
This drug is a very powerful weapon, but at the same time it is very dangerous and its use should be restricted to use under psychiatric or hospital conditions. It should definitely be removed from the open market and the problem arises of who will decide who uses this drug.
I would suggest to the minister that a committee could be set up under the food and drugs directorate, called the national advisory committee on drugs and prescriptions, consisting of doctors, pharmacists, drug manufacturers, chemists, biologists and, in fact, anybody connected with drugs, their manufacture, use and distribution.
This also deals with samples. At the present time samples are sent out to doctors on a mailing list only after they have already been approved by the food and drugs directorate. Therefore this amendment that is proposed will control only the number of samples which are sent out, but it will not control what samples are sent.
New drugs, that is, drugs not yet approved by the food and drugs directorate, are under the control of a specific doctor who reports on their use to the drug manufacturers. Samples sent to the medical profession have several useful functions. The first of these is to test new drugs, or test old drugs for new uses. They are also very useful in starting a patient on medication at any time of the night or day when a drug store is not available. They familiarize a doctor with the characteristics of a drug, what it looks like and feels like, and they also at times provide free medication for those patients who cannot afford to have a prescription filled.
I should mention that as we go on to deal with clauses 2, 3 and 4 I shall have specific amendments to propose, but at the moment I would like the minister to give us some detail of what exactly he intends to do at this time with the subclause containing the expression "under prescribed conditions."


Jay Waldo Monteith: The distribution would be limited by regulation to special institutions or groups authorized to do experimental work of this type.
Food and Drugs Act


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Would this apply only to drugs such as L.S.D.? What about the remainder of drugs and their distribution generally?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This means other drugs under schedule H.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, we are really
on clause 2 are we not?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, if we had a
general debate we might get ahead better than taking the clauses individually. If that were the case I would be glad to answer any questions having to do with any clause.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To clarify the question raised a moment ago with reference to L.S.D., I understood the minister to say that L.S.D. used for experimental purposes in certain institutions is permitted under clause 2. I think that would be fairly restrictive. There are places where L.S.D. is being used for treatment purposes and it would be very difficult to draw a fine line between experimental purposes and actual treatment. Unless there were a fairly broad interpretation of the term "experimental purposes" I can see some difficulty.
I know there are psychiatric centres and hospitals for the rehabilitation of the mentally ill where L.S.D. is used for more than merely experimental purposes. It is actually being used for treatment in certain selective cases. Would this interfere with or prohibit such treatment being continued?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman. Actually the drug is still under trial and we would take the advice of our drug advisory committee to a great extent in this respect.


James Edgar Walker: To be specific, would this drug be available to a clinic such as a clinic for the treatment of alcoholism?


Jay Waldo Monteith: We would expect so.


Mr. Marcoux:: I am sorry I was not here earlier this afternoon. Is there any change regarding patent drugs?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister indicate whether it is as a result of the experience with thalidomide that this change in section 14 is being proposed, or is it from some other kind of experience that this proposal comes forward?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, the
amendment to the act has not been suggested because of thalidomide only. There has been general criticism to some degree about this mass sampling and consideration has been given to this particular step for some little time.

Food and Drugs Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister indicate in any kind of percentage terms what this will do to the distribution of samples? I gather, in attempting to compare the new subsection with the old one, that from here on distribution of samples will be possible to a much more limited group than was the case under the section as it stood before. Does it cut down the distribution of samples by half, or three quarters, or what?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have any estimate on that. But actually it will not necessarily limit the group. The proposal is to allow a manufacturer to mail out cards if the likes, but the actual receiver of the sample must write to the company indicating his desire to receive a sample, rather than to have samples go out through the mail holus-bolus.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Has the legislation of other countries, such as Great Britain, the United States, and so on, been checked in this respect, and have they any legislation comparable to this section?


Jay Waldo Monteith: My information is that they do not, Mr. Chairman.
f.fr. Knowles: kfr. Chairman, I am ^unuus as to how this new clause will operate. My curiosity stems from wondering how the present one operates. In particular, within the last two or three weeks I have received through the mail direct from drug companies certain samples; yet under section 14 as it now reads this seems to be prohibited completely. How does it happen that I received these samples?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They probably think you are a doctor.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know, but I am told that this is illegal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it illegal to receive them?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot answer that. The regulations say:
No person shall distribute or cause to be distributed any drug as a sample.
Then it says:
Subsection (X) does not apply to the distribution of samples of drugs by mail or otherwise to physicians, dentists or veterinary surgeons or to the distribution of drugs, other than those mentioned in schedule F, to registered pharmacists for individual redistribution to adults only or to a distributor in compliance with individual requests.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us how, then, clause 1 limits the distribution of material. I take it that it cannot be sent out other than to physicians, dentists, veterinary surgeons or pharmacists. Do other groups get them by asking for them?
TMr. Monteith.]


Jay Waldo Monteith: The section is repealed and will now state:
Subsection (1) does not apply to the distribution, under prescribed conditions, of samples of drugs to physicians, dentists or veterinary surgeons or pharmacists.
And so on. Subsection 2 of section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act will now read that way, whereas before it read:
Subsection (1) does not apply to the distribution of samples of drugs by mail or otherwise to physicians, dentists or veterinary surgeons or to the distribution of drugs, other than those mentioned in schedule F-
And so on, as I mentioned earlier. It really means that under prescribed conditions, by regulation it will be possible for doctors, physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and so on, to receive drug samples as in the past.


An hon. Member:: But not members of parliament.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, there are some doctors amongst us, I understand.


