1962-10-26

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:: That the proposals concerning the staff of the House of Commons, as approved and reported upon by the commissioners of internal economy in the minutes of their proceedings, dated September 19, 1962, which were laid upon the table of the house, September 27, 1962, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Maltais
Marcoux
McCleave
McDonald
(Hamilton South) McMillan McPhillips Mitchell Nielsen Nugent Pascoe Phillips Rideout Robichaud
Rock
Ryan
Rynard
Sams
Sauve
Smith (Calgary South).
Smith (Simcoe North)
Stenson
Teillet
Tucker
Turner
Valade
Webb
Winch-60
(Quorum-20)
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs:
(Translation):
STANDING COMMITTEES Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house, as follows: PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Messrs:
Aiken	Leboe
Brewin	Macnaughton
Brown	McBain
Caron	McGee
Chatterton	McWilliam
Coates	Millar
Crestohl	Nielsen
Dionne	Pennell
Enns	Pickersgill
Hodgson	Plourde
Howard	Rondeau
Knowles	Smallwood
Korchinski	Stewart
Laing	Valade-29
Lamoureux	
Aiken	Leboe
Alkenbrack	MacEwan
Beer	MacRae
Cameron (High Park)	Mandziuk
Cardiff	Martin (Timmins)
Carter	Mather
Chatterton	McMillan
Clunis	Millar
Cooper	Munro
Cowan	Nixon
Crestohl	Olson
Drury	Orlikow
Enns	Ormiston
Fleming (Okanagan -	Otto
Revelstoke)	Patterson
Gagnon	Phillips
Garland	Roxburgh
Grafftey	Sams
Gray	Simpson
Grills	Stefanson
Horner (Acadia)	Thompson
Homer (The Battle-	Tucker
fords)	Turner
Kennedy	Wahn
LaMarsh, Miss	Winch
Lamy	Woolliams-50
(Quorum-15)
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Messrs:	Aiken	GregoireAddison	Fisher	Baldwin	Horner (Acadia)Argue	Garland	Bell (St. John-Albert)	KindtBadanai	Gauthier	Benidickson	LaingBaskin	Granger	Benson	LeboeBeaule	Grills	Bernier	LewisBelanger	Gundlock	Bourque	Macdonald (Rosedale)Bell (St. John-Albert)	Hodgson	Cameron (Nanaimo-	MaclnnisBenidickson	Horner (Acadia)	Cowichan-The Islands)	MacnaughtonBourbonnais	Howe	Caouette	McCleaveBradley	Kennedy	Cardiff	McllraithByrne	Lamoureux	Chevrier	McLean (Charlotte)Cameron (Nanaimo-	Leboe	Clermont	McMillanCowichan-The Islands)	Legare	Cot6	MoreChevrier	Lewis	Chaplin	MorrisCook	MacEachen	Fairweather	Muir (Lisgar)Crouse	MacEwan	Gordon	NasserdenDupuis	Mackasey	Grafftey	Nicholson
Nugent
Pascoe
Pickersgill
Rapp
Rowe
Ryan
Rynard
Sauv£
Standing Committees
Southam
Stewart
Thomas
Thompson
Turner
Vincent
Walker-50
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Asselin
Beaule
Benson
Cadieux (Terrebonne) Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) Caron Chaplin Cowan Crouse Davis Drury Dube Dupuis
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Forbes
Frenette
Gauthier
Godin
Gray
Hales
Heilyer
Honey
Horner (Jasper-Edson) Lessard (St. Henry)
Letourneau
Lewis
Macdonald, Mrs.
Macdonald (Rosedale)
Macnaughton
MacRae
McCleave
McGee
McGrath
Moore
Muir (Lisgar)
Noble
Olson
Perron
Pigeon
Pugh
Rapp
Rochon
Rondeau
Scott
Skoreyko
Smith (Simcoe North)
Stefanson
Teillet
Tucker
Winch-50

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Aiken
Bourbonnais
Bradley
Brown
Byrne
Cantin
Chevrier
Enns
Horner (Jasper-Edson) Laprise
MacEachen
Marcoux
Moore
Phillips
Pickersgill
Richard
Wahn
Webb
Winch
Winkler-20
(Quorum-8)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Addison
Barnett
Batten
Bechard
Belanger
Cadieu (Meadow-Lake)
Carter
Chatterton
Cote
Crouse
English
Granger
Hardie, Mrs.
Howard
Legare
Legere
Macdonald, Mrs. MacRae
Maltais
Mather
McCleave
McGrath
McLean (Charlotte)
McWilliam
Morris
Nicholson
Noble
Perron
Phillips
Pugh
Robichaud Robinson Sauv6 Stefanson Tucker-35
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Alkenbrack	Letourneau
Argue	Macdonald, Mrs.
Asselin	Mandziuk
Barnett	Mather
Bechard	Matte
Beer	McIntosh
Belzile	McNulty
Boucher	Muir (Lisgar)
Cardiff	Nasserden
Chatterton	Noble
Clancy	Olson
Clermont	Orlikow
Clunis	Patterson
Crossman	Pennell
Doucett	Peters
Drouin	Pigeon
Dumont	Rapp
Ethier	Robichaud
Fane	Rochon
Forbes	Roxburgh
Forgie	Rynard
Gauthier	Slogan
Gundlock	Smallwood
Honey	Southam
Horner (Acadia)	Stefanson
Kelly	Tardif
Langlois	Teillet
Leboe	Vincent
Legare	Whelan
Lessard (Lake St. John)	Woolliams-60
(Quorum-20)
Messrs:
Alkenbrack Barnett Belanger Benidickson Caouette Clermont Davis Doucett Fairweather Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Godin Granger Gundlock Hardie, Mrs.
Hodgson
Herridge
Kindt
Korchinski
Leboe
Leduc
Mackasey
MacRae
Maltais
Martin (Timmins)
McGrath
McWilliam
Mitchell
Morris
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Nicholson Nielsen Robichaud Simpson Southam Teillet-35.
(Quorum-10)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:
Batten
Beaule
Bell (St. John-Albert)
Benidickson
Berger
Byrne
Caron
Deschatelets Fairweather Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) Frenette Godin Grafftey
Hales
Knowles
Lachance
LaMarsh, Miss
Lessard (Lake St. John)
Mackasey
Mandziuk
Martin (Essez East)
McCleave
McDonald
(Hamilton South) Millar Morris
[Stage Direction]
Muir (Cape Breton	Sauv£
North and Victoria) Scott
Munro	Stenson
Noble	Valade
Plourde	Weichel-35.
Rideout	
	(Quorum-10)
	DEBATES
	Messrs:
Deschatelets	Meunier
Eudes	Nugent
Haidasz	Pugh
Howard	Valade
Langlois	Winkler
Mcllraith	Woolliams-12.
	(Quorum-7)
	EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
	Messrs:
Aiken	LaMarsh, Miss
Bernier	Macdonald
Bourbonnais	MacEachen
Bradley	Macquarrie
Brewin	Mandziuk
Brown	Martin (Essex East)
Cadieux (Terrebonne) McIntosh	
Cardin	Morris
Chapdelaine	Nicholson
Chatterton	Nugent
Crestohl	Patterson
Dube	Richard
Fairweather	Slogan
Fleming (Okanagan- Smith (Calgary South)	
Kevelstoke)	Smith (Simcoe North)
Herridge	Stewart
Knowles	Thompson
Lachance	Vincent-35.
	(Quorum-10)
	ESTIMATES
	Messrs:
Argue	Jorgenson
Baldwin	Kennedy
Bell (St. John-	*Albert) Korchinski
Benson	Laing
Berger	Latulippe
Bigg	Letourneau
Boulanger	Loiselle
Bourque	Macquarrie
Boutin	Mandziuk
Burgess	Matheson
Cameron (High Park) Matte	
Cantin	McBain
Carter	McGee
Casselman, Mrs. McGrath	
Coates	Mcllraith
Cook	McLean (Charlotte)
Denis	McPhillips
Dionne	More
Dube	Olson
Fleming (Okanagan- Orlikow	
Revelstoke)	Peters
Forbes	Rinfret
Foy	Rock
Frenette	Roy
Gordon	Smith (Calgary South)
Grafftey	Smith (Simcoe North)
Haidasz	Turner
Hales	Vincent
Hellyer	Webster
Horner (Jasper-Edson) Weichel-60.	
Howe	
	(Quorum-20)
	VETERANS AFFAIRS
	Messrs:
Asselin	Burgess
Bigg	Cardin
Boulanger	Carter
27507-3-61	
Standing Committees
Clancy	McIntosh
Davis	McWilliam
Drury	Millar
Fane	Ormiston
Forgie	Ouellet
Harley	Perron
Hellyer	Peters
Herridge	Pilon
Kennedy	Plourde
LaMarsh, Miss	Prittie
Laniel	Pugh
Laprise	Robinson
Letourneau	Roy
Macdonald, Mrs.	Thomas
MacEwan	Webb
MacRae	Weichel
Matheson	Winkler-40.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on tlie part of the Commons)
Messrs:
Alkenbrack	Leduc
Berger	Legere
Boucher	Lessard (St. Henry)
Bourque	Loiselle
Bradley	Maclnnis
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)	McDonald
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	(Hamilton South)
Caron	McIntosh
Chaplin	McNulty
Cooper	Moore
Cowan	More
Crossman	Muir (Cape Breton
Drouin	North and Victoria)
Dumont	Nasser den
Ethier	Otto
Eudes	Ouellet
Fane	Pilon
Gagnon	Prittie
Grills	Rondeau
Hanbidge	Rowe
Harley	Sams
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Scott
Howe	Skoreyko
Kelly	Smallwood
Kindt	Smith (Calgary South)
Lamy	Stenson
Laniel	Tardif
Latulippe	Whelan-54.
LIBRARY OF	PARLIAMENT
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Mr. Speaker	and Messrs:
Baskin	Lachance
Belzile	Laniel
Bigg	Latulippe
Boutin	Maclnnis
Brewin	Martin (Essex East)
Casselman, Mrs.	Matheson
Clancy	Matte
Coates	McGee
Cote	Meunier
Crossman	More
Davis	Munro
Denis	Nixon
English	Ormiston
Fairweather	Phillips
Fisher	Plourde
Forbes	Simpson
Gordon	Skoreyko
Gray	Slogan
Gregoire	Smith (Calgary South)
Haidasz	Stewart
Hanbidge	Wahn
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Walker-46.
Howe
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Badanai	Macdonald, Mrs.
Belzile	MacRae
Byrne	Marco ux
Cameron (High Park) Martin (Timmins)
Cook	Pugh
Denis	Richard
Doucett	Rinfret
Gundlock	Roy
Hales	Stefanson
Harley	Tardif
Hodgson	Walker
Horner (The Battlefords) Webster-26.
Legere
Mr. Ricard moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Text):

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask the Prime Minister whether the government will consider recommending to the house the setting up of a special committee on defence policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did not give me notice of this question. There are many phases of the situation which will have to be considered. When the government is in a position to do so an announcement will be made and an answer given to the question.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADIAN DEFENCE POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Benson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the

Minister of National Defence. In view of the serious world situation can this house expect the minister to make a full statement on Canadian defence policy next week?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the order of the business of the house is arranged by the house leader.


Edgar John Benson: I have a supplementary question. In view of the answer given by the minister, will he take advantage of the present debate in committee of ways and means to indicate the extent of any additional defence expenditures which will result from the present world crisis?



REQUEST FOR SETTING UP OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the leader of the house or to the Minister of Transport. Now that the standing committees of the house have been set up, will action be taken at an early date to set up the committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes we are in the hands of the house on this. If the house will proceed rapidly with the business before it, we can get on with other matters which now appear more urgent to some hon. members. It is a question of adjusting ourselves to circumstances, and a little more flexibility is required. If we completed the ways and means work speedily, we could proceed to committee work, supply motions and everything else required.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent statement made by General Burns at the United Nations with regard to the cessation of nuclear tests, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is now in a position to say what

the Canadian government's attitude is with regard to the thirty power resolution proposed at the United Nations last week regarding the cessation of tests by January 1 next?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. This matter is still under consideration. In view of the crisis over Cuba the first committee has not been holding meetings every day during the week, so not very much progress has been made with regard to this particular matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would it be wrong to conclude that there may be a modification of government policy with regard to this matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be very unwise to speculate in that way.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from the correction made in Hansard yesterday by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works. It has to do with the moneys advanced by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for loans under the National Housing Act. Will the government give immediate consideration to reducing the present N.H.A. interest rate?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate and housing policy generally are constantly under review. I might say that so far I have successfully resisted suggestions emanating from various quarters that the interest rate should be increased, and I think the hon. member will be glad to know that has been done.
(Translation):



REPORTS OF BANK OF CANADA IN FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, in reality that question has been overtaken by events. The secretary general is meeting today with representatives of the United States, of the Soviet union and, I believe, of Cuba in separate meetings in an attempt to work out some sort of settlement. In the meantime the sittings of the security council have been suspended, and they will only be resumed at the call of the secretary general. I do not know whether that will be tomorrow or possibly some time next week. Our delegation in New York think it even might not be for a week. I am not in a position to say definitely when the security council will resume its meetings.\nWe are very pleased, of course, that the representatives of the great powers and of Cuba have agreed to these meetings with the secretary general and we are hopeful that some worth-while results will be achieved. I am planning to go to New York over the week end, and I do not know just how long it will be necessary for me to remain there. (Translation):']
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Following the answer given by the Minister of Finance, as recorded on page 824 of Hansard for October 23, .1962, I went to the 27507-3-61J
Inquiries of the Ministry library and found that a French version of the monthly reports of the Bank of Canada does not exist. After inquiry, I was told that the monthly reports are edited in English only.
Would the minister tell us whether he intends to take some measure in order to have these reports published in French?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I will inquire into that matter and reply later.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister yet in a position to answer the question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood with respect to whether the government of Canada will support the appeal made by U Thant in regard to the present situation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in reality that question has been overtaken by events. The secretary general is meeting today with representatives of the United States, of the Soviet union and, I believe, of Cuba in separate meetings in an attempt to work out some sort of settlement. In the meantime the sittings of the security council have been suspended, and they will only be resumed at the call of the secretary general. I do not know whether that will be tomorrow or possibly some time next week. Our delegation in New York think it even might not be for a week. I am not in a position to say definitely when the security council will resume its meetings.
We are very pleased, of course, that the representatives of the great powers and of Cuba have agreed to these meetings with the secretary general and we are hopeful that some worth-while results will be achieved. I am planning to go to New York over the week end, and I do not know just how long it will be necessary for me to remain there. (Translation):



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to
960	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Labour. Could he inform the house of the latest developments in the negotiations between the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the company? (Text):


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the talks are progressing satisfactorily. They are still meeting this morning.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. M. Drury (St. Antoine-Weslmount):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. As I have understood previous statements in the house, Canadian National Railways is an autonomous or semi-autonomous corporation over which the minister has no administrative control. The minister, however, has been quoted in a newspaper article-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am coming to the question- as claiming responsibility for the redecoration or lack of it of the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa. Would the minister say whether he is responsible for the decoration of the Chateau Laurier-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that the question of redecoration or lack of it of any portion of the Chateau Laurier, either functional or otherwise, is hardly a question for orders of the day.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: On the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been decided previously on repeated occasions that the minister, being responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Canadian National Railways in the house, is the one who should reply for the Canadian National Railways on matters of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will also recognize the responsibility of the Chair in deciding the nature of the questions to be asked. I am not indicating that the minister may or may not have responsibility in regard to the Canadian National, but I do not believe the question is a proper one for this time of day.


Lionel Chevrier: I submit to you, sir, with respect that it is the kind of question to which the minister should reply.
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John).)


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: 1 am not going to be intimidated by those who sit over there.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is the one who decides.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but I cannot hear you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have indicated, it is the Chair who decides the nature of the question that arises.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Before making a final decision, would Your Honour hear argument on the point? The question asked by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount raises a constitutional matter. It is whether the Minister of Transport has any authority to interfere in the internal management of Canadian National Railways. Mr. Meighen, when this subject first came up many years ago, laid down that principle that has been followed by all governments since up to the present. What the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount was inquiring was whether the present Minister of Transport was reversing something that had been going on for 40 years and that had been accepted by this house.
Now, sir, I submit that this is the most fundamental kind of question that any hon. member could possibly ask; whether the time honoured system by which the government exercises supervision over Canadian National Railways is being changed by the present Minister of Transport without any advance notice given to this parliament. In view of the important constitutional consequences it seems to me that the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister, and not Your Honour, should decide this question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Remember the Fort Garry hotel.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I remember it very well.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It came up in the house, and questions were accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not trying to close off the hon. member, I am only endeavouring to hear him.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: With deference to you, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you may have been premature in your interpretation of what the hon. member was after. I have thought of exactly the same question. I should like to point out to Your Honour that a number of times recently, and as late as yesterday, the minister when reporting on Canadian National affairs made it quite clear, as is traditional, that he is nothing more than a channel for information and questions about the Canadian National.