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It would be proposed as a prescribed condition that you must write in. Even a doctor would have to write in for a sample before it could be mailed to him. These people may still send pamphlets advertising a particular drug, and this sort of thing, but the doctor must indicate an actual desire to receive a sample before they may mail it to him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an admirable step. I have heard complaints from doctors about receiving samples from pharmaceutical houses in tremendous quantity, which lie around and the doctor never uses them. When you estimate the thousands of people to whom samples are sent, this must add a great deal to the cost of drugs. It is to be hoped that if this becomes effective the cost of drugs will be somewhat reduced.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Has the regulation prescribing the conditions been drafted, so the committee may know what type of regulation it is? I understand the purpose of doing it by regulation is to allow flexibility; but we are being asked to approve, as I understand it, legislation which is giving wide powers to prescribed conditions and we are not given any indication of what those prescribed conditions are. If there is a draft of them, it would be helpful to us to know about them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that the drafting of these regulations is under way purely at this moment for further discussion within the department, prior to actually having them

become law. Therefore I am afraid I am not in a position at the moment to give the actual regulation. But I can assure the hon. member that the intent behind it is that a manufacturer may send out advertising of all sorts, which is customary; but he must not send an actual sample unless he has received a request from the doctor, dentist, veterinary surgeon or pharmacist to have the sample sent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This will prevent the wholesale broadcasting of every new drug that comes out on the market.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is correct.


Mr. Slogan:: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether this clause will actually extend what has been going on at the present time under the narcotics regulations. Perhaps for the edification of some hon. members I might say that it is quite common for a dentist or doctor to have a visit from a drug representative, when the representative presents us with a card which is signed, and they in turn send this card into the drug company and we receive the drugs through the mail. Is this what is being extended as far as penicillin and other drug samples are concerned? I know that they did not require us to sign for antibiotics and other such drugs. I must commend the government on this clause; I think it is a good one. It will give an accounting, at least, of the amount of samples being sent out, and it will definitely cut down on the amount of unsolicited samples that will be sent through the mail.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this could still happen, of course, as previously.


Mr. Lamoureux:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question of the minister. Would this request have to be made by a medical man or pharmacist in writing or could it be made verbally?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, it is the intention to actually indicate by writing.


Mr. Peters:: I am curious about this, Mr. Chairman. It is said this will eliminate a number of these drugs, unsolicited as they may be, that are used for general distribution by doctors to certain of their patients. We would like to relate this to the cost of drugs and the fact that if this large amount of drugs was not sent out in an unsolicited manner it could result in a reduction in cost, but I rather doubt whether the department is going to supervise that part of it, and therefore this probably would not happen.
I have not been approached myself, but I have received some of these drugs from a
Food and Drugs Act
doctor. He said, "Take them and try them out. If they are any good, I will get you some more."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, experimental drugs.


An hon. Member:: You survived.


William Arnold Peters: I imagine most people survive the tests made on them at that level.


An hon. Member:: Was he Tory or Liberal?


William Arnold Peters: I did not ask. I was wondering whether or not some drugs which fall into this category are being used in the treatment of patients.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The legislation is simply to the effect that this wholesale advertising by samples should be stopped or regulated. If a physician applies above his signature to a drug company for some samples and then gives them to the hon. member, I think he would probably not charge for them. That was the point of the question, was it not? He is still entitled to write in and get samples.


William Arnold Peters: It is agreed, though, that this has no relationship with the cost of drugs. We shall not be able to insist as a result of this amendment that the companies should reduce the price of their drugs, though the samples they give away are being used as an excuse for the high cost of initial distribution.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think we shall be in any position to indicate the difference in the cost of a drug purely because there is not so much sampling. I do think, however, that if less sampling is done then, at some place along the line, there is less cost incurred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understand that some of the drug houses send out as many as 20,000 samples of new drugs. This is bound to add to the cost and if samples may now be sent out only by request, the cost should certainly be reduced. It does not come within the purview of this legislation, but I certainly hope that if the cost of drugs continues at its present high level the minister or this house will take a look at that cost, because at the present time it is exorbitant.


Lucien Lamoureux: Would a doctor have to request a specific drug by name or could he authorize a manufacturing company in writing to send him whatever types and quantities he wished? In other words, could he give a general or blanket authority?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It must be done by name and amount. A doctor cannot just sign one request saying: "Please send me whatever you can spare of this or that drug".

Food and Drugs Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: A doctor cannot act in the
way the government did when it put on the customs tariff surcharge.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is a typical remark by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just drawing an analogy.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The point I wish to raise is simply one of drafting. It seems to me legislation ought to set out the basic terms of what is proposed. The minister has explained that one of the purposes here is to ensure that samples may be sent out only at the request of a physician in writing. Why cannot that be put into the legislation, so that the act would express direct the purpose of parliament? At the end of the phrase "physician, dentist, pharmacist" and so on, we could say "should request such samples in writing", subject to other conditions. I do not like legislation which leaves out the basic principle in order to supply it later by regulation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I appreciate what the hon. member has in mind, but in actual practice regulations are more flexible; they can be amended. If this does not seem to meet the requirements, maybe some other step could be taken. I think it would be advisable to leave the actual implementation to the regulations. I have said that requests must be made in writing for a specific amount and for a certain drug. I believe we can handle this better by regulation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am still puzzled about the operation of this section in the light of my own experience, to which I have already referred. If one looks at the interpretation section of the Foods and Drugs Act, section 2, paragraph (f), "drug" is defined:
"drug" includes any substance or mixture of substance manufactured, sold or represented for use in
(i)	the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof, in man or animal.
(ii)	restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in man or animal or
(iii)	disinfection in premises in which food is manufactured, prepared or kept, or for the control of vermin in such premises.
I thought I should put the whole of that subsection on record although it is only the first part that matters. Those two sets of samples I have received in recent weeks each came from a well established drug firm in this country-I am not going to give them any free advertising. In each instance I also received a letter telling me how beneficial the drug would be. Certainly the substance was represented as one which would prevent my getting certain disorders in one case and cure them in another.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which one did you take?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I took the first one, the preventive one. I used it all up. But I have not needed to take the second one.
My whole point is that the law as it now stands says this shall not be done, yet two prominent drug firms have sent these samples to me. I am not a physician or a surgeon. I am not a veterinarian, or even an undertaker. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North received the same prescription, I was going to call it, as I received. What assurance can we have that these regulations would cure the situation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: My information is that this procedure is illegal at the moment. Unless the hon. member has a medical qualification I do not think he is supposed to be receiving these samples.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would the minister advise me to do?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Speak to me behind the curtain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot give you the first set because I have taken them, but I can give you the second set.