I know many people will think the dining room at the Chateau Laurier is insignificant, just as a few years ago we thought some incident at the Fort Garry was insignificant, but I think it is the principle involved in this particular case. It would appear, according to the press, that the minister has spoken as though he does have a real, sharp right to speak and instruct the management.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the question is in order, and it should give the minister an opportunity to either associate or dissociate himself with the whole question of the minister's role in relation to the Canadian National.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly had not interpreted the question as it was put assuming this, shall we say, constitutional importance in the minds of certain hon. members, who perhaps were reading a lot more into a newspaper article in a semi-humorous vein to the effect that we were now involved in a serious constitutional question. After all, perhaps hon. members have also expressed opinions about the desirability of certain features in certain C.N.R. hotels, and the Chair has not been beyond that point either since it is involved in a Canadian National hotel in the Speaker's home city. It was for that reason I felt the question was not a proper one to be asked on orders of the day, and I am still persuaded in that regard.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for casting an eye on this corner of the house once in a while. My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture as I have received no reply to my question dealing with the purchase of grain in the west. Can eastern farmers buy their feed grain from western farmers?
(Text):


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I was hesitating to reply because of the rules, but the answer to the question is that under the statutes of Canada, in particular the Canadian Wheat Board Act, this is not possible if you mean buying from individual farmers. However, if any farmer in eastern Canada wishes to buy from the Canadian wheat board he is free to do so at any time.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That being the case, which
Inquiries of the Ministry grain company is protected and where can one apply to be protected against excessive grain prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is not a supplementary question. (Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether he or his department has received from the United States defence department prints of photographs of the Cuban missile bases for Canada's own study and verification?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with the question asked a minute ago by the hon. member for Laurier, I think an impression might have been left that we have not seen these photographs. I have seen the photographs, and certain other Canadians have seen them also and are convinced as to the situation. Then again, of course, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs reminds me, they were shown in the security council last night.



INDICATION BY CANADA OF DURATION OF SURCHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Brani-Haldimand):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government given any indication to the GATT member nations of what period of time Canada expects to continue the surcharges enforced on June 25 last?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have not been able to make out the question.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I will be pleased to repeat it for the minister. Has the government given any indication to the GATT member nations of what period of time Canada expects to continue the surcharges enforced on June 25 last?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.



GATT-SIGNATURE OF DECLARATION PROHIBITING EXPORT SUBSIDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds):: I wish to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a news item in the Times of London of October 25, 1962. Is Canada one of the 14 countries which has

Farm Credit Act
already signed the GATT declaration to prohibit export subsidies on manufactured goods?
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Yes, Mr. Speaker, subject to certain reservations.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 19, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hamilton-Mr. Chown in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $12 million to $16 million so as to increase the lending capacity of the corporation from $300 million to $400 million; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Lamoureux:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your appointment to the high office you hold in this house. You have discharged your responsibilities since the beginning of the session with the efficiency and assurance of a master in the art of arbitration, and with the ease of a veteran parliamentarian. I wish you continued success in the execution of your duties.
(Translation):
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should also like to join those who have already congratulated the Speaker in whom the house placed its confidence by asking him to conduct our proceedings. However, at the time the hon. member for Edmonton West was nominated for the office of Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister made an incorrect statement when he praised and commended that candidate. I must point out that contrary to what he said then, it is not the first time that a French speaking Canadian representing a riding outside the province of Quebec has been appointed Speaker of this house. As a matter of fact, in 1904 the House of Commons elected to the office of Speaker the member for the riding of Ottawa, the Hon. N. A. Belcourt, a politician who left an indelible mark in the history of our country and whose memory we shall always cherish with emotion and gratefulness.
Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of this debate, a few days ago, we have heard an impressive number of speakers outdoing each other in eloquence and all agreeing at least on the necessity of financial help provided by the federal government to Canadian agriculture through farm credit. They all agree on
[Mr. Matheson.i
the principle of a legislation aimed at providing essential financial help to farmers. But we believe that the Farm Credit Act, 1959, even though it was inspired by the best possible intentions, did not prove to be, in practice, the complete answer to credit problems of farmers. When such legislation does not entirely meet the needs of the people which it is intended to protect, the legislator ought to think it anew, to give it further consideration and, without rejecting it altogether, at least to correct the weaknesses revealed by its use.
One would have to be deaf, blind or in bad faith not to recognize that many farmers in eastern Canada are not satisfied with the act under its present form or with the way it is being applied. The complaints made in this house by so many members speaking on behalf of their electors from farm areas cannot all be figments of imaginative minds. How could this dissatisfaction be denied? And yet, among the hon. members who, in this house, support the government, Mr. Chairman, those seated on your right have given the impression, in their speeches during this debate, that they feel our farmers no longer have any problems.
Thus, each time somebody in this house refers to difficulties in certain areas or to our farmers' sad plight, certain government supporters-those on your right, Mr. Chairman-raise cries of protest, as if those words were aimed at them, as if they felt responsible for those hardships.
Mr. Chairman, the lengthy discussions we have had until now will not have been in vain, if government supporters, from either side, accept our proposal to refer the bill to the committee on agriculture, where it will be possible not only to submit to the attention of the government the practical difficulties brought about by the existing act, but also to take part in the drawing up of a legislation better suited to the economic requirements of our farm population.
(Text):
When the Farm Credit Act was passed by parliament in 1959 the specific object of the legislation was declared to be:
-to assist Canadian agriculture to voluntarily reorganize itself into economic family farm units, each of sufficient size to be capable, under the management of the owner, of producing sufficient income to pay operating and maintenance costs,

provide a good standard of living, and to repay the loan necessary to set up such a unit, within an appropriate period.
The important words in this statement made by the then minister of agriculture were his reference to the reorganization of family farm units. No one, of course, can overemphasize the vital role of the family farm as an element of economic and social stability. Preservation of the family unit's role in Canadian agriculture was the declared goal of the original legislation. This was the high purpose to which the legislation was officially dedicated. I pressure that this resolution, by increasing the working capital available to the corporation, proposes to further the same principle.
To be sure, the proposal to safeguard Canadian agriculture against the gradual disappearance of the family farm was commendable in every possible way. However, one might well ask at this juncture if the Farm Credit Act has achieved this main original purpose. It is my submission that the statute, since it was enacted in 1959, has achieved just the opposite result to the one it had been intended to produce. In point of fact the number of farms has been going down steadily in recent years, to the point where the agricultural population of Ontario represents a mere 8 per cent of the total population of the province. During the five year period ending in 1961, and including 1961, the number of farms in Canada decreased by approximately 15 per cent, falling from
575,000	to 480,000. In Ontario the number has decreased in the period from 1956 to 1961 from 140,600 to 121,000, a reduction of 14 per cent.
The facts behind this reduction in the number of farm units in Canada and in Ontario are entirely economic in nature. The most important of these facts is the practical unavailability of credit to the large number of farmers on small holdings who are not prepared, for good and valid personal reasons, to tackle expanded operations, additional land purchases, to take on the acquisition of increased herds and other costly expansion schemes which are actually the normal prerequisites to the approval of loans under the Farm Credit Act.
According to the last report of the corporation, the average amount of approved loans has increased as follows: 1957-58, $5,748; 1958-59, $6,273; 1959-60, $7,498; 1960-61, $10,846; 1961-62, $11,652. The significant fact in these statistics is the very considerable increase in the size of the average loan following the enactment of the Farm Credit Act. The average individual loan increased by
Farm Credit Act
44 per cent from the year 1959-60 to the year 1960-61. In Ontario the average farm credit loan in 1961-62 was $12,367.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing wrong with the corporation or the Department of Agriculture or any department of the government advancing $12,367 to a farmer who wants to expand his operations. In fact some of us feel that the present ceiling should be increased to take care of cases where the appraised value is much in excess of $20,000. But the typical loan now is the large loan, and there is very little room left for assistance to the average owner of a small holding who does not want to embark upon the considerable business venture which is represented by a $12,000 or $15,000 farm expansion. I repeat that the weakness of this type of loan is that it affords financial help to a limited group of individuals and does little for the no less deserving farmer who, for good reasons such as personal health or family circumstances, or the type of operation he conducts, may not wish to undertake an expansion program, but who may yet be in dire need of financial assistance to meet immediate commitments. The act as it now operates leaves a vacuum in the field of small loan assistance to the majority of farmers who operate family units. The act encourages the development of larger holdings, and thus carries a large part of the responsibility for the serious reduction in the number of family farms.
At the outset of this legislation, the committee was told that the loans would be advanced for a number of purposes, including land purchases, payment of debts, improvements, and the purchase of livestock and equipment. However, it is interesting to note that during recent years the moneys advanced by way of farm loans have been used in ever increasing proportion to acquire new lands. In 1957-58, on the average, 27.7 per cent of the mortgage moneys went toward land purchase; four years later, in 1961-62, the figure has more than doubled and 57.8 per cent of moneys lent are used for the purchase of additional lands. Only 4.5 per cent of moneys advanced now go toward livestock and equipment purchases.
It is obvious that the proposal to increase the capitalization of the corporation is deserving of support, inasmuch as and to the extent that it will encourage all those who are engaged in agriculture to stay on the farm. But I think the corporation should seize on the opportunity given to it by the increase in its working capital to liberalize the approval of loans, so as to reach out and help all those

Farm Credit Act
on small holdings who cannot afford the luxury of a $12,000 or $15,000 mortgage debt, but who are in very real and immediate need of financial help.
After the last increase in the capitalization of the corporation the amount actually lent increased by 13.3 per cent, but the number of persons helped increased by only 5.4 per cent. Thus the increased funds were used mainly to increase the size of the loans rather than to help more people. Let us hope that this further increased capitalization will not again result primarily in higher loans, but rather in a larger number of individual loans and in a larger number of farmers helped and assisted.
(Translation):
I further think that I should bring to the minister's attention the prolonged delays which happen too often after the loan has been approved, until the time when the required amount is actually paid to the borrower. I do not know who should be blamed or held responsible for those delays which are often a cause of serious trouble and even considerable damage for those farmers. Delays of six months and over after the loan application is approved are, in fact, quite common. Indeed, I would invite the minister to tell us what the average period has been for the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, between the day when the official request was signed by the borrower and the day when the transaction was closed and the money handed over to the borrower; I should like to have that information for the loans approved in those three counties in 1961. I would be very surprised if the figures in that regard did not confirm the general opinion that, in practice, the administration of the Farm Credit Act is too often unfair, because the borrower is subjected to a system of delays which can only harm him.
It is therefore imperative, Mr. Chairman, that provisions be made to accelerate the examination of applications submitted to the corporation, and the eventual paying out of the loan.
I therefore suggest, first of all, that the administration of the act be made more liberal, and that the act itself be amended, to the extent deemed necessary, so as to facilitate loans to the small farmers and, in this way to put a stop to the tragic erosion of the family farm system; and, second, that the act be administered so as to accelerate the approval and paying out of the loans.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, only if this matter is referred to the committee on agriculture can these proposals which I have made, and others

which have been submitted in the course of this debate, receive appropriate consideration; and only in this way can the bill be of real and valuable assistance to over-all prosperity and progress in the farming communities of Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in opening the debate on the resolution to amend the Farm Credit Act to allow for the broadening of the act, and to allow for making the act more flexible, I made it very clear that one of the reasons we had in mind was that in examining the work of the act, which has been in existence for not quite three years yet, we had found that it did not quite meet the needs of the type of farming particularly in British Columbia and in the eastern provinces. Possibly as a result of having made that statement, possibly as the result of a minister of the crown critically examining his own legislation, some of the members of this committee have proceeded to debate this point with great enthusiasm but with not too much knowledge of the facts.
I do not want to be overly critical of new members who come here with extreme enthusiasm for the needs of their constituents in presenting their case, but I do think it behooves them to adopt the same tolerance and openmindedness to government legislation that I know I personally am trying to adopt. In the first instance, for anyone to suggest, as was suggested this morning, for example, in just one of several speeches, that the loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation were tending to become larger, and then from this fact to deduce that this was because the government was opposed to giving loans to small farmers, does not speak too well for an hon. member's understanding of all the legislation that is available to farmers in connection with credit.
In my earlier remarks on this resolution I tried to point out that there were several types of credit. The first type was obviously the short term credit for two or three months for the purpose of operations. This credit is being handled by the private banks, credit unions and other institutions of this nature to the extent of, as I think I gave the figure, approximately $100 million a year.
Then there is an intermediate type of loan. That is the loan for livestock, the loan for equipment, the loan for improving your farm home, the loan for capital expenditures of a small nature on your farm. Not only the present government but the previous government have supported legislation known as the Farm Improvement Loans Act which partially guarantees to the bank losses suffered by giving this type of loan to agriculture. In order to help hon. members have the facts,

I gave the figures of the amount of loans put out under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in-the last two years, and the total since 1945. I did that in order to show that this type of intermediate credit for the smaller type of loan was being increasingly used by the farmers. Later on in my remarks I intend to put on record additional information showing the extent and the size of these loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in order to show that in so far as loans of the type that some of the hon. members have been asking for under this long term act, namely the Farm Credit Act, are concerned, they are being handled extremely well, I believe, under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, to the extent now that $106 million and $110 million a year are being borrowed by farmers through this type of intermediate credit for the purposes I have outlined, the purposes which the members legitimately asked for government help to provide.
T say that this credit is provided under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. But for anyone to stand up in this house and suggest that farmers under the Farm Credit Act, which is a long term type of mortgage credit, should go into the field of short term loans such as loans for equipment and livestock, which lend themselves more properly to the intermediate type of loan, is something which indicates a lack of understanding of the three types of credit. Knowing that he is obliged to go through extensive legal procedures to mortgage his farm-and this is not a cheap procedure-what sensible farmer is going to go through these long and expensive procedures in order to mortgage his farm for a small loan when he can walk over to a bank and, under a government guaranteed loan, get the actual type of loan he wants at the same rate of interest without any red tape?
I therefore suggest that if you look at credit in these broad aspects-


Mr. Teillel:: Can they get those loans now?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They are being made at the rate of $106 million to $110 million a year right now. I will give you the figures on this matter if you like right now since the question has been asked. These are the figures of farm improvement loans in the year 1960 across Canada. The hon. member for Assini-boia put this information on the record. In 1960 there were approximately 68,000 loans for a total of approximately $102 million. The average size of this intermediate loan was $1,497. In the year 1961 there were 70,600 loans approximately amounting to over $108 million; and the average loan was $1,531. Since this is the average loan many of those loans must have been smaller, and of course some of them were larger.
I can give you a breakdown of what these loans were for, exactly the same thing that
Farm Credit Act
is asked for by the hon. members. The great bulk of these loans are for farm implements In the year 1961, out of a total of approximately 70,600 loans over 50,000 loans amounting to over $76 million or 70.6 per cent of the total were for farm implements; for farm buildings there were approximately 7,000 loans amounting to over $15 million or 14.4 per cent of the total, with the average loan being $2,180. For livestock there were 9,547 loans for a total of approximately $12,675,000, for a percentage of 11.7 of the total, with an average loan of $1,330. These are not large loans. There are thousands of them going out to meet the needs which hon. members legitimately asked for.
I am simply pointing this out with all the emphasis at my command. Don't spoil a good long term credit act designed to lend money for up to 30 years by asking them to go into the chattel type of loan for short terms of three, four or five years, as envisaged and as actually carried out by this Farm Improvement Loans Act. I am therefore suggesting that the figures are fairly definite in indicating that the various types of credit demand are being met.
Being a politician I cannot help but wonder whether all this enthusiasm by the official opposition for farm credit now, in 1962, is prompted by a great load of guilt which they carry because all that was lent in all the years from 1929 until 1957 was roughly $4 million a year under long term credit legislation.