Mr. Ryan:: Will there be a regulation prohibiting the drug companies from printing up lists to be sent to doctors ordering these samples, so as to get around the intention of this legislation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would not say that. We do not wish to place too great a restriction on doctors. Doctors practise according to their code of ethics. We do feel it is advisable to get their actual signatures, however. I do not know what the drug companies may do to try to circumvent this provision. They may try such a move as the hon. member has mentioned but I do not, at the moment at any rate, intend to prohibit a practice of that kind.


Mr. Honey:: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the principle enunciated by the hon. member for Greenwood. I listened to the minister assuring both the hon. member and this house of the good intentions of his department in drafting the regulations. I do not for one moment suggest that the department will be motivated in any other way; but I do want to indicate that the practice of giving wide powers such as are contained in the proposed amendment, which says that under prescribed conditions this power and authority to legislate on this particular matter is then handed over to the department, is one which is not to be condoned in this house. I do not wish to raise an issue on this now, but I would like to register my opinion, and I think the

opinion of members on this side of the house, that it is necessary that this house be cautious and be assured of the care the department will give to the drafting of regulations such as we are now authorizing.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, all regulations, of course, are tabled in the house and appear in the Canada Gazette, so that it will be quite obvious that the steps taken do take into consideration what I have said.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister, in view of what appears to be very interesting and valuable legislation apparently being studied in the United States, whether there will be a regulation which demands that the manufacturer provide physicians, dentists, etc. with a detailed analysis of the composition of any drug and a detailed outline of its possible side effects?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is not required at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but we consider that this will probably be one of the requirements in future. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and suggest to them what they should report; but we have this in mind, and after their report is received and we implement some regulations as a result, this might well be done.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Sale of certain drugs prohibited.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Mr. Chairman, on clause 2 I should like to propose an amendment. The amendment deals with the definition of "drug", which definition was read to the house a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. According to the definition, "drug" includes "any substance or mixture of substances used in the treatment", and it goes on in great detail which I shall not repeat. We wish to add this clause the words "or substance", so that the definition would then include any substance that naturally occurs and one that is not manufactured or necessarily sold or represented as any of the matters mentioned. I am thinking of naturally occurring substances which under certain circumstances could be poisonous. I am thinking specifically of jequirity beans, which have been mentioned in this house on previous occasions. Therefore I should like to move:
That clause 2 of the bill be amended by Inserting after the word "drug" in line 13 thereof the words "or substance".


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am not a legal man myself, but the bill now before us says in clause 2:
No person shall sell any drug described in schedule H.
Food and Drugs Act
The definition of "drug", as the hon. member for Halton pointed out, is as follows:
"Drug" includes any substance or mixture of substances . . .
Our information from the Department of Justice is to the effect that the present amendment does take into consideration any substance, and it would therefore seem unnecessary to add the words "or substance" in this amendment. The word "drug" is used here and the definition specifically says it includes "any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use", which I think is pretty clear coverage. I would be happy to take this point up with the justice department, but we have been led to believe that the point about which the hon. member is worried is at the moment met.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: If the minister would read the definition of the word "drug", I agree it says "manufactured, sold or represented for use", and then it specifically lists those matters in which it is used. But what about a substance not used for those uses but which is consumed accidentally; a naturally occurring substance which is not normally used in the sense of being a drug, but is taken accidentally? I am not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that we have left an opening here which could be easily closed by adding these two words proposed in this amendment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think we come down to the fact that these jequirity beans are not drugs. I am certainly aware of the danger of these particular substances, but these beans are not a drug. Neither is gasoline nor carbon tetrachloride nor some other poisonous mixture. We are dealing with the Food and Drugs Act, and all we have power to deal with are drugs. A drug is defined I think pretty broadly, in that it includes any substance or mixture of substances.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Harley) negatived: yeas, 31; nays, 67.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister say something further about the capacity of the government by order in council or by regulation to add to or subtract from schedule H?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This would be done by order in council. I do not think we would wish to act without the advice of the drug advisory committee. This committee in the past has given us advice. In the case of the Sabin vaccine we acted on their advice. Oh, I am

Food and Drugs Act
sorry, Mr. Chairman; I apparently made a mistake. I am told it was another committee. It was another advisory committee. This is the type of advice we would ask from this committee and there would be an order in council permitting us to put the drug under schedule H.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is possible, under the act as it now stands, for things to be added to or taken away from any of the schedules?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that it is our usual concern in the house, when permissive legislation of this kind is before us, to want to hold it in check and not to give the government too much leeway. However, may I look at the other side of the coin and put this question to the minister. If schedule H had been in the act previously, would it have been possible to act more quickly with respect to thalidomide?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, it would have been possible to do so. There is a penalty and a jail sentence for an offence under the act and this would be a definite offence after it had been put under schedule H.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It removes all doubt. Hence from here on, if there is any doubt about any drug, there will not be the doubt that was expressed during the three or four months of the thalidomide crisis. This time it will be possible for the government to act immediately.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. I do not accept the fact that there was delay in that period. However, I say that it would be possible to act more rapidly in the case of a drug in that we could definitely have it put under schedule H and it would be prohibited.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister what section of the act he proceeded under when he did act in the case of thalidomide.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am afraid there was not any section. At least I am so informed. There seemed to be conflicting opinions. I have been told that it is possible to do this, that we have the power to do this. I have also been told that we do not have the power to do it. Setting up a separate schedule H was to remove all doubt as to what could be done with the drug under that section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to keep this matter very clear, may I say this. This would mean that even in the case of a drug the introduction of which on to the market has been approved, a drug which has been in current use, it

would still be possible under this new schedule H to withdraw it completely from the market if it became obvious that it was a dangerous drug.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry but I was trying to listen with two ears. I wonder whether the hon. member would mind repeating his question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question was this. In the future, even though permission had been given to experiment with a drug and to put it on the market on an introductory basis, even though it had been marketed and was for sale but it was afterwards discovered to be dangerous, it would be possible under this legislation to withdraw it. There would be no doubt.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I wonder if the minister would give us an explanation. Perhaps I missed something here. As I understand the matter, schedule H is now in the act and what the minister is suggesting is that if another drug of this type were put on the market, by regulation we could add it to this schedule. Was that the meaning?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is correct. If a situation developed similar to that in connection with the drug thalidomide and it was felt to be equally dangerous, then the same thing could be done.


William Arnold Peters: Are there other drugs that are already in various sections of the regulations that will be added to this list as well? I refer to drugs that are already on it. I think the minister mentioned Sabin vaccine.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, it will not be added to this list. I hope to have an announcement to make to the house within a day or two concerning Sabin vaccine. But it certainly would not, and there is no other drug to my knowledge at the moment in such a category.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister with regard to lysergic acid. Has it been restricted in the past?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This drug has been on
clinical trial for some time. It has been known to produce fantasies and this sort of thing. We feel that it could be a very dangerous drug. The manufacturers themselves are aware of this fact. The manufacturers are aware of the fact that we are putting it under schedule H with this consideration in mind. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is subject to use in an experimental way or, as I also said, for treatment purposes under prescribed

conditions. There is no other drug at the moment contemplated as being one to be moved under schedule H.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The amendment read as follows:
14A. No person shall sell any drug described in schedule H.
In order for an institution to get it for either research or treatment purposes they will have to purchase it. Or is the idea that pharmaceutical houses will have to supply this as a sample?


Mr. Baldwin:: The word "sell" is defined.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand the procedure would be to exempt lysergic acid to the extent necessary to permit its use. The definition of "sell" is that it includes "sell, offer for sale, expose for sale and have possession for sale and distribute". But by the regulations, lysergic acid will be exempted from the prohibition under schedule H according to the circumstances outlined earlier in our discussion, in that it would be for institutional research and clinical use, for some treatment purposes, as one hon. member inquired, but under proper control.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has power to do this under another section. This section certainly is specific. It cannot be sold. You define to "sell" as to have in possession, offer for sale or distribute.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Section 24 (1) (j) provides:
(1) The governor In council may make regulations ...
(j) exempting any food, drug, cosmetic or device from all or any of the provisions of this act and prescribing the conditions of such exemption.


James Edgar Walker: In the case of a drug that is on the market and subsequently is placed under schedule H, does this section give the minister the authority to take the drug off the market at every level? In other words, does it give the minister the authority that was lacking in the case of thalidomide to take these drugs off the market at the retail level, wholesale level or wherever they happen to be? I think that point should be clarified.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Schedule H is going to mean that nobody can sell or distribute any drug under schedule H except if it is exempted under certain conditions for research purposes and so on, which is what we propose to do with lysergic acid or in certain instances, as I mentioned, for treatment purposes if it is advisable; but it is under very strict regulation.


James Edgar Walker: It still is not clear. The drug is on the market and the food and drugs directorate suggests to the minister that the drug should be taken off the market, as in 27507-3-98J
Food and Drugs Act
the case of thalidomide. Does this section of the act give the minister the authority to move in at the retail level, the wholesale level or whatever level it may be and get the drug back?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, it does.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two on this matter but before doing so may I say that I am sure all members are very pleased to see the charming parliamentary secretary to the minister assisting him on this occasion.
As far as we in this group are concerned, this seems to be a very poor piece of drafting. Here we have it provided in clause 2 that "no person shall sell any drug described in schedule H". Then we have two drugs mentioned in schedule H that cannot be sold or prescribed. Then we are told by the minister that under another section he has the power to exempt something that is dealt with by legislation passed in this house. To us that seems a rather unusual circumstance. Regulations usually supplement the terms of legislation but according to the minister's explanation the regulations will supersede the section of the act when required under particular circumstances. From our point of view that seems to be very poor drafting indeed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is true that as the bill is now drawn thalidomide and lysergic acid are under schedule H. However, in future there might be some other drug that it would be necessary to put under schedule H. In that case it would be done by regulation and it would be under the regulations that we would allow research and so on with regard to lysergic acid.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it that the department has to have considerable flexibility. There may be drugs which you will find are unsuitable for distribution in view of the information you have at a given time, so you put them under schedule H. In the meantime you may find that lysergic acid, which you have under schedule H, can be used within a limited scope and so by regulation you allow it to be used for clinical purposes and for certain therapeutic treatment. You might even enlarge it to the point where you might want to take it out of schedule H altogether. I take it that is the reason for this flexibility.


Jay Waldo Monteith: For instance, when we
amended the act a year ago barbiturates and amphetamines were placed under schedule G. As time goes by there may be other substances which it might be necessary to put under schedule G. All drugs now under schedule F must be sold by prescription so that these schedules can be changed by regulation if it is felt advisable.

Food and Drugs Act


Mr. Leboe:: I wonder whether it is not true that the drug would have to be removed from schedule H before you could allow any latitude?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman. For research purposes and so on, as outlined earlier, this can be done by regulation and, specifically, we propose to treat lysergic acid in that manner.


Bert Raymond Leboe: It would seem to me that the wording of the clause is specific and does not provide any opportunity for broadening. It seems to me it is very specific and if it is in contravention of any other part of the act there should be something to relate it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is another section which does allow the exemption of any food, drug, cosmetic or device from all or any of the provisions of this act and prescribing the conditions of such exemption. That can be done.