An hon. Member:: They did not need it then.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We are now lending money at the rate of approximately $70 million a year under long term credit. This load of guilt which I know they must carry is never disclosed to the new members when they read the party literature that comes out from party headquarters. However, these are official records of the government of Canada. When your farmers tend to look askance at these statements that are being made, it is because more and more farmers are learning just what the difference is.
I am short of time, Mr. Chairman, so I am obliged to hurry on. Several speakers made remarks about which, in the interests of factual knowledge, I think something should be said. I have been discussing this question that I myself raised, namely that some provinces seemed to be using the Farm Credit Act, which is long term credit under mortgage, much more than other provinces. In my opening remarks I said that the five western provinces seemed to be using the act quite well but that in looking at the figures for the east I was not quite satisfied. This statement sent too many members off on the wrong trail. They thought I had made an admission

Farm Credit Act
that would destroy me in Quebec and the maritimes. I am therefore going to give you the figures and relate them to income.
I am going to list next the net farm income for the years 1959, 1960 and 1961 by provinces. Then I am going to give the number of loans disbursed from October 5, 1959, to September 30, 1962. That is the period in which the act has been working. I will do this in percentage of net income. Then let us see just how much discrepancy there is as between the various provinces.
The net farm income of the province of British Columbia over these years was $170,940,000. During that time there has been disbursed in loans $8,990,000. I will give the Hansard reporter these exact figures so that I can go over them more quickly now. The province of British Columbia received in loans approximately $8,990,000. This amount was 5.2 per cent of the net income of that province. Alberta during this period had net farm income of approximately $718 million and received approximately $41 million in loans, or a percentage of net income of 5.79, so there is not much discrepancy there. Saskatchewan with net income of approximately $718 million received loans amounting to about $53 million, or a percentage of net income of 7.40. This is a little higher, but there is a reason for that and I can give it. Manitoba had net income of $258 million approximately and received loans amounting to approximately $10,800,000, or a percentage of 4.19.
During those three years or parts of three years Ontario had net income of $1,002 million, and loans disbursed in that province under this long term type of credit amounted to nearly $49 million, or a percentage of net income of 4.88, very close to the national average. During these years Quebec had net income of approximately $575 million and loans amounted to roughly $4,600,000, which gives a percentage of net income of .41. I want to come back to that in a moment.
New Brunswick had net income of roughly $50 million and loans of approximately $1.8 million, for an index figure of 3.64. In Nova Scotia net income amounted to approximately $43 million and loans were roughly $1 million, for an index figure of 2.42. In Prince Edward Island net farm income amounted to roughly $33 million and loans were approximately $1.9 million, for an index figure of 5.78. Taking the three Atlantic provinces the Atlantic total for net farm income was roughly $126 million and loans amounted to approximately $4.7 million, for an index figure of 3.78, not too far off the national average; because the national total for net farm income during those years was roughly
,'Mr. Hamilton.]
$3.5 billion and loans amounted to approximately $173 million, or a national figure for percentage of net income of 4.84.
In reading these figures into the record I want to make it absolutely clear that I was the one who first raised the question of the proportion of loans going into the various provinces, but I never thought there would be such a chasing of the hare down the forest path as there has been in an attempt to prove that the government has discriminated against one province or another. I was the one who raised the matter and I pointed out, clearly enough I thought, that I was not satisfied with the number of loans in the province of Quebec. However, everyone knows that for years the province of Quebec has had provincial loan legislation under which farmers can borrow for per cent, whereas our loans carry an interest rate of 5 per cent.
I think that is one explanation why the farmers of Quebec were borrowing from the province. They were borrowing where they could get money at 2J per cent, because I do not think the farmers of Quebec have gone softheaded yet.
In recent months, however, there has been a falling off in loans by the provincial government, probably because it has said that it will pay 2J per cent of our 5 per cent interest rate if the farmer borrows from the federal government. We have seen this opportunity and have moved in and offered federal farm credit with all the counselling that we do. I will give the figures for one county, or maybe it is two counties together. Over a period of eight years there were only six loans. This year applications have been made for 118 or 119 loans.


An hon. Member:: One hundred and twenty.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Somebody says 120. In that particular area we will make 75 to 100 loans in one year, as opposed to six loans in eight years. This is because of the opportunity afforded to us when the provincial government moved out of the farm credit picture to a degree.
The other province that I do not think is satisfactory is Nova Scotia. Once again, the province of Nova Scotia has a provincial credit act under which larger loans than we make are available. The act is much more flexible than ours, so naturally the good, solid farmers of Nova Scotia tend to make use of the more generous legislation.
These things do not mean that we should sit idly by and say that because Quebec makes loans at a low interest rate and because Nova Scotia has a very fine provincial act we should not do anything in those provinces. The federal legislation has a particular service to

perform. With our loans we do one thing that is not done under most provincial loans. We sit down with the farmer and help him to work out a program or plan that will mean he will get more income as a result of having borrowed. In the case of younger men from 21 to 45 we not only work out a plan with them, but we sit down with them month after month during the period when they are paying off the loan, help them to run their farming operations and make sure they do everything that will give them the best chance to pay off their loans quickly while at the same time raising their income.
It is because of this very fine principle of supervised loans and supervised farm management and operations that so many thousands of farmers are feeling more confident about embarking on a mortgage loan that gives them some chance of raising their income from their farming operations and at the same time paying off the debt. I think I mentioned in the house two years ago, or maybe just a year ago, that in the case of over half the loan applications made to us by farmers the result of our sitting down and discussing the matter with these farmers was that when the final decision was made, over half of them agreed to take more money than they had applied for.
I cannot divulge individual cases to anybody. This is wrong and must not be done, but let me take a hypothetical case that is very close to an actual one without divulging where the loan was made or who got it. A farmer with a small farm, who has laboriously worked out a plan whereby if he can borrow $9,000 he can increase his income and pay back the loan over a period of 12 years, comes to see us and says, "Will this be an acceptable plan?" The farm credit supervisor looks at it and says, "Yes, I think it will be acceptable. Let us go over the plan step by step. Let us go out and look at your farm." After a lot of discussion extending over a period of about six weeks they work out a plan whereby he borrows $14,000, I believe, which he can pay back in four years. The farmer says, "That is much better than borrowing $9,000 and paying it back over 12 years". Here is a case where we put this farmer into a higher income bracket. He is still a small farmer, because a loan of $9,000 or $14,000 on most modern farms is not a big amount, and at the same time he is able to pay off the loan much faster.
I think this is the essential point. I have made the purposes of the act very clear, and have explained how we are working to supplement the short term credit provided
Farm Credit Act
by banks and farm credit unions and the intermediate credit under the Farm Improvement Loans Act guaranteed by the government. We are providing this new type of mortgage credit, but we are now faced with the fact that after two and a half years of operation we are not quite satisfied with what the act is doing so we are bringing in certain amendments. I am not allowed under the rules to outline these amendments in detail at this time. Hon. members will see what they are when they have the bill in their hands after first reading. But I can say that the bill is aimed specifically at making the act broader and more flexible, and helping eastern farmers even more. One editor noted with amusement that I included British Columbia farmers among the eastern farmers.
I have a whole series of points that have been raised by other members in the debate on the resolution which I think should be answered in all seriousness and in the interests of disseminating knowledge throughout the country, but in looking at the clock I think I should limit myself to approximately the same length of speech as other members have made. I will find an opportunity, probably in the debate on second reading or in the committee stage where we deal with matters point by point, to answer most of the questions that have been raised.
I should like to recommend to the committee in all seriousness that we have been debating this resolution now for several days, and there will be an opportunity to make speeches again on second reading and in the committee stage. But in the interests of getting this resolution passed and the bill finally passed to help the many farmers who are awaiting these amendments, I would ask the committee to pass the resolution now. The bill will then be introduced, and hon. members will know more precisely what we are talking about.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is always a source of enjoyment to bask in the overriding confidence of the Minister of Agriculture. The only point I want to make to him is that in the past, this particular bill, and probably in the future, does not work worth a damn in northwestern Ontario. I believe the minister is aware of this, but I should like to put on the record the reason it does not work worth a hoot. There is no system of pressing it; there is no way, in an isolated region, whereby the people who really need this help can get word or use of it.
One of the ironies of the legislation we have for the farmer is that it seems to apply only in areas where the farmers have been, at some time in the past, the largest coherent economic group, and where they have built

Farm Credit Act
up some kind of detailed program of association which has made them such a powerful pressure group that legislation, both federal and provincial, has tended to dovetail with their interests. Now, in the region of northwestern Ontario we have never had a tremendously successful farming situation. We did have the beginnings of one back at the time of Hon. John Dryden in the 90's in the development in what might be called the western clay belt and in the Kaministikwia river valley, a farm belt that depended mostly upon root crops. In addition there are those who exploit farm woodlots for pulpwood.
I have never been able to discover that there is a single measure administered by the Department of Agriculture, including this important measure, that has been of much use to the farmers of northwestern Ontario. You can go through the annual reports of the Department of Agriculture and see all the acts administered by that department. They take up a whole page of the report, but very few of them have had any consistent application in our part of the country. We have not any cold storage plants which are supported by either federal or provincial subsidies. We have had very little use of the various subsidies in relation to improving the soil. We have had very little assistance from any of the special scientific services developed, although I will grant the minister that he has made a move toward establishing a federal experimental farm in the area. However, it seems to have been a very cautious step.
I put it to the minister that in our area we, particularly the farmers in my constituency and that of the hon. member for Fort William, would appreciate a little less of what I think of as earnest blarney and a little more real appreciation by the minister of our situation. The minister is a stranger to that part of the country. Why does he not come in and tell us what he is providing now? The minister knows it is very little. I am quite prepared to accord the minister a case for the things he has done and is trying to do for agriculture, but so far I cannot see a single example of any good that has been done for the farmer of northwestern Ontario.
One of the things we would like is support prices for pulpwood. Well, that has been ruled out; we cannot have that. One of the other things in connection with income for farmers in the area and in Quebec that is very important is the price farmers get for pulpwood today. Again, we can get no help from this government either through the price stabilization board, the combines investigation branch or any of these groups. We cannot find out why the pulpwood companies are able to keep prices depressed.

Within our area, Mr. Chairman, we have more grain than any other constituency or constituencies in Canada. We have got to the place where all the various qualities of feed grains are determined and set aside, yet we have no real operation there in beef cattle, as you may assume we should have. The challenge could very easily come back that northwestern Ontario has this situation, where the farmers have to depend to a certain extent on pulpwood. If they are right next to vast quantities of feed grain, if they have any kind of reasonable climate that will produce root crops, surely they should be able to do something on their own initiative. One of the problems there is the same as that of farmers everywhere in Canada, that they have to compete in terms of their young people with industries. We happen to have a high wage area, at least in the pulp and paper industry, so it is very difficult for the farmers to get workers and it is very hard to keep the young people on the farms. This is traditional.
It is almost impossible to get credit for farm operations. However, one distinguished characteristic of farming in our area in recent years has been the fact that the genuine farmers are disappearing and fairly well to do businessmen, doctors and others in our community have been going out and buying up the land. I am not suggesting they are doing it as a sort of tax device, but you have the fact that most of our farmers are becoming what you might call gentlemen farmers. They are professional men, businessmen. They have a bit of land and, depending upon their interests, they plant Christmas trees, build up a little herd of cattle, show a few horses and cows at the annual fairs. This seems to be the trend. But the real farmer in our area who is putting in a crop or producing poultry or beef is in a bad way and is tending to disappear. The latest census figures that were provided-they are not complete in details about farm homes, farm wealth, farm equipment-indicate that the region of Port Arthur and Fort William has suffered a continuing slump since the last census in the number of people engaged in agriculture and, so far as I can determine, in actual income.
I do not want to take any more of the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, but since the minister seems to have the figures for the counties in Ontario and Quebec I should like him, at the next stage, to tell the hon. members for Fort William and Port Arthur how much the Farm Credit Corporation has been lending in northwestern Ontario, particularly in the Port Arthur-Fort William region. I am positive it is peanuts, to use the term that

was so much loved by a former leader of our party in this house. I just use it so the minister will have a better appreciation of the lengths I am prepared to go in indicating that most agricultural legislation, and in particular this measure, is of little use in our part of the country. The suggestion I would make is that the only way it can help is if we have a more aggressive sales force.
At the present time a person who wants a loan under this act has to deal through an appraiser who works primarily for the Department of Veterans Affairs. He is a fine person, but this is not his major chore. There is an office in Toronto and one in Winnipeg. The Toronto office is 870 miles away from us and the Winnipeg office is approximately 500 miles away. In other words we are a microcosm of the Canadian structure but isolated, and not only isolated in this particular regard but also neglected and ignored.
I cannot think of any place where more political work is required to be done by the party presently in power. I could illustrate that by citing the voting figures in favour of Conservative candidates who have stood in that area. With so much political work requiring to be done, and giving the minister credit for what I call earnest confidence, I believe he should come into our area and explain to us how this act really helps our farmers, and tell us the things he is doing for the farmers in northwestern Ontario. That would be much appreciated, and I could even conceive that in doing so he might be able to make a little bit of mileage. I want to reiterate that this act really does not mean much for the farmers in northwestern Ontario.


Mr. Davis:: 
An hon. Member:: Do you suggest that?


John (Jack) Davis: I am simply substantiating my statement that this is a loophole in the government's tight money policy. I would add that in order to break even on these 5 per cent loans, the government would have to be borrowing at around 33 per cent to 4 per cent. I hope this will be possible in the future. It has been possible in the past, but with the present state of the Canadian economy the rest of the community can properly claim that there is a preference for the farmer.
As I said before, the farmer is a Canadian. He is engaged in an industry which, at least in terms of numbers employed, is declining.

Farm Credit Act
A third of our population was in agriculture in 1930. The percentage went down to 20 per cent by 1950 and it is now around 12 per cent. People who are going to stay in the industry will need more equipment and more land to farm bigger and more efficient units; therefore credit advanced under favourable terms will assist in making the industry more efficient.
I wish to make one more reference to the report of the corporation. It appears near the bottom of page 11:
As at March 31,	1962, the reserve stood at
$2,757,451, or only 1.26 per cent of the corporation's investment in mortgage loans. Thus the reserve, intended as security against the risks of capital loss inherent in any credit operation, is being rapidly depleted, not as a result of capital losses, but primarily because of the narrow margin between the interest cost to the corporation and the rate at which the corporation must, by statute, lend to farmers. At the same time, the total capital risk represented by the mortgage investment is rapidly increasing.
The risks are increasing. The costs of money are increasing, and in effect we have had a subsidy in recent months which in itself has been rising.
I turn now to the administration of the act and I wish to quote from page 597 of Hansard for October 16, 1962, where the minister is reported as saying:
Some of these amendments-
-to the Farm Credit Act-
-are therefore intended to broaden the credit program so that farmers will have greater latitude in the use of the money they borrow.
Later on he said:
-these amendments are planned to help the farmer to develop non-agricultural enterprises on his farm, such as camping grounds, tourist cabins or cottages and so on, if he can make more profitable use of his land resources in this way. These latter proposals obviously broaden the role of the Farm Credit Corporation in the field of agricultural adjustment. They will make it possible for the corporation to provide much greater support to our program of agricultural rehabilitation and development.
I suggest that these moneys now, in part at least, can be used for non-agricultural purposes; camping grounds and summer cottages are mentioned. But would it not be possible, or even likely, in circumstances such as those on the delta, near Vancouver, which is close to large metropolitan centres, or on the outskirts of Hamilton, that people who own farm land might obtain loans for such purposes -extraneous purposes they might be called- and later convert their lands in part or in whole for use in some commercial enterprise other than agriculture?
I suggest that rather than extend the act in this fashion, these other extraneous purposes might come under the scope of the industrial development bank or be covered
fMr. Davis.]
by some other act of parliament. If it is desirable to assist in the development of service type industries in which Canadians can invest, and which Canadians can run efficiently, we should do so through other legislation. I should like to hear the minister elaborate on this point, because I think it is important and that it will be increasingly important in the efficient administration of this measure and of the affairs of this country.
(Translation):


Mr. Boutin:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take these few moments at my disposal to make a few remarks on this resolution. I represent a constituency where more than 60 per cent of the citizens are farmers. It is therefore my duty to suggest, on their behalf, a few ideas which could help improve the fate of the farmers of my constituency, of my province and of the country as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, when Canada was discovered, the first thing Canadians had to do was to tackle our forests, to push them back as far as possible, in order that our soil could develop to its fullest potential. Those Canadians were not deceived. Our soil responded well to the hopes of our first inhabitants. From day to day, from year to year, we have seen develop along the St. Lawrence river, and then more and more inland, and to the upper reaches of my constituency of Dorchester, well established farms reflecting the modest comfort of our people.
There was no problem at the time, as far as feeding a large family was concerned, because as the sons got older, they put their intelligence and their hands to use, in order to help, enlarge and improve the homestead. And when the time came for them to leave the farm and bring up their own families, there was no question of going to the city to find jobs because they stayed on the farm, or they bought a farm in the neighbourhood of that of their fathers to carry on the tradition and agriculture, which has always been the pride of this Canada of ours.
And that was done without those people having to resort to farm loans which, in many cases, force farmers to go deeper into debts.
Nor was it necessary for them to have grand farms, without rocks, to take care of their families. If such had been the case, part of the constituency of Dorchester would not exist, because our farms are pretty rocky.
Now, in the last few years, we have been witnessing a phenomenon in which everything

is going in a reverse direction. Is it possible that the farmer is working less than before? Yet, he works 15 hours a day and gets a very small income from his labour, which is a consequence of past and present systems. Neither is it because the land does not want to yield any more. But then, what is the cause of that massive flight from our family farms, of that reluctance on the part of the farmer's sons to step into their father's shoes? Why do we see family farms which have been in existence for several generations pass into the hands of neighbours wishing to expand their own lands? The answer is quite simple. It is that the Liberal and Conservative governments have never had the same policy, for all the areas of the country.
The federal ministers of agriculture have always looked at the eastern farmers with one eye only, and the weaker one at that, with the result that those farmers are not getting the same advantages as are those from the west. We do not hold it against our friends from the west, for having been much more favoured than we have been by the agricultural policy of the government but we should like to see the same policy extended to us, farmers operating in the province of Quebec.
Before discussing farm credit to improve the farms in Quebec, would it not be better to consider the construction of warehouses to store our farm commodities until the government finds markets for them? Let us begin by consuming our Canadian eggs before importing some from Poland.
Mr. Chairman, it is intended to loan money to our farmers so that they can increase their production. All that is very fine. But, has consideration been given to markets for that production? If our markets are not better than they are right now, the existing problems will get worse and our farmers will only sink deeper into debt year after year. And, as a result, we will see throughout the country collective units replacing our fine family farms.
We, from this part of the country, want the government to put our small farmers on an equal footing with the big farmers. But the proposed policy in providing loans for minimum amounts only, eliminates the small farms, the family units. If until recent years, people managed to get a living from those small holdings, the problem is therefore not due to an inadequate production but to the inadequate prices paid for farm products. Let
Farm Credit Act
us therefore give our farmers a good price for their products, and we shall not have to deplore the fact that too many of our young people have to combine two jobs-woodcutter and farmer or, labourer and farmer- if they want to live on their farms.
With more profitable prices, we should not have to face an accumulation of loans, provincial and federal, which finally leads a man with debts for many years to come, and makes him feel a stranger on his own farm.
If the government has to grant loans to the farmers, let it be without interest, or simply with added carrying charges. Of course, our farmers should not be asked to pay interest on Canadian money, while our government grants loans to foreigners without interest.
There is an anomaly in the present loan system of the government which consists in asking for advance payments, called evaluation fees, when a farmer puts in an application for a loan.
That amount of $50 which the farmers have to pay is very often an unsurmountable obstacle for quite a few of them, because it happens but too frequently that an individual does not even possess the amount to be sent with his application. The result is that quite a few farmers cannot obtain loans because they have not the amount which the government asks them to pay. Moreover, when they are able to pay the required amount, what assurance have they that the loan will be granted? None at all, because it may be refused after their farm has been inspected.
Therefore, it is imperative that this anomaly should immediately disappear so that all, big or small, wealthy or paupers, may benefit from the same advantages offered by the statutes enacted by the government to better the lot of our Canadian farmers.
Mr. Chairman, the problems of our farmers are extremely serious, we should not treat lightly the urgent steps which must be taken on behalf of our agricultural community.
Our farmers always were and still remain the very basis of our economy. They are the ones who supply almost all the foodstuffs we find on our tables. We should not, in return, lead them to bankruptcy, and that is what will occur if the necessary steps are not taken, to help them remain on their farms, whether they are large or small.

Farm Credit Act
We thank the Minister of Agriculture for his efforts in increasing the borrowing power of the Farm Credit Corporation.
That measure would have been better if the government had taken care of our small farm units, so that each farmer in my constituency especially could keep on working the farm on which many generations have toiled to make it more fertile from year to year.
If the exodus of our farmers towards the cities is to be stopped, if agriculture is to be taken out of the quagmire in which it finds itself today, the ideas put forward from this corner of the house should be acted upon, that is, we should first find markets for our agricultural produce, set adequate prices and, finally, if it is necessary for a farmer to ask for a farm loan, let such a loan be granted without interest but at cost.
In my opinion, those measures would give our farming community the impetus it lacks now. Then farmers would remain on the farms and maintain the tradition of family farming which has always been the pride of Canadians.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I have only one or two minutes and I do not want to delay the discussion.
(Text):
I find so few occasions to be able to agree with the Minister of Agriculture that I should tell him that in this instance I agree with him that we have probably exhausted the time which could usefully be spent in debate at this stage. But I do want to make an appeal to him still to consider sending this bill to the committee on agriculture; and if he really means what he says, I would tell him that if he wants to consult on this matter and wants to do the best possible thing which can be done in this instance, I think we should be given that opportunity.


An hon. Member:: Waste time.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I was about to say that the minister today gave us quite a lot of statistics, and I for one would not even pretend that I was able to digest them in ten or fifteen minutes, particularly as he attempted to do the same thing last Thursday, I believe, with an eye on the press gallery and an eye on the clock, when he suggested to us that we should vote immediately at that time, after giving us two or three sets of statistics which he knew perfectly well, given ten minutes, we could easily destroy.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Never mind the lecture.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: We have had a lecture for half an hour this morning, so you should not mind one for one minute.


An hon. Member:: Not from you.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Well, you are going to get it whether you like it or not. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to say to the minister, if he will give this question serious consideration, that we should be given the opportunity to discuss this bill in committee, where we can deal with all these aspects and the suggestions which have been made on this side of the house. If the minister really means what he said when he lectured us this morning, that he really intends to do the best he can for the farmers across the country, I do not see how he can say no to this request.
That is the only reason I got up at this time, but since my hon. friends across the way have seen fit to ask for a lecture, let me suggest something to them. The statistics used 25 years ago are no longer fit for today. It is like saying that in 1936, when we had a few less million people in this country, we should have eaten as much as 18 million people eat today. That kind of logic we have been accustomed to for many years from the Conservative party and are not surprised to hear it now.


An hon. Member:: And today the dollar does not buy as much.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Well, we will not discuss the dollar today; this poor minister has had enough to do with that and is probably in trouble with his colleagues now.
My purpose in rising is to make this last appeal to the minister seriously to consider this matter of sending this bill to a committee, where we feel we can give it adequate attention.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I have been waiting until all those people who wanted to speak about the farm credit aspect had concluded what they had to say in order to make a brief intervention to point out the fact that while we very much favour any improvement in farm credit which can possibly be made, we who represent fishing ridings feel that the same credit facilities should be available to fishermen as are available to farmers. In the case of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, there is corresponding legislation for fishermen under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, so that fishermen are on the same basis with respect to loans from the commercial banks, which are partly underwritten by the treasury. But there is no

agency of the federal government making direct loans to fishermen comparable to those made by the Farm Credit Corporation to farmers.
I know that the Minister of Fisheries and others have said on several occasions, apologetically, that there are various provincial agencies making such loans, implying thereby that there is no need for any federal agency. My reply to that is of course that there are lots of provincial agencies, including one mentioned by the minister this morning- that is to say, the one in Quebec which make loans to farmers. If this is the excuse for no action on the part of the government, it is not a valid excuse. Moreover, we know that in four provinces at any rate-and I refer to the Atlantic provinces-the credit that it is possible for those provinces to make available is very small, because of the financial situation and the taxable capacity of those provinces, and there is every bit as great a need for federal action for loans to fishermen, over and above those which are available under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as there is for loans to farmers.
This discrimination is not appreciated by the fishing industry and by the fishermen. It seems to me, sir, that when we are considering whether it is expedient to introduce this legislation, I say yes, it is expedient to carry on with this legislation, but it would be even more expedient if the fishermen were treated in the same way as farmers are being treated. But they never have been so treated by the present government.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to add a word. I do not want to transgress the rules by speaking on another subject, but I should like to say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I think he will appreciate at once, with his keen mind, that the two situations are not comparable in all respects. This is not to say there is not plenty of room for improvement as far as development in the fishing industry is concerned, but as the Minister of Agriculture has already pointed out, a very high percentage of the loans to farmers under this legislation are for the purpose of purchasing land. This is the resource from which they produce food. In the case of fisheries the resource is in the public domain, even in the international domain, in most cases, and the fisherman has access to it merely by licence.
I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that.
I should also like to point out that units of production are much more costly in the modern fishing industry. However, in that connection I would point out that this government is subsidizing the building of fishing
Farm Credit Act
trawlers to the extent of 50 per cent of their total cost. We are providing bait service in the eastern provinces, and we are subsidizing the building of smaller ships. This is not an appropriate subject for discussion under this act, but I should like to pursue it further when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are being dealt with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make one very brief comment on what the Minister of Fisheries has said. We all know that the Minister of Fisheries is one of the members of the treasury benches who does not try to evade questions-and we all respect him for it-and who, when a matter of debate is raised, really tries to debate it fairly and honestly. I give him full credit on that score. However, I think the minister has forgotten one thing. It is quite true that the sea is open to everybody who can get there, but the only way in which a fisherman can fish is by having a boat. That boat is just as mortgageable-and I know this; I owned one once-as is a farm. It is perhaps more insurable in some cases than are some farms. It is precisely for the purchase of boats that this kind of legislation would be most valuable if it applied to fishermen.
Notwithstanding what the minister has said about the subsidy given to a certain type of trawler, the minister and I both know that the fishermen who need the loans most do not get that subsidy because they do not build boats of that size. Contrary to what the Minister of Transport said a couple of years ago before these subsidies were established, when he told us that they were going to cover all kinds of fishing vessels, when the regulations came out we found they did not do so.
However, there again, like the minister, I am going a little beyond the scope of this legislation. I will confine my remarks to one point, namely that the fishermen have every bit as much need, even if boats are partly subsidized, of loans to get modern boats as have the farmers for loans to modernize their operations, and there should be comparable legislation for that purpose.


Mr. Barnett:: As a member coming from a constituency in which the fishery is of considerable consequence, I rise simply to say I find myself in sympathy with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In view of the rules of relevancy, my only further comment at this time is that in the days when I was trying to persuade his former colleague from Coast-Capilano, who was then minister of fisheries, of the need for some of this sort of thing, I could wish that he had lent some similar eloquence to the subject at that time.

Farm Credit Act
(Translation):


Mr. Roy:: Mr. Chairman, this being my maiden speech in the house, I should like to congratulate you for having been chosen to preside over our proceedings. Indeed, you have filled that ofiice in a most commendable way until now.
Since the beginning of the session we have heard quite a number of speeches. In my opinion, the members of the old political parties deserve some praise. They have some brains, there is no doubt about that, because they have succeeded in convincing the people, and the farmers in particular, that the present Farm Credit Act is advantageous to them even though it takes up all their savings.
The old political parties have reached the point where they are lending money to our farmers to enable them to pay the interest on the loans they have made to them.
Mr. Chairman, I am not against providing money to the farmers to improve their farms and to purchase the necessary equipment which will make their task easier.
I think it is the duty of this house to do all that is humanly possible to help them.
The farmer has always been the most neglected one and we seem to forget too often that the farmer gives our community more hours of work every day than anybody else. On the other hand, the farmer is always paid less than anyone else for his services.
I can understand that our farmers are willing to get into debts even more deeply, because they knew that in the near future they will have a Social Credit government which will see to it that their farm incomes allow them to pay off their debts and the interest thereon quite easily.
Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to represent one of the finest ridings of the south shore. I am proud of it. That riding is made up in part of farmers and workers who are the backbone of the community. They have been through quite hard times.
I have been a farmer myself till the age of 33, and I am proud of it.
As it is one o'clock, I propose the adjournment of the debate.


The Chairman:: It being one o'clock, I must now leave the chair.
(Text):
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamilton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a somewhat extended statement in moving the second reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. I feel justified in doing so because of the circumstances which have led the government to put forward these proposals. I am referring, of course, to our experience with the drug thalidomide, an experience which hon. members will appreciate has been shared in greater or lesser degree by countries throughout the western world.
As a preface to these remarks I think it might be helpful to say something about the complexities involved in the introduction and marketing of new drugs and to outline our views concerning the responsibility of government in this process.
I hardly need remind the house of the remarkable advances made possible in medical science by the discovery and development of new drugs. With the advent of the so-called miracle drugs our health professions have been able literally to lift the horizons of medical knowledge and to bring about cures which only a few years ago would have been regarded as nothing short of miraculous. Examples are so numerous that I am sure all of us could testify to this fact from our own experience. Indeed, developments have reached the point where we take for granted that some pill or tablet will be available to relieve almost any ailment.
This whole process of drug advance is one of the greatest and most beneficial elements of modern civilization. But like any other aspect of human progress it is not without risk. Experience has shown that every drug, however innocuous it may appear or be represented, does possess some potential for danger to some people. Even the lowly headache remedy can be very dangerous and cause death in certain circumstances. In this sense then there is no such thing as a completely safe drug for everyone under all conditions

of usage. The word "safety" cannot be an absolute term but must be weighed against the value of the drug in relation to its known dangers.
When penicillin was first produced it was hailed as a drug of absolute safety and possessing miraculous curative powers. It has proved to possess these powers but it has also been found capable of causing death. While penicillin has saved millions of lives, many people are sensitive to it and cannot take it without great danger to themselves. The same holds true for the sulfa drugs. These have been responsible for miraculous cures, they have advanced medical science, but they have also exhibited serious side effects under certain conditions.
The point is simply this. In the case of any drug that could be mentioned, we are faced with a mixed picture. On the one side are the drug's advantages; on the other, its risks. There is always the problem of balancing these two factors.
In this context, what must be our position? Obviously we want Canadians to enjoy all the advantages of scientific discovery. At the same time, however, the risks involved cannot be avoided. Our aim must be to reduce these risks to the greatest extent possible, to minimize the dangers so that the balance will be strongly on the side of promoting health and not of compounding suffering.
This is our objective and our responsibility. It is a responsibility which the government has taken very seriously. But it is not a responsibility which any government alone can discharge effectively. Others must share the burden. Manufacturers of drugs, the medical profession, pharmacists and individual Canadians-all have an important role to play.
What then is the responsibility of government? In my view it is not to delay or deny the benefit of new drugs to the people of Canada. It is not to guarantee the safety of drugs which, as I have pointed out, can never be guaranteed. No, the responsibility of government rests where it always has in Canada and entails two related aspects.
First, we must introduce such legislation as may serve to minimize the risks involved in the introduction of new drugs to protect the people of Canada to the greatest extent possible. We must, by law, require that a manufacturer shall have done everything which is reasonable and proper in introducing a new drug. This involves quality control, exhaustive animal and clinical testing, and the provision of all possible information to the medical profession. That, as I see it, is our first responsibility.
Generally speaking, we feel that Canada's Food and Drugs Act is second to none in the
27507-3-62J
Food and Drugs Act
world. Indeed, it is regarded as a model and has been used by the world health organization as the basis for comparable legislation in many other countries. We are deeply conscious, however, of the rapid advances in scientific progress and of the need to maintain legislation that will enable us to keep pace with these advances. The measure now before the house is a further indication of the desire of the government to provide additional assurances to the people of Canada that everything possible is being done in their interest.
The second responsibility of government, as I see it, is to maintain a staff competent to administer this food and drug legislation. The job of this staff is to provide adequate technical advice, to conduct analyses and tests of drugs, to do research directed to the improvement of our testing capability, and to carry out field inspection with a view to enforcement of regulations under the act.
As hon. members may be aware, many of the senior people in the food and drug directorate enjoy an international reputation for their competence in this work. Indeed, one or other of our top experts has been on duty with the headquarters staff of the world health organization almost continuously for a number of years. We value the services of these and the other members of the directorate and intend in every way possible to fulfil our responsibility in furthering the outstanding work which has been done in administering Canada's food and drug legislation. I might say we have plans under way to increase substantially the staff of the directorate.
I turn now to the question of thalidomide which I have indicated could be discussed fully at this stage in our dealing with Bill C-3. I do not propose at this time to enter into a lengthy review of how the introduction of this drug has been handled in Canada but I do wish to comment on some of the main points.
First, there was the actual release of the drug. I think there is no question in the minds of expert observers that the food and drug directorate had no reason to delay the release of thalidomide for sale in Canada. Thalidomide was first developed in Europe in 1953. It was widely used in Germany and I understand in the United Kingdom. In the fall of 1960 a new drug submission was filed with the food and drug directorate. The submission, which included many hundreds of pages of medical and scientific evidence, revealed that the drug had been extensively tested. It was recognized as one of the safest and most effective drugs that had ever been developed for its recommended use. Its recommended use was for the symptomatic relief