Bert Raymond Leboe: It would have to be exempted from this schedule in order to be proceeded with.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, yes, and to a limited extent.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am afraid that only confuses the matter even more. If I have not misunderstood the minister, he is now suggesting that by regulation he can remove an item from this schedule in the bill. Did I misunderstand him?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, that is correct. We can now move a drug from one section to another by regulation. For instance, if the act had been drawn up so that thalidomide was still under schedule F as a prescription drug and if schedule H had been drafted without including thalidomide and lysergic acid therein, then by regulation subsequent to the passing of the bill thalidomide could be put under schedule H.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell us how much use has been made of the exempting section to which he made reference because some of us are bothered by this. The new section we have before us seems to be absolute in that it provides that no person shall sell any drug described in schedule H. That section will go into the act in which there is section 24(1) (j) which says that the governor in council may make regulations exempting any food, drug, cosmetic or device from all or any of the provisions of this act and prescribing the conditions of such exemption. Has there been much use made of that? For example, would this be how these drug companies have sent samples to me? Is there some regulation exempting them from the provisions of the other section?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand not. There are certain exemptions in, for instance, citric acid, tartaric acid, sodium and potassium nitrates. I do not know what these designations mean but I presume they are infinitesimal amounts, and there are exemptions allowed concerning certain chemicals in some of these substances. Gelatin is another. Fresh vegetables are even allowed-a certain infinitesimal amount as I understand it-and this will probably raise eyebrows as arsenic is included. Others are copper, zinc, and fluoride, and this has been done because they are naturally ingredients in these particular substances.


Guy Marcoux: A few moments ago the minister said that he or his department had the power to withdraw any drugs or drug that might be in schedule H. Is this possibly by the use of the word "sell"-"no person shall sell"?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I understand the hon. member's question correctly, "sell" includes distribution and handling in any manner. It includes sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribution. We can by regulation exempt lysergic acid for specific cases, but we have no intention of exempting thalidomide at all under any conditions. However, who knows what may happen. I have seen some articles to the effect that perhaps thalidomide could have a possible effect on cancer. If this were so, then under certain conditions I would feel justified in exempting thalidomide from the tight prohibition under schedule H.


Guy Marcoux: That is not exactly what I meant. I wanted to emphasize that some drugs might be kept somewhere and not be sold. Would the wording "no person shall sell" enable these drugs to be withdrawn?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This definition of "sell" does not cover possession but it does cover distribution. In other words a person could have a drug but could not give it or distribute it to anybody.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask what is the present status of Liefcort in relation to the act, regulations or schedule?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It has now been withdrawn from distribution for clinical trial. The doctor can still use it in his own practice and prescribe it to his own patients, but he is not allowed to distribute it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By "the doctor", do you mean any doctor?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, the doctor who is producing it, in his own province.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 3-
Harry Cruickshank Harley: I should like to speak on this clause and follow up the discussion we had earlier on clause 2 regarding the removal of drugs from the market. As the minister has pointed out, a drug will be removed from the market by an order in council which will place it on schedule H. This is once again government by order in council and it would be much more effective to have the removing clause right in the proposed legislation. Also it is a little ambiguous here as to whether schedule H would give the department the right to go in and to seize supplies or investigate them.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency we also have to consider drugs that are stored and possibly used for experimental purposes.
To try to get around this I move:
That section 3 of the bill be amended-
(a)	by deleting therefrom at the end of line 23, the word "and";
(b)	by inserting therein at the end of line 25, the word "and"; and
(c)	by adding thereto after subclause (ii) the following:
" (iii) the removal from physicians, dentists, pharmacists or veterinary surgeons of any supplies of new drugs found harmful by the food and drug directorate."
I submit that this amendment would make it much more effective to remove drugs, and the government would not have to rely on orders in council for their removal.


Guy Marcoux: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that if we delete after the word "drug" the words-I am sorry, I was not on the correct line.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member cannot now move a second amendment because we already have one before us. It can be moved after we have disposed of the present one.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps a point of order arises here, Mr. Chairman. I wish to state to the committee the dilemma in which we find ourselves in that under section 24, (1) of the Food and Drugs Act, it states:
The governor in council may make regulations .. . respecting the powers and duties of inspectors and analysts and the taking of samples and the seizure, detention, forfeiture and disposition of articles;
It is my submission that what is already in the Food and Drugs Act passed by a previous parliament provides, though in more general terms, exactly the same thing as the hon. member proposes. The amendment of the hon. member for Halton is "the removal from physicians, dentists, pharmacists or veterinary surgeons" under the act, as we now have it. In section 24(l)(i) there is provision
Food and Drugs Act
for the seizure, detention, forfeiture and disposition of articles, and it seems to me that the amendment offered is at least redundant. I think the power does exist already.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Chairman, I think I might point out that, as I recall the circumstances, this clause was of no legal force. It did not allow the ministry to move in and do this very thing. This is as I understand it in connection with thalidomide.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be pointed out that the drug was not prohibited at that time; it was not under schedule H. I think we should take another look at this suggested amendment. I appreciate the hon. member's intent, but I am wondering whether we actually wish to empower the investigators of the department to go into a doctor's office and actually seize whatever quantity of a drug that doctor may have. We have discussed what we are going to do concerning lysergic acid. I am assuming that under these regulations the drug will be available. But I hesitate to think that we should actually be empowered to go in and seize a drug. I do not know; this may be open to argument; but it does not appear to me to be the proper method of approaching the matter.
I feel that if the penalty is there concerning selling and, having the drug for distribution in any way, we have taken quite a step. I am thinking of the worst of all drugs-let us call it that-thalidomide. Presumably there is not any around now. At the same time, I do not think it would behoove us to search all medical offices across Canada. There are, I think it might well be pointed out, many, many very dangerous drugs on the market now. Here, again, of course we count on the doctor to handle the drug judiciously. The words used in the amendment are, "found harmful by the food and drugs directorate", but a lot of these drugs would be harmful without the proper usage. It just appears to me that this is a new principle which offhand I would not care to see us follow at this stage.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I would not mind this clause being applied to anybody but me. I think that we often have occasion to see and welcome inspectors, but they are on regular runs. I think that if any kind of drug were declared harmful and we had all these inspectors going around the doctors, pharmacists, dentists and every professional man, it would become a little too much for a liberal profession.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Chairman, I just want, if I might, to clear up this specific point with

Food and Drugs Act
the minister. If thalidomide had been under schedule H, would the department have had authority under the definition that has just been read to have moved in and cleared out these supplies? This is the point I am trying to make.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman.