Food and Drugs Act
of insomnia. In Canada, at least, it was not recommended for nausea or morning sickness in pregnancy. At that time there was no hint of any significant side effects at all, let alone any association with malformations in children.
The material submitted was found to comply wholly with the requirements of the law and the manufacturers were so advised. On the advice of the prescription drug advisory committee, on which is represented the medical profession and the profession of pharmacy, the drug was placed on prescription. This meant that it could only be dispensed under medical supervision. The decision was in accordance with the general policy of the advisory committee to require all sedative drugs to be sold only under prescription.
The first indication of significant side effects associated with thalidomide appeared in the scientific literature after the new drug submission had been accepted. Information in this regard developed very slowly and it was not until the spring of 1961 that reports from Great Britain pointed clearly to a possible association of what is termed peripheral neuritis with thalidomide. Peripheral neuritis is a nervous disorder involving tingling in the hands and feet and is a relatively common side effect in the drug field. Evidence suggested that if administration of thalidomide was stopped at the first appearance of peripheral neuritis, the condition would disappear. Accordingly, the food and drug directorate concurred in a similar step being taken in Canada as had been taken in Great Britain, namely that the company would amend the information sent out to doctors by the inclusion of a specific warning with respect to peripheral neuritis.
I mention this aspect of the situation to highlight the fact that a warning to doctors is the usual method of alerting the medical profession to possible side effects in the use of drugs. This is the procedure followed in the case of all drugs with obvious effectiveness and has a direct bearing on development which took place towards the end of 1961. Before turning to these, however, I should like to re-emphasize that peripheral neuritis is not an unusual or unique side effect of drugs. In the spring of 1961, there was no evidence in the scientific literature of any possible connection between peripheral neuritis and phocomelia or malformations in children.
A second aspect of Canada's experience with thalidomide relates to the steps taken in early December, 1961, to warn doctors of a possible association of thalidomide with phocomelia, and to advise them not to prescribe the drug for premenopausal women pending further clarification. This was done
[Mr. Monteith.l
as the result of reports received by the drug companies from West Germany indicating that a pediatrician in that country suspected the involvement of thalidomide in cases of phocomelia. The companies were not able to give any idea of the number of cases involved nor the extent of scientific evidence available to support these suspicions.
In view of this, the usual procedure was again followed. After consultation with the food and drug directorate, a warning was sent by each of the two drug companies to every doctor in Canada of this possible side effect of thalidomide. In this connection, I might point out that the cases of thalidomide-associated malformations reported in Canada during the past summer had obviously been the result of taking the drug prior to the first information of possible danger being made available to the government and to the medical profession early in December, 1961. No other course of action at that time could have prevented these cases. Up to the present time to our knowledge, there has been only one case of thalidomide-associated abnormalities where the drug could have been taken after the warning to doctors. We have made inquiries and are advised that the drug in this particular case was not obtained on prescription or with the knowledge of the attending physician.
All of us have the greatest sympathy and compassion for the unfortunate victims. When tragedy strikes a child or the unborn child, we are all particularly touched. But we have a responsibility to control our emotions and deal objectively and effectively with the situation.
The government has proposed to the provinces the sharing of the cost of special programs to assist these children. We have asked the provinces to undertake special investigations and we are co-operating with not only the provinces but also specialists in the field of rehabilitation to see what can best be done.
As announced in the house last April, I requested the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada to establish a special committee to consider objectively and critically our procedures respecting new drugs. While I have not as yet received their report, I expect that it will be available in the near future.
In addition, last May, Canada took an important initiative at the world health assembly in Geneva. Our delegation initiated and co-sponsored a special resolution designed to promote greater international co-operation in the drug field, and particularly to secure regular exchange of information on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical preparations. As our experience with thalidomide has

shown, this is an area in which a great deal more needs to be done. The resolution was approved unanimously and has been referred to the director general of the world health organization for study, with the request that he report to the executive board of W.H.O. in January, 1963. Canada is represented on this board and proposes to press for action with respect to an international warning system.
May I now direct attention to the bill which is before the house. I wish to emphasize that this proposed amendment to the Food and Drugs Act does not in any way interfere with, or attempt to anticipate, the study being carried out by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. Indeed, these two steps have been designed to dovetail as I will point out shortly.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3 is relatively simple in content and is designed to reinforce certain aspects of our drug control provisions and to furnish further clear authority in the interests of that control. It embodies three changes in our Food and Drugs Act:
1.	it provides authority to impose additional controls on the distribution of drug samples.
2.	it authorizes the prohibition of the sale of a drug,
3.	and it emphasizes that new drugs require special consideration.
Before dealing with these changes, I might say that we have been concerned that nothing be done that will impede medical and scientific research in the field of drug therapy. It would be a great disservice to the people of Canada if any unnecessary controls were imposed in connection with the manufacture and availability of new drugs in this country. Therefore, this bill seeks to meet a double requirement-to avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions on medical and scientific research and, at the same time, to ensure that all possible safeguards are observed.
As I have mentioned, all drugs possess some potential for danger. Because of this, our existing legislation limits the distribution of samples to the medical, dental, veterinary, and pharmaceutical professions. It does not restrict in any way this distribution. Until now, such intervention was considered unnecessary. Experience, however, and particularly as reflected in the thalidomide situation, has indicated the desirability of imposing some restriction on this distribution.
In so doing, we do not, of course, intend to affect the right of a manufacturer to inform a physician of a new product or to deny him the right to make a new product available by way of sample. This would be an unwarranted interference with the professions and with the industry. At the same
Food and Drugs Act
time, we do feel that some control or supervision should be exercised over the mass distribution of drug samples which physicians may know little about, may not want, and which may easily fall into the wrong hands.
We have had complaints from doctors indicating that they are receiving almost daily unsolicited quantities of drugs which they do not need and which are often discarded. This presents the immediate danger that such discarded drugs may fall into the wrong hands, and I understand that there are persons or firms who will take delivery of unwanted samples for the purpose of further distribution.
In view of this situation, we feel that the time has come when the sampling of drugs to the professions should be brought under some measure of control. The amendment now before the house seeks to provide authority to prescribe conditions under which sampling may be carried out. This will involve regulations. Our proposal is that the drug companies be required to obtain a signed request from members of the professions before a sample can be furnished. This type of control will not, in my view, interfere with medical practice or with the use of a drug in connection with the treatment of patients under a physician's care. It will, however, require the practitioner to exercise his judgment in requesting a sample and will prevent the present practice of unwanted or unsolicited samples being distributed.
I come now to the second portion of Bill C-3 which provides for the prohibition of the sale of any drug listed under schedule H of the Food and Drugs Act. The purpose here is to put beyond any shadow of a doubt the authority to prohibit the sale of a drug should this prove necessary. In this context, I might explain that the act defines "sell" as including sell, offer for sale, have in possession for sale, and distribution. We expect that this prohibiting authority will seldom have to be used and I can assure the house that it will be exercised only after the most careful consideration of all other alternatives. Certainly, it would not be proper to remove a drug from medical availability except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Before placing a drug on schedule H, we would wish to have the advice of the most competent authorities and would only take this action in the light of such advice. Similarly, a drug on schedule H could be removed under the authority of the act.

Food and Drugs Act
At the moment, two drugs are to be included under schedule H. The first is thalidomide which, of course, has already been withdrawn from the market in Canada. The other drug to be included under schedule H merits a word of explanation.
Lysergic acid or LSD as it is often called, is not to be associated with thalidomide because its purpose is quite different. LSD has never been on the market commercially but has been used experimentally in psychiatric treatment. It has been effectively controlled up to the present time through co-operative action by the manufacturer in consultation with the department. The patents which were owned by the manufacturer have now expired and there is the possibility that the strict controls may not be as effective in the future as they have been in the past. After consultation with the manufacturer, it is considered that the proper action to be taken at the present time is to put lysergic acid on schedule H.
Having explained our purpose in putting lysergic acid in schedule H, I should also draw attention to section 24 (1) (j) of the present act which provides authority to the governor in council to exempt a drug from all or any of the provisions of the act and to prescribe the conditions of such exemption. Under this authority, we would be prepared to consider a regulation which would exempt lysergic acid from complete prohibition to the extent that might be necessary to permit its availability under rigid conditions in a research program.
This could involve the drug being made available to certain approved institutions provided that its use were confined to purely experimental research and for the purpose of ascertaining further evidence respecting its value and efficacy. I might say that we have already received certain representations in this regard and we would be prepared to give consideration to an appropriate exemption to meet the needs of experimental research under competent auspices.
Hon. members may have seen in the press some suggestions relating to the possibility of thalidomide being valuable in cancer research. I might say that similar action to exempt thalidomide from absolute prohibition could also be taken in this particular research area if it should seem desirable to make it available for that purpose.
Turning now to the third item of Bill C-3, this as the house will note, provides authority to make special regulations relative to new drugs. While we have had authority in the legislation to make regulations in this field, the recent experience with thalidomide has, I believe, served to focus attention on this

particular area. We have, therefore, thought it appropriate to separate the authority to make regulations concerning new drugs from the general regulation making authority. This is the purpose of the present amendment.
At this point, it might be useful for me to outline briefly the scope of the regulations regarding new drugs which have been in force for over ten years. These have required the manufacturer prior to the sale of a new drug to file with the department a submission containing all available information with respect to the drug-its properties, its dangers, its recommended use, and other facts which the manufacturer has obtained in connection with his preliminary research activities. This material is carefully examined in the food and drug directorate to ensure that the requirements of the regulations have been met.
The manufacturer's reports must, of course, refer back to experimental and clinical trials involving the drug. There are special regulations applicable to clinical investigation of a drug. If the directorate considers that the material furnished by the manufacturer adequately demonstrates that everything reasonable and possible has been done to investigate the drug, to find out its dangers as well as its benefits, to provide the medical profession with adequate directions for use, then the drug is considered to have met the requirements of our regulations.
In many cases, however, further information is requested, further tests required and there are new drug applications in the department at the present time which have been pending for many months and in some cases for years. After a drug is introduced, the directorate continues its interest in the product to ensure that the medical profession is kept advised of new information or evidence arising out of experience with its use. I might add that in the course of nearly 11 years, some 2,000 new drugs have passed through the screen of our new drug regulations and have been placed on the market in Canada with great benefit to Canadians.
In view of the current study by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of our new drug procedures, I am not in a position at the moment to indicate what changes may be made in our regulations under this new authority. Certainly, we would wish any changes to reflect to the extent appropriate the recommendations which we expect may be contained in their report. I might say that we have been studying the new legislation recently introduced in the United States with respect to the introduction of new drugs. We have received from manufacturers useful information respecting their procedures in this regard. These also are being given careful consideration.

Our aim in all this, of course, is to come up with an improved procedure for the handling of new drugs. It is our desire that the regulations should embody the best features of drug control consistent with, on the one hand, safety and effectiveness, and on the other, with research and development. However, I must emphasize that regardless of the changes which may be made, we will never be in a position to guarantee that our procedures will wholly avoid the possibility of danger in the use or development of a new drug. There will always be risks and we will have to live with them if we are also to enjoy the benefits of new discoveries.
With this bill and the authority it provides to make regulations, we will be in the best position to deal with problems which will inevitably arise in the rapidly changing field of medical science.
I, therefore, take pleasure Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill C-3 which I sincerely hope will commend itself to all sides of the house. Just before sitting down, I might add that I have given some thought to the best means of ensuring that all the facts are placed most clearly before the house. My view is that after second reading we should proceed in committee of the whole house and see what progress can be made. If it then should become apparent that a useful purpose would be served by referring the bill to a special committee of the house, I would be quite prepared to go along with that procedure.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is what should be done.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, on rising for the first time to take part in a debate in this house I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating the Speaker and yourself on election to the offices you hold. The subject matter of this debate is one which is of special interest to me and because of the recent tragic happenings in the country I believe it is of interest to everyone in it.
I speak, of course, of the drug thalidomide and its consequences. First, I should like to place on record the schedule concerning thalidomide. Mine will be briefer than that given by the minister. This drug was developed in Germany and was first placed openly on the market there in 1957-I am reading from the Journal of Applied Therapeutics dated August, 1962. As the minister has told us, a 500-page report was placed before the food and drug directorate in November, 1960. In April, 1961, the drug was placed on the Canadian market, available on prescription from two to three drug firms.
Food and Drugs Act
In November, 1961, there were rumours that the drug was associated with adverse effects. On December 1, 1961, this was confirmed, and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare were notified. The manufacturing companies involved wrote letters on December 4 and 5 to all the doctors in Canada informing them of the reports from Germany. Further material was available in March, 1962, and it was requested that the drug should be withdrawn from the market on March 2, 1962. On March 5, the companies confirmed to the department that this had been done. On April 10, 1962, Dr. Morrell circulated all the doctors asking them to destroy or return any supplies or samples that they might have on hand. In July of 1962, Dr. Morrell again wrote the doctors asking them to follow up any prescriptions they might have written to make sure that no portions of the drug were still in the homes of patients.
The tragic circumstances are well known. As can be seen, the drug was first suspected of causing congenital abnormalities in December, 1961. However, it was not withdrawn from the market until March 2, 1962, an interval of three months. This is the area in which the government's responsibility must lie. This drug was known to be suspect early in December, 1961 and warning records were sent out to physicians; yet its removal was not effected until March 2, 1962, and the drug was still available for use until that time. I was pleased to hear the minister say that to his knowledge only one case had arisen during that period. But we wonder how many prescriptions had been issued. How can we tell how much suffering has been caused as a result of this three months delay?
This drug was withdrawn from the market in Germany, where it was first made, on November 26, 1961. It was withdrawn from the market in England on December 2, 1961. It was withdrawn from the market in Canada, on March 2, 1962. Here, we note that the country which first used the drug withdrew it from the market on November 26, 1961. Where were our communications, the communications between those companies, one in Germany and one in Canada, to warn us of these dangers? More than three months were to pass between the withdrawal of this drug from the market in Germany and its withdrawal from the Canadian market-three months of wasted time during which it might have been the source of further suffering and anguish to parents of these babies. It is for this interval of time which was allowed to lapse that the government must assume full responsibility.
It is unfortunate that our communications with regard to these matters are not faster and more effective. It is unfortunate, also,

Food and Drugs Act
that taster action was not taken in Canada when the danger signals first appeared. We must strengthen our legislation in order that suspected drugs may be removed quickly from the market by the food and drug directorate. As separate clauses of the bill are debated we shall have amendments to propose in these respects.
As the minister has stated, new drugs are being placed on the market with great frequency. We all know that the Sabin oral vaccine against polio has been withdrawn, perhaps with undue haste. However, we must remember that in our efforts to protect the people of Canada we must not slow down drug developments or, perhaps, delay a major breakthrough in the treatment of presently incurable diseases such as cancer. The major question raised is: how can we prevent similar occurrences?
Having considered the hon. gentleman's proposals, we are in agreement in principle with the amendments put forward. However, there are several omissions. We see nothing here to give the food and drug directorate the necessary power to remove drugs rapidly from the market. Moreover, an obvious loophole was pointed out during the question period the other day. Then hon. members became aware that deadly jequirity beans were allowed to remain on the Canadian market because there was no authority to prevent their coming into the country. We should have such power. A situation in which a potential deadly poison, unlabelled, is allowed to remain on the market because we cannot prevent it, should never arise.
I should like to suggest very strongly to the minister that in view of the technical and professional background necessary to understand the complex problems brought up by these amendments, the bill should be referred to a committee, as provided in standing order 65, either to the banking and commerce committee or to a special committee. If this were done, expert witnesses could be called, including representatives of the food and drug directorate, and these could be examined by the committee in order to throw more light on the circumstances surrounding thalidomide with a view to preventing further such tragedies. If this matter were referred, as I suggest, to a committee, a more detailed examination of events might take place. In addition, the working of the directorate as well as the meaning and effect of the proposed amendments could be studied. Only in this way can we see whether the proposed amendments are suitable to do what they are intended to do.
We have every sympathy for the food and drug directorate. They are trying to do a very

large and important and life-saving job with a small staff and budget. We must do all we can to help them, to understand their problems and to provide them with legislation which will enable them to perform their necessary duties as efficiently and as quickly as possible. We must provide more staff for the work of the directorate. At the present time, no clinical testing is carried out by this body, and a decision in this regard is one which will have to be made in the future. At least, the department should play a more active part in the testing of new drugs. I suggest to the minister that he should consider placing a representative of the food and drug directorate as an observer in each of the drug firms, carrying out experiments in the use of new drugs. I am sure this could be arranged, and I am sure it would be welcomed by the drug firms themselves concerned. This person would be there as an observer to see that the work was carried out within the laws of the food and drug directorate. He would not interfere in any manner, but would be there as an observer rather than to partake in the experimentation. Again I would request the minister to refer this bill to a committee so that this aspect and all these other aspects can be studied.
I was interested to hear what the minister had to say about the drug lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD, as it is commonly called. This drug was first used to produce mental diseases such as schizophrenia, and it was used in this manner to produce disease so that the people engaged in experimentation could try to find out more about the disease and how to treat it. At the present time this drug is being used in the treatment of alcoholism. I was very pleased to hear him say that there would still be a method by which these drugs could be used for experimental purposes, because there are many drugs available which are extremely dangerous but which, if taken properly and under the proper guidance, are very valuable. As an example, we all read in the newspapers about people taking what are referred to as "goof balls". We all know that this employs the use of barbiturates, one of the common drugs on the market, to produce the symptoms of alcoholism or related diseases. The minister has not suggested that we take barbiturates off the market; therefore I think we should be very careful, when we do take drugs off the market, to leave some method open by which they are still available for worth-while and experimental purposes.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to ask the minister again to give very serious consideration to referring this matter to a special committee. This program which I have

outlined and talked about could cost the government a great deal of money. However, I do not think, and I think no Canadian would think, that the necessary moneys would be misspent in order to ensure that future generations of Canadians be of sound body and mind.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length on the matter, although it is very interesting.
In fact, I believe that the whole story of thalidomide as well as of many other drugs, proves that the government is incapable of treating the sick.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