James Edgar Walker: Then I can only draw this conclusion, that the definition which has been read is just not forceful enough.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We can stop the distribution, but we cannot go into a medical man's office and take his supplies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, that last exchange seems to have disposed of the point of order. If the section that is already there would not permit what the hon. member for Halton now wants, then what the hon. member for Halton is moving is something new.
There are three things I would like to say about the suggestion contained in the amendment now before us. The first thing is that I think this is evidence of the need for this bill to go to a special committee to be studied with respect to what is in it and with respect to things like this that might be put into it. The second thing is that I want to say to my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency that what is being proposed is not compulsory, mandatory inspection at all times of all doctors' offices with respect to all drugs. All that is being proposed is that the governor in council have power by regulation to prescribe that certain drugs shall be seized under certain circumstances. I think my hon. friend need not fear what he thought was here.
The third thing I want to say is that I appreciate the fact that my hon. friend the member for Halton has seized on the point where he can do something along this line, but that it is too narrow. His amendment applies only to new drugs. It might be necessary for the government to have this authority with respect to an old drug. Therefore it seems to me that the principle suggested here, namely authority to do this kind of thing, should be written in somewhere else in the section that gives the government power under the regulations, but not in this new paragraph (n), which deals only with new drugs. In other words, I support the principle of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halton, but I think it should be put in the section in a place where it would apply not only to new drugs but to any drugs the seizing of which were to become necessary.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, in reading the proposed amendment I find the words "any

supplies of new drugs found harmful by the food and drugs directorate". This is not a phrase which is defined, but I would assume the hon. member means a drug which is being used, or might be used, or could be sold contrary to the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act when he uses the words "found harmful". If that is his intention and meaning in using the words "found harmful" then I would submit that his amendment is probably redundant because it is covered by section 21 (1) (d) which says-and I am putting the phrasing together-that an inspector may at any reasonable time "seize and detain for such time as may be necessary any article by means of or in relation to which he reasonably believes any provision of this act or the regulations have been violated." If in place of the phrase which has been suggested we could use instead, the words "found harmful", the evil, or the harm which the hon. member seeks to avert is covered by the legislation which now exists.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We should get this point cleared up. The minister said this authority does not exist. The hon. member for Halifax says it does, and the hon. member for Peace River says it does.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, I did not say it does. I said if the meaning of the words "found harmful" are what I assume them to be, it is covered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that assumption, then. But the minister has his advisers before him and he can surely tell us whether the power which the hon. member for Halton is seeking to have put into this bill already exists. If they do, I am sure the hon. member does not wish to have them put in a second time. If they do not, then the argument put up by the hon. member for Halton falls to the ground. I am sure the minister could clear this matter up.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that we do not now have the legal right to move into a doctor's office unless he is selling or distributing the drug. If he were doing that, it would be illegal and we could go in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the amendment of the hon. member for Halton is something new.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am afraid we are moving into a situation where we are trying to legislate all responsibility as far as physicians, surgeons and others are concerned. I think it is not possible to do that, but the amendment is moving in that direction.
A man can go into a store and buy a rifle and a box of shells and use them indiscriminately. I think there is a responsibility

Food and Drugs Act
which must be left with these professional Mr. Monleith: These drugs are now frozen men. We must recognize that responsibility, in the doctors' offices, if they happen to be We cannot legislate right down to the last there. If a doctor were to distribute them, jot and tittle in these matters.	or give them into other hands-


Harry Cruickshank Harley: The purpose of moving this amendment was to try to close a loophole which I thought existed. When the talk about thalidomide was going on, I understand the minister and his officials did not have authority to seize supplies of that or any other drug. This amendment was an attempt to help the food and drug directorate and to give them authority which they may need. It is possible that the words "found harmful" were a bad choice, but I still feel that in certain circumstances where the food and drug directorate believes a drug should be placed on schedule H and no longer be allowed on the market, they should be given the authority in question. Is it the wish of the committee that this should be re-worded so as to read "of any supplies of drugs on schedule H"? This is put forward as a basis for discussion.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think the hon. member for Cariboo actually hit the nail on the head and said what I have been trying to say-that we cannot legislate so as to cross every "t" and dot every "i". With the formation of schedule H the act will permit us to enter premises if a doctor or anyone else undertakes to sell or distribute such a drug, or handles it in any way. He may still have it in his possession, but if he passes it around he is subject to the penalties of the law and we can go into his office.


James Edgar Walker: Under what existing legislation? Under the definition given by the parliamentary secretary? Or is it implicit in the amendment which the minister is bringing in now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Under section 21 (l)(d) an inspector may-
Seize and detain for such time as may be necessary any article by means of or in relation to which he reasonably believes any provision of this act or the regulations have been violated.


James Edgar Walker: Then this would operate if circumstances arose such as arose in connection with thalidomide? The food and drug directorate would have all the authority needed to move in and take the drugs.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Only if the doctor was committing an offence, or if he had reason to believe he was committing an offence.


James Edgar Walker: If these drugs are placed in schedule H, does the authority now exist for the ministry or its officials to move in and take them?


James Edgar Walker: I forget the words which were used, but it was with great difficulty, or by way of a bluff, that the food and drug directorate had to move in in order to get the supplies of thalidomide at certain levels. I do not know whether it was at doctors' offices or at pharmacists.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Pharmacists.