Guy Marcoux: It means that, at the present time, the people of Canada rely on the Department of National Health and Welfare because they believe that inside that department there are all the technical services needed to ensure the rational use of drugs and forbid their use if they are dangerous. Therefore, the population relies entirely on a government system that has proved ineffective.
I understand that it can hardly be otherwise. I understand it but that is exactly why we, in the Social Credit, always say that it is dangerous to give the government too much power when it is known that sometimes it can be used with difficulty.
It is very difficult indeed. People talk about drugs, about the danger in the use of certain drugs, and they might as well talk about the danger in certain elements that we find in nature and that are not even drugs.
There is sodium chloride, fluorine, elements which it is absolutely normal to find in nature. There is also iodine and many others. But they must be used in a scientific way and in a way that can be checked not only by governments but also by individuals themselves.
So I think that this legislation, beneficial in itself, merely reflects a situation that does not exist only in the case of drugs.
Incidentally, may I say a few words about fluorine? It is a well-known fact that fluorine is an element of nature. It is well known that many people insist that fluorine be used in drinking water, so as to avoid tooth decay. However, no inquiry is made generally concerning the effects fluorine has upon the system as a whole. Sometimes the department of health informed us that tests had 27507-3-63
Food and Drugs Act
been made outside this country in this regard. Here, we were content, from what I know, to experiment on teeth and dentition. So, I wonder if that is not but another example of the chronic and customary incompetence of a government agency.
Naturally, I fully realize that this amendment may and should help to minimize the risks contained in any drug.
It is also known that certain other drugs are being used, as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) said a while ago. He referred to goof balls or barbiturates. Opiates could also be mentioned, as well as various other drugs, even digitalis for the heart. Used thoughtlessly, those drugs may be just as dangerous as thalidomide or LSD.
That is why I agree with the hon. member that we ought to study in committee everything that could be achieved through the Food and Drugs Act concerning the Canadian manufacture of such products, in relation to the colleges of physicians and surgeons of Canada and the colleges of pharmacists.
I noticed a while ago that the minister said that we know of at least one case where the drug was used after the notice of withdrawal of the drug had been given. He told us that it had been taken without prescription, without the knowledge of the attending physician. I think we could find many more examples of this example, if I may put it that way-


Mr. Rouleau:: That is a repetition.


Guy Marcoux: It is a repetition that underlines the first word, I do not want to accuse the pharmacists but one knows that some will sell drugs without prescription just because they feel they know enough to determine in which case a drug should be taken and in which case it should not be. I know personally of such cases, cases where some pharmacists sold drugs without prescription.
I think that what the minister discovered when he withdrew this drug from the market should give him a lead as to other investigations that should be undertaken on other drugs. I think that if likewise some doctors act in an unethical way, the same thing applies to some druggists.
I read that the number of thalidomide pills which were distributed in Canada, much exceeds the total quantity distributed in all Europe since the discovery of this drug. Per-

Food and Drugs Act
sonally, being a physician, I cannot understand why Canadian physicians should prescribe considerably more than those in the old countries.
I am still wondering whether there has been evasion in the distribution of this drug used especially by pregnant women.
I recognize that in governmental organizations the procedure to be followed is slow. I agree it is very beneficial.
I remember reading in the British Medical Journal for two years about the beneficial effects of butazolidin, in cases of rheumatoid arthritis, that drug was supposed to have such phenomenal effects that I wanted to use it myself. Yet I had to wait for two years before the national health and welfare department decided to authorize that drug and I believe it was wise, because drugs can often leave secondary effects, and the government did not want to take any chance. But there remains the undeniable fact that it takes ages.
Earlier we were told that two thousand drugs were examined in 11 years. In some cases authorization to use is very long in coming and sometimes the drug involved is considered harmless. But in other cases, things happen very fast, nobody knows why.
I am not here to proffer charges, but in my opinion, some cartels muster enough power to use coercion, if not on a government, at least on some civil servants. I am referring to them today because we deal with health and drugs, but I cannot help thinking that those remarks could apply to various other fields.
I should like to take this opportunity to talk about certain firms which sell more cheaply products known by what is called generic names. It is said that these firms can sell cheaper because they do not have any research laboratories. Obviously, those companies do not have such laboratories. However, the large firms, the monopolistic firms, the international corporations show in their budget enormous amounts, to be used for experimental studies, in order to protect the public. I wonder if the sums affected to that research are adequate and if they are not used rather, in some cases, for advertising purposes among the doctors, the pharmacists and the hospitals, in order to promote the sale of their drugs. Here is another example

that supports our views when we, Social Crediters, say that we must reach a happy medium.
I have nothing against the quality of the monopolistic companies nor against that of the firms which sell generic name products, but, in my opinion, the government should be more flexible, it should restrict the former and help the latter perhaps a little more. We are all aware of certain investigations that have been carried out. It has been said that profits are excessive and that large amounts of money are being spent on experiments. I believe we should link the one with the other.
Somebody mentioned a little while ago certain drugs used against cancer and which should not be withdrawn completely from the market because of their beneficial effects. That is true. But on the other hand, we know that the use of those drugs for the cure of certain diseases is precisely the cause of cancer. The fact has been proved.
Mr. Speaker, the authorization of a drug is a very serious and most important matter. That is why, in my opinion, we should not leave it for the government to decide alone because we have already had a sample of the fact that a government cannot always meet the needs of the people.
In conclusion, there is a point I would like to stress, that is the widespread impression among the public that it is always safe to follow the advice of the minister of national health and social welfare. Caution might not be useless at times.
I am thinking about phocomelia, a disagreeable and extremely painful experience not only for parents but especially for the children, the babies who were born crippled.
As I was saying a while ago, I feel that the drug companies which claim to spend fortunes on the testing of their products, should cooperate with us to give some financial assistance for the care of such children.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for not having read a written statement, as did the members who spoke before me; still, I believe I have covered the subject pretty well. I noticed that the phrase peripheral neuritis was mentioned. All drugs have secondary effects, and that is quite unavoidable. The question always remains whether the favourable effects are more important than the unfavourable ones. That is the only criterion upon which a drug is to be judged. We know that there are lethal

doses also, called minimum mortal doses which must be taken into account. On the other hand, we must not expect that a drug will hardly ever have any secondary effects.
The amendment to the act is very acceptable. The government wishes to provide further protection and that is very commendable.
In my opinion, we should follow the advice of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) and study in committee, not only the bill but the drugs themselves as they are offered on the general market, in order to provide doctors with the proper advice.
I hope that the Food and Drugs Act will make for a longer and healthier life for Canadians.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Food and Drugs Act
arguments the minister puts up is that the act at that time or as it still exists did not provide the kind ol authority to withdraw this drug from the market that it will have after Bill No. C-3 has passed. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the action that was taken by the government in April, 1962, of withdrawing the drug from the market is an action that could have been taken in December, 1961. There was no change in the statutory provision in that period of time. It was only because in the meantime so much publicity had been attached to this subject that the government could not delay action any longer.
In the meantime, as the hon. member for Halton has pointed out, governments of other countries took action. In the meantime there was the action that had taken place in the United States where, by reason of the activities of a certain Canadian born scientist, the drug had been prevented from going on the market at all. I am refraining from making the remarks about this distinguished lady that should be made on the floor of the House of Commons because I think they would come more properly from my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), from whose constituency Dr. Frances Kelsey came. I just mentioned this in passing to indicate that in other countries, in departments comparable to ours in other governments, there was the kind of vigilance that resulted in the withdrawal of this drug at an earlier date or in preventing it from going on the market at all.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tragedy that has hit this country, and even if the minister in giving statistics suggests that the number of pregnant women who took the drug between December, 1961 and April, 1962 is very small, this is nevertheless something for which the government must bear responsibility. However, I welcome most wholeheartedly, as I say, two things. The first is this bill which will increase the government's control over new drugs and the second is the enlargement of the staff of the food and drug directorate so that things of this nature may not happen again.
I must also say, without wanting to rethresh old straw, though I do not think this session can go by without the matter being dealt with in the house, that many Canadians regretted very strongly the first statements that were made by or attributed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) when it became apparent that a number of Canadian babies would be born deformed because their mothers had taken thalidomide. I refer to the minister's first

reported statements to the effect that if there were such deformed babies their care and the extra cost connected with looking after them would not in any sense be a federal responsibility. As the minister knows, these statements were protested very strongly by a number of us who are now members of this house. They were protested editorially right across the country. Perhaps this is another indication of the advantages of a free society such as ours because, as a result of these protests, within a few days the minister was making a different type of statement. He was doing it in the time honoured way. He was denying he had said what he was reported to have said a few days before, and was indicating something would be done. This "something", by the way, was the calling of a conference of the representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the provincial representatives from the departments of health right across the country.
I was a bit surprised that the minister did not give us a report on that conference during his remarks on second reading. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is going to give us a report on that conference when we get into committee of the whole or before a special or standing committee of the house. I was glad that at that conference the federal government did make an offer to the provinces to share with them any costs that might be faced by the parents of thalidomide babies, the costs that might be faced by the children themselves as they grow up. This is certainly a lot better than the minister's first reported statement, that the only thing he could see by way of federal aid for these babies was that at the age of 18 they might qualify for assistance under the Disabled Persons Act. Those were two or three sorry days during which the minister was saying these rather harsh things. However, that period has passed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Reported as saying, if you do not mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, I will put it that way. However, he was reported so effectively that the editorial writers of newspapers favourable to the government felt the statements had been made and needed to be corrected. At any rate, they have been corrected and we now have the fact that the conference was held and that an offer has been made to the provinces. I hope that at some point in the debate on this bill we will get a report on what progress has been made in the negotiations between the federal government and the provinces in terms of financial assistance

to make life a little better for these victims than might otherwise have been the case.
I suggest that when we are talking about financial aid to assist the victims of thalidomide we should think not only of the babies themselves and of the years ahead of them to childhood and adulthood, but we must also think of what this has done to the parents in some cases. I have here amongst the papers on my desk-but I do not intend to pick it up or refer to it because I do not want to give the name-a letter from the father of a thalidomide baby. In the letter, the whole tragedy is spelled out. The letter reaches the point where the father tells me that on such a date the baby died. The next sentence says, "I am now fighting for my wife's sanity."
The point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that financial assistance may be necessary not only for the children themselves but for the parents and families who have been through this tragic experience. As I say, I hope that at some point in this debate we will get a statement on what has been done in this field. I am sure that all Canadians will want the government, in the name of the Canadian people, to assume its full responsibility for these people.
I had one letter from a person who saw a press report of something I had said about this matter and expressed concern about asking the government to pay the extra costs for these thalidomide babies. This particular correspondent said to me, "I don't mind your taking this stand if you want to but I wish instead of saying the government should pay this extra cost you would say the taxpayer should pay it so it will be clear that is what you are asking for". On that basis this particular correspondent said, "I don't think I should be asked to pay for the mistakes or negligence of the government." Like other members in this house, I try my best to win a case with a correspondent, even if he disagrees with me. I took the liberty of writing back to this correspondent and commenting on his point of view. I said to him something to this effect: Some tragedy could befall you or some member of your family and if you had to pay for it yourself it could result in your having to mortgage your entire future. I pointed out that if that tragedy or that mistake were in any sense the responsibility of the government, we could all, including me, pay for it as taxpayers, probably for a few cents each, and that I would rather it be done that way.
Well, we do not always win arguments with our correspondents quite so readily as I seemed to do in this case. At any rate, this gentleman who had opposed my stand in the first place that federal money should be used
Food and Drugs Act
for this purpose wrote back to say he did now agree. I cite that case just to support my contention that I believe Canadians from coast to coast will support any expenditures that are necessary out of public funds, whether federal or provincial, to see to it that these victims, the children themselves, their parents or families, are assisted in coping with the results of this tragedy in the best way that is possible.
Despite the onus that I have deliberately placed upon the government, Mr. Speaker, for what has happened, despite my insistence that public funds, federal or provincial, should be made available so far as necessary, I think we must also recognize the responsibility of the drug companies in a tragedy such as this. The minister, in the document that he had his department prepare for the thalidomide conference that was held in August, does spell out the efforts of the drug company at one point to get permission to have this drug marketed, even when the drug directorate was going slowly on it. The whole point that the minister makes is that there is a responsibility on the drug companies as well as on the government. In this respect, I agree with the minister. I think this is one of the reasons that this bill should go to a standing or special committee, so that we could have representatives of these drug companies before the committee, not only to give us information and advice for our assistance in deciding whether or not this bill goes far enough, but so that we could question the representatives of drug companies as to their part and their performance in this whole story. In fact, I thintr it will add up to a clear realization that they should put up substantial sums of money to help the people who are victims of this mistake.
As a matter of fact, the whole question of the profits the drug companies made out of marketing these hundreds of new drugs every year, out of the gullibility of the public as the minister said for a pill to deal with any ailment, is something which I feel calls for a very thorough study. If I thought that the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the inquiry conducted by that commission would cover this whole question, one could of course wait for that. However,
I suspect that is not the case, that that report will be more in line with the terms of the Combines Investigation Act. In other words, it will be more on the question of whether or not there is a combination amongst the drug companies to fix prices. I think we should be inquiring as to the practices, procedures and motives in bringing new drugs on to the market. We should be inquiring into the profits that are made out of standard

Food and Drugs Act
drugs and out of new drugs so we could form some opinion in the committee as to whether we could improve this bill, whether or not the drug companies have a financial responsibility to the country as a whole, to the people that make it possible for them to make the huge profits that they accumulate.
As I have already said, my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) will have something to say about a very famous person who was born in his constituency. I do not wish to deal with that, other than to say that it seems pretty clear it was not just an accident that in some countries they stopped the marketing of this drug sooner than we did, and that in other countries they completely prohibited the marketing of it. From my reading of the story in various publications, it seems that they had more facilities in other countries to do this than was the case here. In saying that I do not place blame on the particular individuals in the food and drug directorate. We must simply face the fact that there were not enough of them.
As I understand the situation, there are five, six or seven people whose job it is to decide on 200 or more new drugs each year, and if many of the manufacturers make submissions covering over 500 pages, as was the case with thalidomide, it is a wonder these people are able to do their job at all. Nevertheless, there must have been more vigilance and more staff in other countries, and I hope that will soon be the position here.
A number of us wish to put questions about some of the details in the sections of this bill but perhaps we had better wait until we deal with the bill in one committee or the other. The minister has commented on the things that the provisions in this bill provide. In that connection some of us were a bit concerned about what was happening to LSD, but the minister's statement has given us reassurance that he is trying to have regard to the things he mentioned at the commencement of his speech, in other words that he is trying to protect the public against anything that is dangerous and yet at the same time not deny to the public any benefit of scientific research that should be made available to it. We can go into this more fully in the committee stage.
All I wish to say now is that on our behalf we welcome the bill. We are glad to see the procedures being tightened up, thus enabling the department better to control the putting of new drugs on the market and to require more tests than has been the case in the past. I am still puzzled how it was that the government found it possible to withdraw permission for this drug in April but could not find it possible to do so in December. At any
[Mr. KnowlesJ
rate that sort of thing is being improved by this bill. We welcome it and we hope the attention brought to bear on this incident will prevent further tragedies of this kind.
I support wholeheartedly the proposition that this bill should be examined by a standing or special committee so that we can get the benefit of advice and information and decide where blame and responsibility lies, and then take those steps that will ensure this sort of thing will not happen again. In conclusion I repeat what I believe to be the case, that I think Canadians from coast to coast will want to see everything that is necessary and everything that is possible done, no matter how great the cost, to assist the victims and the families who were involved in the unfortunate thalidomide tragedy.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, thalidomide is no longer the name of a drug; it is the name of a tragedy that forces one to think of the accidental deaths of hundreds of children across Canada every year.
In a discussion involving drugs we should spend a few minutes in retrospect reviewing objectively new drugs that have been introduced over the last 30 years in this country. No one will deny that millions of people now living owe their lives to those drugs, yet doctors use drugs that are indispensable every day in practice, and which are life saving, even though many such drugs cause side effects and even death in the case of a susceptible patient.
I can recall the drug sulfanilamide when it was first introduced. In fact I remember using it. It was a drug designed to kill the dreaded streptococcus germ, and I recall erysipelas and puerperal septicemia and a host of other diseases which were killing in their effect. When this new life saving drug came out, overnight these diseases were conquered, but the reactions caused by the drug were such that some patients died from the drug itself. I recall very well one lady who was a friend of mine, who got over her infection, which probably would have killed her anyway, only to die from the side effects of the drug; and unfortunately there were too many cases like that.
We must always assess the good done against the harm done, lives that are saved against the lives that are lost by the use of drugs. Naturally drugs are not used that cause severe side effects for very long.
Many of us recall the breakthrough that came very dramatically with the discovery of penicillin. The first case I used it on was that of a young man who was dying of pneumonia. We had to use the drug every three hours

in a watery solution. It was terrifically painful but its discovery was one of the great breakthroughs in medical history, and I may add in passing that the man treated with it got better. A host of diseases were met and conquered by this drug. I can particularly remember one of those diseases, lobar pneumonia, most of the victims of which were strong, virile people between the ages of 15 to 24, and when men died from it in many cases they left their families without any provision at all. Yet that drug overnight cut the mortality rate of that disease from 20 per cent to less than 3 per cent. In other words we saved 17 more out of every 100.
In this disease the economic factor was also startling because most of the people struck down by it were in the prime of life. Many of them had small families, but yet this great drug can and does occasionally kill, by side effects, the very people it is intended to save. It can cause distress and sickness but the good it does far outweighs the harm.
I have seen aspirin reactions on a couple of occasions that were very violent; yet anyone can go down to the corner drug store and buy aspirin over the counter. People have died from the side effects of it. At this point I wish to refer to an article I picked up the other day referring to a report in Australia where the C.M.A. compiled a list of dangerous drugs. The article states:
This time, it was for phenacetin, a pain-killer element in many headache powders and tablets sold widely in Canada without prescription.
Australia placed phenacetin on a prescription-only basis after 53 deaths in a Sydney hospital in a two-year period were linked to kidney damage caused by over-use of the drug. Sweden put phenacetin medicines on a prescription basis two years ago.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, one can go into a drug store at any time and buy that drug. The point I am making is that if we took all drugs off the market which cause reactions of one kind or another we would doom millions of people to premature deaths. Let us always remember that the physician in daily practice prescribes drugs which could cause death in a susceptible individual. To recapitulate: the ruling out of all drugs which cause reactions of one kind or another would be impossible. It would doom millions of people to premature death, and the economic loss to a country such as Canada would be staggering. The cost would be not only loss of life, but suffering, disease and disability. The doctors and those in allied professions would be reduced to a status not much superior to that of the witchdoctors. Medicine would deteriorate and decay.
All reputable drug firms try to establish the side reactions which any drug may cause.
Food and Drugs Act
It would be disastrous for them to do otherwise. They spend millions of dollars on developing drugs and testing them in animal laboratories and then on controlled human beings so that the product will do the job as advertised without serious side effects as far as possible. If the drug is not as reported, not only will they lose their investment in it, but their reputation as well. I recall one drug which was taken off the market-and there are numerous drugs taken off each year. This was withdrawn after a report from a well-known and established clinic. After further study, however, it was found that this drug was so useful and so life saving that it was put back on the market, bearing on the label the possible side effects which had been noted. We may say, then, that all drugs are checked and rechecked before being marketed. The manufacturing companies must do this because their financial life depends upon it.
It might be opportune to compare our system with the system which operates in Russia where there is state control and where quality control by policing via an external inspection system has been a failure, I learn. In one report it was stated that 112 drugs were tested, 75 per cent of which were found to be substandard. This would indicate that the responsibility must remain with the people who make the drugs and who depend upon its success for a living.
The particular drug in question was checked in England and admitted for sale. Merrell and Company checked it and were the distributors on this side of the water. In all, they submitted a 500-page brief, plus four years of testing and two years of widespread use in Canada. The product was admitted under the Food and Drugs Act on prescription only as a tranquilizer and sedative. At this time there were 20 million tablets a month being sold in Germany and over six million a month in the United Kingdom. Some time late in 1960, cases of peripheral neuritis were noted and recommendations were made later for the discontinuance of the drug if neuritic pains were present or persistent. As has been mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, many drugs do cause neuritic pains. It was about this time that an increasing number of deformities in babies was noted in Germany, and at a meeting in Bonn this subject came up among the doctors, several of whom had noted this increase. As the subject was discussed it became evident that many of the deformities were of a particular type, arms often being like seal flippers and legs shortened, there often being a flattened face and a birthmark on the forehead. It has been known for some time that mutations occur from viruses. A good example

Food and Drugs Act
is German measles. Other causes include radiation, drugs and accidents during pregnancy. This was, and is, about the height of our knowledge.
As the cases became increasingly numerous, studies were made, and it is interesting to note that at one point one of the investigators almost decided that drugs had nothing to do with the deformities. Then, accidentally, thalidomide became suspect. By this time nearly
5,000	deformed babies had been born, with a 50 per cent mortality. Britain has between 600 and 700 suffering from various degrees of deformity.
From the research work done, it appears that the drug propably exercises its damaging effect in the second month of pregnancy. Is thalidomide alone responsible for the increase in deformity at birth? No one really knows at the moment. What we do know is that everything medical science can do for those little unfortunates must be done-and orthopedics offers a lot more today than it did a few years back. We must give these little children a chance to live and strive in this world with their handicaps. Above all, we must educate the parents to accept them-and this must be done in a world whose moral disabilities are much greater than all the physical disabilities from which it suffers.
To summarize: This drug was brought out as a sedative and tranquilizer, and that is the only use it had. There were no ill effects from it on that basis except a little neuritis. It was brought into Canada on November 25, 1960 on a prescription basis only. I think we should take note of this, because thalidomide is still in use, I believe, in England on a prescription basis in the hospitals. On April 1 it was noticed that some people on the drug had developed peripheral neuritis. Nothing had been definitely established in the literature as to this.
On October 11, Horner of Montreal advised discontinuing the drug if neuritis persisted. On November 20, 1961, sources in West Germany stated their suspicion that this well-known sedative and tranquilizer might be the cause of malformations. On November 26, 1961, the Grunerthal Drug Company withdrew the drug in Germany. On November 28, the West German minister of health announced that thalidomide was suspected of being the main factor in phocomelia.
On December 1, 1961, Horner and Merrell met with Dr. Morrell of the food and drug directorate here in Ottawa. I want to say that Dr. Morrell is a man with 32 years of experience and a man who is well known across Canada for his sagacity. On December 7, 1961 each company mailed out warnings to druggists, to doctors and to hospitals not

to give this drug to pregnant women or to premenopausal women. I think we should remember that this drug was also sold in Canada on a prescription basis. The situation is altogether different in Germany and in England, where it is sold as a counter drug. I think we must keep this in mind in the assessment, and that doctors use drugs every day, as I pointed out, which are not only life saving but can kill as well.
Now, how will you place responsibility on this drug? The type of deformity may help you a little and indicate the drug. Everything possible should be done by this country to raise those little children to their maximum performance. It is interesting to note that, as we go back and read the literature in this particular case, in Germany radioactive fallout was currently thought to be the cause of all this trouble, until the drug thalidomide was proven to be more than a casual acquaintance. I think they are things we must keep in mind.
Are there other factors concerned? Every manufacturing firm will check and re-check as far as research knows. Perhaps this tragedy of today may put us on the road of research which will stop growths and other diseases; and the tragedy of today, and the price that these little children and their parents will pay, may turn this after all into a triumph for medical science. I feel sure that Bill C-3 will increase the surveillance of, and care and caution with drugs, particularly when those drugs are new, but also with older drugs. Because, as I said before, we have the case that aspirin and phenacetin can now not be bought in Australia or Sweden except on prescription. New drugs will perhaps be tried out in institutions under close observation for their results and side effects, and all the knowledge from those studies made available to an international body or pool.
World science today is reaching such a stage that we must not only pool that knowledge but must take the knowledge we can use so that it will be made available to all the countries of the world who want it. After that is done there should be a pooling of this information which should come from careful study and observation in our hospitals where the drug has been tested out by the firms involved, and as I stated before they have their financial lives at stake.
They have their reputations at stake. I know of no stronger deterrent to a good performance than that. After they have done all this research work, it should then be turned over to a group of doctors in a hospital, where closely observed studies will be made of the clinical response to this drug

in a controlled group. Then after that is done, this information should be pooled and made available to an international body. The minister of health has been able to avail himself of the work of a committee appointed by the college of physicians and surgeons, in the persons of Dr. Dufresne of Montreal, Dr. Sellars of the University of Toronto, and Dr. Brien of the University of Western Ontario. They are now studying the whole problem. They will make suggestions for the better control of the whole problem, which proposals can be added to existing regulations. In conclusion, I want to congratulate all levels of government, federal and provincial, on their attitude of doing everything within their power to help those little unfortunates.


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, although I do not have the technical or medical qualifications of some of the previous hon. members who have spoken, my interest and participation in this thalidomide tragedy through which we have gone in this country was, I believe, one of the earliest. At the outset I should like to bring to the attention of all hon. members of the house what I had the privilege of saying in my maiden speech when I was speaking of the thalidomide tragedy. I said at that time that "this whole affair is too personal a grief for the thalidomide families for any party in this house to attempt to use it in any manner as a weapon with which to pound the government, and I suggest that anyone who would endeavour to do so would bring upon himself the disgust of all decent people". 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.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that at this time I should put on record some of the things which happened as far as I personally was concerned, and recount the efforts I made on a bipartisan basis, which met with some success owing to the fact that they were made on a bipartisan and non-political basis. I think it is time to put some of these things on record so that at no time in the future will any hon. member of this house feel that this tragedy can be used as a springboard for criticism in what I consider to be an unfair manner.
As far back as July 29 I wired the Prime Minister, having been brought in personal
Food and Drugs Act
touch with the thalidomide tragedy through constituents of mine, a young couple who were one of the first victims in the Toronto area, I believe. I wired the Prime Minister and said:
Urgently request your direct interest and intervention in thalidomide babies tragedy. I have personally investigated one of these cases in my constituency of York Centre and am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that immediate and continuing measures for the correction of this developing tragedy is a national responsibility. Young mothers who, in good faith, used this government-approved drug must of necessity look to that same government for assistance. Without attaching blame to anyone, let us now all accept the fact that a mistake has been made and proceed to correct it in so far as material assistance can do so. The parents of these babies have a lifetime of special care and responsibility in helping their child fit into a world of physically whole people. The rest of Canada through its government can help in a number of other ways. I suggest that the government take the lead in immediately organizing small regional committees of volunteer doctors, drug company representatives and national health officials to arrange and carry out, on a permanent basis, clinical treatment and rehabilitation care for these babies. I will make myself available in any capacity in which you may feel I can be of assistance.
I received a reply from the Prime Minister and I came to Ottawa. I cannot be accused of being uncritical of the government in other areas. However, I am happy to report to the house that the Prime Minister made it possible for an immediate meeting with the minister of health at which time I presented a brief on some of the things that I felt might be brought up at the conference of health officials from the various provinces. It is on this level that I feel we must deal with the thalidomide business. I would hope that we have now heard the last of the talk of who is to blame and of what happened back in July. I hope that those who have just agreed with my last remarks may agree with my future remarks. I am still pressing for the government at the national level to take the full, final and ultimate responsibility to see that the program of rehabilitation will be carried out as the prime responsibility of our federal government.
In my brief which I submitted to Dr. Cameron who was convening the provincial and federal welfare officials meeting I made reference to the following points, and I should like to put them on record:
1.	The assurance that the national government will lead and direct, with the co-operation of all concerned-including the drug companies involved-a national plan of assistance, care and rehabilitation which will be greeted with a sigh of relief by the growing number of confused and frantic parents.
2.	Only the national government has the power, strength and authority that may be

Food and Drugs Act
necessary to ensure the co-operation of the involved drug companies in an adequate participation in the program of assistance on a long term basis.
3.	Only at the national level can the victims of thalidomide be assured of equal and standard treatment in all parts of Canada. Only the dominion government has the power to ensure that every one of the stricken children, whether born in a big city or in a Newfoundland outpost, receives all the help that science can provide.
4.	The early acceptance at the national level of the responsibility of being the prime mover and leader when a national program of assistance will halt the growing public panic, deep personal distress and political controversy.
5.	The acceptance of national responsibility will relieve the mental anguish of doctors as well as their patients, and mothers whose babies are yet to be born.
6.	Parents of thalidomide babies know what the future holds for them by way of special devotion and care, as well as a lifetime of heartache on behalf of their child. They must be assured that society will relieve them of the additional burden of years of calamitous medical expense and hospitalization, to say nothing of future educational responsibilities. The national government is the best agency to assure them of the continuity of this assistance.
7.	Only the national government can assure that thalidomide babies are not dealt with as welfare cases. Some of the parents of these deformed babies are middle income wage earners. They must not be faced with financial screening or a means test that will strip them of any financial resources they may have. Neither should they have to look to charitable institutions and fund drives for assistance. These parents are the unwitting custodians of the consequences of a national crisis. This is an entirely different matter than other cases of malformation in birth. If the latter is termed an "act of God" then maybe the thalidomide cases can be termed an "act of man".
8.	Let no one ever forget that doctors and pregnant patients alike have grown accustomed over the years to accepting the national government stamp of approval as a guarantee of the safety of all products so approved. If this was an erroneous conclusion, then I believe it is up to the government through parliament to see that this impression is corrected. As far as drug administration is concerned, it is publicly accepted that the national government, which administers the act, must logically assume the consequences of that administration.

The suggestion that a bad precedent would be set if the national government took prime responsibility for thalidomide cases is invalid. I submit that suggestion is invalid, Mr. Speaker, because the thalidomide disaster is an unprecedented situation. Surely we can look forward, as I believe we shall be able to do with the changes that may be made in the drug act, with some comfort to the thought that the thalidomide tragedy will not be repeated.
In the year ended June 30, 1962, the net profits of Richardson-Merrell Inc. Drug Company rose to $17,250,000 from the previous year's profit of $17,025,000. A substantial annual contribution to assist in relieving the disastrous effects of one of their products could very easily be set aside from such profits or from their massive advertising budget.
I may say that I have spoken to a number of doctors in connection with this matter. In the competitive drug market I know it is necessary to promote and to advertise. However, in case the drug companies are not aware of it, I should like to tell them that many hundreds of dollars worth of their advertising material goes in the wastepaper basket in the doctors' offices. I believe that hon. members who have had the opportunity of speaking to their own family doctors will agree with this statement. Possibly some of this money could and should be used and included in the national government's program if they will become the prime mover in this thing.
I also felt that national government leadership would do away with any possibility of jurisdictional disputes at some future date between provincial and municipal administrations. Suppose a parent who has a thalidomide baby now in one of our provinces, by virtue of the fact that the father gets a job, is obliged to move to another province. Suppose province "A" gives assistance to thalidomide victims. Suppose they have a program under which the federal government is contributing, I understand, 50 per cent of the cost. However, suppose this Canadian must move to another province which may not have such a participating scheme. This is one of the things I should like to suggest to the minister that he must take into consideration when we are thinking in terms of this overall program of assistance for the thalidomide babies.
As a result of the programs that the various health officials from the provinces are working on, I understand they are coming together again some time fairly soon to have their talks with the federal health officials. I am hopeful that the minister will feel that this is the time, at these coming talks, to go into

the points covered in my brief, and with the support of the government officials, once again bring to the attention of these provincial health officials the possible flaws in the operation of some of the plans that are now being worked out in the provinces. I am also hopeful that he will put forward the view that I believe most citizens of this country feel most hon. members take, namely that there must be some way of assuring the co-operation of the drug companies involved in some type of annual participation in this program. I know there are constitutional difficulties.
I know there are difficulties in persuading people to do certain things, but I submit to the minister that public opinion at this time may well be standing behind any recommendations he wishes to make to this coming meeting with regard to drug company participation in the expense of a rehabilitation program.
I have one further thought to present and I mentioned this in my maiden speech. I referred to red tape and the government moving slowly. It certainly does not add to my impatience to see how slowly these things move but I should like to say that in my own province the provincial officials are doing a very thorough job in connection with this matter. With regard to one case in which I was particularly interested I have now been informed by the health officials that the child is to go to the hospital on November 15 for the beginning of these treatments. I understand that it takes time to do this thing thoroughly and properly but the machinery is beginning to operate. I again wish to leave with the minister the thought that the responsibility for the ultimate success of this program rests at the federal level and it is only with the federal government acting as the prime mover and taking the ultimate responsibility that we can assure the success of our program for the thalidomide victims.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I share the view of all members of the house that it will be with great relief and satisfaction that the people of Canada will greet this legislation after the thalidomide tragedy of last summer. I do not wish in any way to prolong the debate or to delay the passage of the bill. My purpose in rising is to call attention to and to pay tribute to the services of an outstanding lady in this thalidomide tragedy. I refer, of course, to Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey of the United States food and drug administration who is a native of my own constituency on Vancouver island and of whom we are extremely proud today. The painstaking care with which Dr. Kelsey examined the medical reports from overseas
Food and Drugs Act
and the stubborn courage and determination with which she resisted pressures to permit the drug to go on the United States market saved countless thousands of American parents from the tragedy that unfortunately befell some Canadian parents and many European parents.
The President of the United States has recognized Dr. Kelsey's outstanding services in a recent investiture and I think it only appropriate that we in this house should record our pride in the outstanding services to our American neighbours of one who is a native daughter of Canada. We can perhaps only regret that the opportunity did not exist at that time for a person of similar capacities to perform a similar service for the people of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, before talking to this very important bill, I would like first to express the gratefulness the members of the medical profession feel towards the staff of the food and drug directorate.
In my opinion, that measure should not challenge the qualifications and the efficiency of the members of the directorate who have given eloquent proof of their interest and loyalty when it comes to protecting public health, within the Department of National Health and Welfare. In my opinion, the minister (Mr. Monteith) administers the affairs of his department with dispatch and efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, while studying this bill, we think of course of the tragedy that resulted in the birth of deformed babies, and especially of the mothers who have been the victims of that drug known under the general name of thalidomide. Thalidomide has been a source of great sorrow in more than one Canadian family. Therefore, I am sure that the people and the members of this house offer them publicly their sympathy, with the hope that better days are in store for them in a near future.
We must also congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare for taking immediate steps in order to give to the families which have suffered from the effects of that drug, some security, or, at least, some financial help which they have the right to expect. The minister shows once again that under his leadership his department is run in a competent, prompt and efficient manner.
The use of thalidomide has been a tragic experience in Canada, but especially in many countries of Europe.
You all know as well as I do, that absolutism in the field of drugs is a utopia and that secondary reactions of a drug are positively established only after continued clin-