James Edgar Walker: I am attempting to find out now whether or not the existing legislation will make it unnecessary to run a bluff; whether there will be the proper legal authority.


Mr. Clancy:: On this point, I heard the word "pharmacist" used. I read the report in the paper. I should like to know in which province they had to run a bluff and which pharmacists they had to run the bluff on and whether the provincial association was ever contacted. I am a pharmacist and I think I can speak for all of us. We have been made the goat. That was a prescription drug, after all. We sign for all these drugs and account for them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think there has been an attempt to make a goat out of anybody. The pharmacist associations in the provinces were contacted at the time the drug was removed from the market.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: It was removed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would just like to speak in support of the amendment. I cannot see why this amendment should not be accepted. It seems to add some extra power which might at some time be important. I do not think it is likely to be abused. It is all subject to the making of regulations, and they have to be approved. I do not understand what is wrong with accepting this proposal which may be necessary to remove an extremely dangerous drug quickly and effectively in order that accidents may not take place. In this way there will not be excuses such as: "We were not selling it, and we are not distributing it, so you have no right to come in."


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to support the suggestion which was made a few days ago by the hon. member for Halton when we began to debate this particular item. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has repeated the same request. I think the minister is making a very serious mistake in not referring this legislation to a committee. I think it is quite evident that we are trying

Food and Drugs Act
this evening to pass and implement legislation in a little too much of a hurry. Some of us are interested in digging further into the clauses of this bill, and there are additional facts which we would like to obtain and additional explanations we would like to hear from the minister. It seems to me that with regard to this particular amendment which is before us our doctors would welcome some avenue through which they rid themselves of any drug which might happen to find its way into schedule H. I do not think there is any particular problem about it, but it seems to me we are trying to push this matter through and everyone is in a hurry, when we are not in a position to get the facts.
We are still on the third clause, and I should like to ask the minister if the regulations associated with this section of the amendment will require that a drug manufacturer prove the value of any new drug he is bringing on to the market, and also if any consideration is being given to the control of advertising any new drug from the point of view of indicating to the consuming public any possible side effects and presenting the generic name as well as the brand or trade name.


Jay Waldo Monteith: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I take exception to the suggestion of the hon. member that we are trying to push this legislation through tonight. There has been no attempt whatsoever to do this.


Malcolm MacInnis: No, I do not suggest that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I thank the hon. member very much, because when we first went into committee on clause 1, I suggested to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the best way of handling it would be to answer any questions, which I will do so gladly. I want to emphasize that I am in no hurry to get this legislation through, and that I do wish to answer all questions which are asked.
In answer to the question of the hon. member I come back to this fact, that we do have this committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons which is still continuing to meet. I understand that their report will be made in the reasonably near future. We will take into consideration their recommendations along with the suggestions made here tonight, and will give very careful consideration to making any new regulations which are necessary for the handling of new drugs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister inform the committee for the information of its members how this legislation under the Food and Drugs Act dovetails in with provincial

legislation of the same kind? What is the relationship and the authority which is exercised in both jurisdictions?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that this supersedes any provincial legislation. It is criminal law.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, the course which has just been suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South was first suggested in the early stages of this committee by the hon. member for Halton, and at that time I was inclined to agree with the minister that it should not be referred to the health and welfare committee. However, the more I listen to this debate and its many angles, as the son of a horse and buggy doctor and the father of a doctor I think there is a lot of merit for the suggestion of the hon. member for Halton that it should be given consideration by a committee, where the medical profession, the druggists, and others concerned would be able to make representations direct. I think that would be better than to deal with the bill here.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I make one point with regard to the objection raised by the minister. This legislation was held originally to be intra vires of the federal government in a case which I think was heard in the appellate division of the supreme court of British Columbia because it fell within the ambit of criminal law. If the amendment, as I understand it from the explanation given, is asking that there should be a right to go in and seize property which has not been the subject of a criminal offence, then I suggest that this would be an attempt to give the federal parliament the right to do something which it is not entitled to do. The law of property and civil rights falls outside the ambit of criminal law, and I submit this could well be held ultra vires.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, there are dozens of acts which already do this; for example, the Fisheries Act. I do not think this is worth considering.


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment, the powers imposed here would, I think, be similar to those already existing under the narcotic control act, and to that extent authorized by the federal parliament or criminal law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a further word or two in support of the principle that the hon. member for Halton is seeking to advance in his amendment. I still think that this should come in under another section which deals with all drugs, and I gather that the hon. member for Halton also shares that view. This can all be sorted out if the matter goes to a committee or if

the minister would think it over. But I come back to this, that when the minister spoke a while ago, he seemed to think that so long as the sale or distribution of a dangerous drug is prevented, that is good enough and we do not need authority to move into drug stores and doctors' offices to try and get rid of the particular drug completely. I would remind the minister of what his own department did at the height of the thalidomide crisis. I have in my hand a document with which he is familiar. It is the chronological record of developments from September 23, 1960, to the present time. This is the record which was prepared and made available at the time of the conference with the provinces. Amongst other things, the document points out that the food and drug directorate wrote a letter to the manufacturers to assist them in recalling the drug. The letter included this quotation:
Further to the decision that thalidomide must be withdrawn from the market, I must point out to you that stocks in the hands of all pharmacists should be returned to you.
Then later there is this paragraph on page 15 of this document:
The food and drug directorate sent out a letter to all doctors in Canada soliciting their co-operation in destroying or returning to their supplier any samples of thalidomide which they might have on hand.
Then a little further down in another paragraph there is this quotation:
The inspection service of the food and drug directorate was ordered to make a survey of all drug stores in Canada, numbering in the neighbourhood of 5,000, and to seize any stocks of thalidomide which were found to be on hand.
My point is that the minister told the dominion-provincial conference in September that while those in authority had stopped the sale, distribution and the prescribing of the drug

and they boasted of this fact-they still felt that was not enough. Even though there was doubt whether they had the legal authority to do so, they took steps to get all samples of this dangerous drug out of the drug stores and doctors' offices back to the supplier, or to destroy them.
In effect, I think that is what the hon. member for Halton is now seeking to do, namely asking that there be a regulation to permit the government in another such crisis to take the kind of action it felt it had to take in the thalidomide crisis, in which case they should be sure that they have the legal authority for so doing. While I have already made it clear that I think this particular clause should be put in some other section or some other part of this section so that it will apply to all drugs and not just new ones, nevertheless I think the principle is one which should be supported. If it comes to a vote on the amendment before us, I will vote for 27507-3-99
Food and Drugs Act
it because I think it moves in the right direction; but I appeal to the minister to recognize that what we are trying to give to the government is legal authority to do the very thing that he felt he had to do at the height of the thalidomide crisis, namely to recover samples of thalidomide which were to be found anywhere in the country.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A point of order was raised earlier and I do not believe it has been disposed of. The point which was raised by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency and which has been commented on by the minister indicates that if we accept the proposition that this is an entirely new principle which is being introduced at this point-and I gather that it is a new principle-then the amendment itself goes far beyond the provision of this section. In fact it goes so far beyond it that it introduces an entirely new principle. If it does that, it would certainly not be in order.
The point has been raised that at the present time if a doctor, pharmacist or other person named in selling, dispensing or disposing of a prohibited drug, then there is power for the inspectors to move in and to take that drug but that, if it is merely a case of possession, there is no authority at the present time. That is the way in which I understand the matter to have been stated. If we accept the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Halton, it would introduce a very much more advanced principle or an entirely different principle, namely that the inspectors could move into the offices of a medical practitioner and seize any prohibited drug. I submit that this would be a principle which would go far beyond the intention of the act, regardless of the additional fact raised by the hon. member for Peace River, namely that it would probably be unconstitutional. It then becomes something different from having been declared an illegal drug under this act. It then becomes a mere case of going in and seizing a substance merely because it is a harmful drug. I would submit that pharmacists and medical doctors have in their possession a great many harmful and dangerous drugs. However, I think that is no reason for enacting a very broad principle that anything that is a harmful drug should be seized at any time by inspectors. I believe we can think of many things which are dangerous, such as arsenic and so on. Nevertheless they are there on hand; but once having been declared dangerous they cannot be dispensed or otherwise dealt with by the doctor. I think the principle raised by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency is valid and that we are

Food and Drugs Act
introducing an entirely new principle. In that case the amendment proposed would be beyond the scope of the amendment and even beyond the scope of the original act and in that case would be out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should just like to say a word on the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River, which I must say impressed me. I refer to the suggestion that the legislation is valid because the courts have ruled that it is criminal legislation. It is quite obvious that in the amendment he proposes my friend the hon. member for Halton is not seeking to go beyond the scope and ambit of the bill. When he moved the amendment he indicated clearly that he was not a lawyer and I think he indicated quite clearly that he would be very happy indeed to have the drafting improved.
As I understood the matter-and if I am misinterpreting him I know he will correct me-all he was seeking to do was to make sure that those drugs which it is illegal to sell should not remain in anyone's possession; that if it was illegal for the drugs to be sold, it should be illegal for stocks of them to remain anywhere and that the government should have power to get at those stocks. I would make this very respectful suggestion to the minister, namely that we should not call for a vote on this amendment at all tonight, that the minister should look at it with his officials, and that when we resume tomorrow the minister could give us a careful statement of precisely what powers he now has and precisely in what respect it might be legally possible or constitutionally possible to extend those powers; and whether there is in fact any area, as it seemed to me the hon. member for Halton showed there was, where someone was not distributing them in the ordinary sense, but where they might be harmful. I agree also with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency that we do not wish to have a great number of inquisitors going around interfering with people's private affairs. No one wishes to have that. However, at the same time we do not wish to have a large number of things, which have been described as criminal, to be possessed by anyone or in the possession of people who might be careless about them. I am sure that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency and the hon. member for Halton and all other hon. members who belong to their profession would admit that even in their profession some are not as careful as others.


Guy Marcoux: I agree partly with what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said; but with the wording we have here in the

amendment I might say that many things can be harmful and many things can deserve a visit from an inspector from the government. That is why I think one should believe that the professional men are able to read the appendixes, the annexes or anything coming from the said law. I think I know what everybody wants here in Canada, namely that the people be protected against any harmful drugs or any kinds of drugs that might cause death or anomalies. However, I think the legislation must be a little bit more flexible. When it is too rigid it might open doors to something we would not like after it is accepted as law.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the house leader if he could indicate the business for tomorrow. In view of the good progress made today I hope he will give us plenty of business as I think we have demonstrated clearly that we are very anxious to get on with whatever business the government will bring forward.


An hon. Member:: Have you read the newspapers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We hope the demonstration tomorrow will be more adequate to meet the circumstances. We will continue with Bill No. C-3, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, followed by Bill No. C-4, an act to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act. Then we shall take Bill No. C-71, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act. The fourth item would be Bill No. C-49, which is No. 8 on today's order paper, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. The fifth item would be No. 22 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice to amend the Judges Act. The business for Wednesday has already been announced to the house. On Thursday we would hope to commence with the bills founded upon the budget resolutions if we can get around to them. We will know better as the days proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it intended to take the agricultural estimates on Wednesday, only bearing in mind that between starred questions, notices of motion and the five o'clock rule there is not much time on Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is quite a bit of time if the question period is shortened to a few minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A new form of closure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a certain urgency in connection with the bills founded on the budget resolutions and there could still be time to carry on with the debate-


Hazen Robert Argue: You will freeze out your allies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, because we have all week ahead of us.
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a certain urgency about the agricultural question, too.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, it will come up Wednesday for sure.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27507-3-99J
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 13, 1962