Food and Drugs Act
ical tests. In fact, it is only through clinical tests in live bodies that we can positively establish the pathological and physiological effects of any drug.
Naturally, the medical profession was warned that a secondary effect called peripheral neuritis was reported in certain countries after that drug had been used. However, there was some doubt as to the relation between its secondary effects and such an unqualified statement. It is this uncertainty which made it impossible for medical authorities, the various departments and health organizations to establish positively without delay that peripheral neuritis was caused by the use of thalidomide.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing absolute about the drug. To achieve an absolute pharmaceutical synthesis of a drug, it must pass a series of tests at the hands of pharmaceutical chemists, bacteriologists, pathologists, and several other scientists who can, thanks to their knowledge and competence, determine the circumstances in which any drug can be safely used.
When a new drug is put on the market, the public must be sure that its use is safe or, at least that everything has been done to ensure that consumption is safe. That is precisely the point on which we must insist. This unfortunate business about thalidomide should not be discussed in such a way that the public will lose its confidence in drugs, doctors and specialists in related fields.
It is well known that before being put on the market, a new drug must undergo clinical tests, which are technically known as "in vitro" and "in vivo". In addition, the Department of National Health and Welfare must establish regulations governing its use to protect public health.
Bill C-3 which is before us today and which has a four-fold object aims exactly at ensuring almost total security for the Canadian population, in regard to the use of drugs.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, first tends to restrain a too easy distribution of drug samples, as was formerly permitted in the act. Such a distribution of drug samples offered a danger. As a matter of fact, drug companies sent to a doctor or to several of them, on one or on many occasions, large quantities of drug samples which evaded the control to which every medical prescription is submitted. And the druggist-I know from experience because I am a member of this profession-the druggist, who was himself subject to a strict
[Mr. Valade.l
supervision could not control the drug samples freely distributed on the drug market.
Now this act which forbids the uncontrolled distribution of medical samples affords better protection to the people's health.
The second object of this bill is to give the government, and more particularly the food and drugs directorate, the required authority to prevent the sale of certain drugs. Such authority did not exist under the former legislation and that was the cause of frequent puzzles and headaches for those who were interested in the medical and pharmacal professions.
Therefore, I am happy to see that the department has granted the directorate such authority which will enable it to take immediate action to prevent the occurrence of a situation similar to the thalidomide crisis.
The third object of this act is to authorize the enactment of regulations governing the introduction of new drugs.
This section in the act is very important because it deals specifically with drugs similar to thalidomide which might have escaped the control of medical science. Under this section, the government authorities have absolute control on any new drugs put on the Canadian market.
The fourth object of the act is to increase the number of drugs which might be completely banned. Such a complete list allows doctors, pharmacists, veterinary surgeons, dentists and all other members of paramedical occupation to know what drugs are prohibited on the Canadian market. The existing situation is a source of trouble for those professionals, because they must determine whether a given new drug can be prescribed under the existing system.
Mr. Speaker, the risks of drug therapy are well-known. All those who are interested in medical and para-medical professions know it. Anyway, thalidomide is not the first drug which has caused trouble or mishaps when applied. You will remember that in 1937, when the sulpha drugs appeared on the market, there were some secondary effects which caused the death of a certain number of people in this country, and I would even say to a rather considerable number of people. Those effects were due to the crystallization of the sulpha drugs in the kidneys which, while impeding their function, caused the patients' death, as a secondary effect.

Yet, the drug was not withdrawn from the market at that time, because, while having pernicious secondary effects, it could also bring considerable relief in some cases of grampositive and gramnegative infection.
Mr. Speaker, there was, also in 1940, the introduction of penicillin, the benefits of which are not to be doubted. Yet the use of penicillin also brings about secondary reactions which in some cases have noxious and sometimes even lethal side effects.
You are surely aware of the rapid evolution of the new and modern antibiotics, among which streptomycin came out in 1946, corticosteroid and aureomycin in 1949. All those drugs belong to a modern medical service which relieves the patients and heals some of the most resistant infections and prevents death. Those drugs also considerably shorten the convalescence period and frequently prevent secondary reactions which might drag out a patient's convalescence for the rest of his days, if he had not taken those wonder drugs.
Mr. Speaker, can the government be held responsible for the effects of thalidomide? I say, like every right thinking person, that the government may not directly or indirectly be held responsible for such a situation because, as I said, those drugs have no absolute effect. Even if they are submitted to a rather rigid control, nobody is able to guarantee an absolute effect, when it is a matter of drugs.
The government may not be held morally responsible, because the required clinical tests are entrusted to responsible medical bodies, to scientists who take all the necessary precautions, and the findings of their research are submitted to the directorate of foods and drugs in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) has shown a great deal of objectivity in his contribution to the discussion, and especially when he haid:
In the present discussion, there is no room for statements based on partisanship.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member sits in the opposition, I ask him to state unequivocally, for all those who want to hear it, that there is no room for partisanship in this unfortunate situation. That is why I have tried to be as objective as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the drug companies referred to a moment ago deserve the gratitude of the
Dissolution of Marriage medical and paramedical world for the efforts they have made in the field of research and development of new drugs.
In a report entitled "Facts about pharmaceutical marketing", which I suggest hon. members should read, I find the following on page 10:
(Text):
A study of mortality tables for North America over the past 20 years is indicative of the more obvious benefits of modern pharmaceuticals. For pneumonia, the mortality rate has dropped 61 per cent; rheumatic fever fatalities have declined 41 per cent; appendicitis 76 per cent and the combined mortality rate for tonsillitis and pharyngitis has gone down 66 per cent. Bacterial endocarditis, a heart infection, once inevitably meant death. Now, through massive doses of penicillin, many people who previously would have died are walking around living healthy, happy, useful lives.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would have many more remarks regarding this bill, but I agree with all previous speakers that every essential point has been covered.
I am most happy about the introduction of this bill by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I hope it will meet with the approval of the house.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, not being familiar with the rules I am just wondering about the procedure. I should like to speak briefly for five or ten minutes on the bill, and I am wondering if we will have the opportunity to continue the debate on Monday next.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock, or do you prefer that I start my remarks on the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: With great deference neither you nor I have any choice. It being five o'clock we shall now pass on to private members' business-public bills and then subsequently private bills.



DIVORCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-12, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.
He said: Mr. Speaker, parliament has been continually and incessantly involved in this particular matter of social reform both in a practical and philosophic way for a great number of years. Many new members may

Dissolution of Marriage wonder why parliament is involved in this matter of divorce to the extent in which it is, and I believe a very short historical resume would be in order.
When the British North America Act was passed the jurisdiction for marriage and divorce was given by constitution to the federal government, and at the time of confederation those areas which were provinces already in existence were able to carry with them the laws that were in effect at that time in Great Britain. This means that most of our provinces carry the laws that were in effect in Great Britain before 1867. It also means that one of our provinces, Nova Scotia, has more liberal grounds for divorce than those in the other provinces of Canada because of an experiment tried in Great Britain at the time of the granting of colonial status to the province of Nova Scotia. This gave to Nova Scotia the ground of cruelty as a cause for divorce in addition to that of adultery. This provision has not been used to any great extent over the years, but it has been applied in a number of cases in that province.
At the outset may I say I am pleased with the fact that our group has grown over the last few years, and we are now completely united in our efforts to see that this social injustice being perpetrated on the Canadian people will be discontinued. Our chances of achieving this are much better in that the party to which I belong is pledged to seeing that the abuses which have taken place in this social field will be eliminated to the extent which parliament considers itself capable of so doing.


Mr. McCleave:: They must be planning to hang you then.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think the members of our caucus are planning to hang me, as some hon. member has said. This is farther from the truth than has been the case over the past years. Actually what I am saying is that there are not just two people interested in this problem. All the members of the caucus in the New Democratic party are interested in it and are going to press for the removal of the injustices now taking place that are the responsibility of the federal government.
Before discussing this particular bill it might be interesting to note that there are solutions to the problem. Solutions have been implemented over the years by other people in other countries. Suggestions have been made and accepted, with the result that most of our sister commonwealth nations within the last 10 to 15 years have developed much more satisfactory codes to meet the conditions of the modern age in which we live, much more satisfactory than what we have in Canada.

If hon. members look at the bill which I have on the order paper I believe they will find it meets needs of today that are not being met by the present legislation of the federal government.
An article appeared in Chatelaine in April 1961, which I should like to quote. It was dealing with this matter of divorce, and the hypocrisy of divorce in Canada, and referred to some of the suggestions I have incorporated in this bill.
It stated that the reason the Peter's bill was not passed by the last parliament was because I was a member of a minority party in opposition to the government, and therefore my private member's bill did not have a chance. However, the electorate have now taken care of that matter. Not only am I a member of a minority party but the government of today is a minority government. The minorities, in my opinion, can afford to unite on this very important social matter which affects the lives of many of our citizens in an individual sense, and which affects the laws of our land in their relation to men, women and children who are affected by this particular social problem.
One of the great advocates of change in divorce legislation was Sir A. P. Herbert, the English barrister who as a member of the United Kingdom House of Commons in the thirties managed almost singlehandedly to bring about reform in the United Kingdom. He said:
More importance is attached to ten minutes of fleshly infidelity than to three years desertion or a lifetime of cruelty.
That statement is as applicable to Canada today as it was to Britain 30 years ago. Our refusal to widen the grounds for divorce causes misery to thousands of Canadians.
Speaking on the subject before, I have always pointed out that I did not agree that in broadening the grounds for divorce in this legislation we were really extending the grounds beyond any which exist at the present time. The Senate, with whom we work as partners in these proceedings, has a set of rules governing the granting of divorces. However, people could come before parliament and be granted a divorce at any time on any grounds. Rather than line up in the corridors of the Senate and be directed by their counsel as to what to say and what not to say, they could appear before the representatives of that august body and tell them exactly why they did want divorce and why they thought it should be granted. It would still be within the power of parliament to grant them divorce on exactly those grounds. The present procedure only follows the rules of a committee set up to give guidance; it is only in this way that we have

arrived at the single ground of adultery as being the single admissible ground for a divorce petition.
It is interesting to note those who oppose the recognition of what might, in fact, be the real grounds for granting a divorce have always said that any extension of the grounds is a bad thing in itself. For this reason it would be interesting to read from the statement made by Lord Birkenhead in the United Kingdom House of Commons when this subject was before that body prior to the amendments which took place in 1920. This was on the second reading of the matrimonial causes bill:
It is proper that I should make plain at the outset what is the attitude adopted by the government in relation to this bill. On this point their view is that, upon a subject which so much perplexes the conscience of individuals, it would not be proper that the government should give such direction as is afforded by putting the government whips in charge of the division. Therefore, all members of the government in the house, and if the measure should so far proceed as to be considered in another place, in that place also, will be free to speak and to vote in accordance with their own views.
r highly commend that suggestion to the government of the day and to hon. members supporting all political parties represented in this house. There is a great deal to be said for bringing the individual conscience into this matter, particularly when there are those present who know of the flagrant abuses which are taking place in Canada today.
Lord Birkenhead, speaking later on of certain views which Lord Gorell adopted, quoted a paragraph written by the latter and contained in a submission made in a report, by a commission, to the government of that day. In that report Lord Gorell had declared on behalf of himself and the majority of his colleagues:
-that divorce is not a disease but a remedy for a disease, that homes are not broken up by a court but by causes to which we have already sufficiently referred, and that the law should be such as would give relief where serious causes intervene, which are generally and properly recognized as leading to the break-up of married life. If a reasonable law, based upon human needs, be adopted, we think that the standard of morality will be raised and regard for the sanctity of marriage increased. Public opinion will be far more severe upon those who refuse to conform to a reasonable law than it is when that law is generally regarded (as we infer from the evidence) as too harsh, and as not meeting the necessities of life.
Lord Birkenhead then went on to describe exactly the conditions and attitudes which he believed stood in the way of desirable changes in the divorce laws.
The real controversy in this house today is what the real controversy has been at any given moment for 350 years when divorce has been discussed in this house; and if we strip away the rhetorical
Dissolution of Marriage
devices with which every one who has followed the history of this subject is familiar, it is between those who believe that marriage ought to be indissoluble for any reason and those who do not hold that belief. This is the only controversy on principle. You can create any number of controversies on points of detail, but the only controversy on principle is between those who, if they told you openly and plainly that which they thought and that which they would secure if they had the power, say that for no reason should matrimony, which is a sacrament, be dissolved, and those who do not share that view.
He went on to say, speaking of two people in particular who were opposed to the changes suggested at that time-and, of course, these included the prelate, the Archbishop of York-
I have no doubt that both of them, if at this moment, they had the power to turn the clock back, would restore the law to the condition in which it was over 300 years ago, and would enact that on no ground whatever should marriage be dissolved.
Later in his speech, Lord Birkenhead goes on to deal with the history of divorce and the attempts made to introduce reforms. It is interesting to note that adultery as the sole ground for divorce originated early in the nineteenth century in Great Britain, not because this was a popular thing or an unpopular thing; it was simply in order that the very rich might be able to take advantage of the provision. I think the point has validity here in Canada where it is possible to buy a divorce very easily if people have enough money to meet the requirements of the day, though because of the limitation of our laws many factors which a social worker, for example, might regard as highly undesirable are not taken into consideration.
Lord Birkenhead went on to mention the problems confronting King Henry VIII, the procedure governing divorce in the seventeenth century and the limitations which have always been placed on the common people. Legislation was being provided for the rich, he said, while no relief was being offered to the poor. He did not accept that. He accepted, as we do, the principle that divorce should be available to all who believe in it, but that it should not be forced upon those who did not.
I find it interesting, in this regard, to note that many of those who have come before parliament to seek divorce during the years in which I have been here expressed the view that although they were of a faith which did not believe in divorce they were able to make use of our present proceedings because they were of the opinion that such decisions were to be taken by the individual in full knowledge of the many pitfalls his action would involve. It is not only the British house of commons which has had to give consideration to this matter. Australia has

Dissolution of Marriage changed its divorce laws, and so has New Zealand. Great Britain has recently changed its laws again.
With regard to the bill before the house,
I take little credit for proposing the individual clauses. They are clauses which in my opinion would apply to Canada as they have applied, and are being applied, to the laws of our sister commonwealth countries, and are the result of the deliberations of committees of, and studies which have been made in, those countries. I believe we have respected those opinions, which would be different from mine, and have given to the individual all the protection that a court and this house would be able to afford him.
I think it is interesting to note some of the editorials on this topic. In the days when they were changing the laws in England, in the early twenties, the Anglican church took a certain position. But since that time both in England and in Canada these positions have changed. Many of the churches have met together and agreed that, in the social field, a great step forward should be taken to allow for the complexity of society as we know it today, and the problems which probably did not arise when the canon law originally applied. I think it is interesting to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail and was reprinted in the Northern Daily News on August 31, 1961, concerning a convention which was being held by the Anglican church in Kingston, Ontario. This editorial, in part, said:
The Anglicans' concern over the hardships caused by a church canon which many of their number consider outmoded reflects a growing demand for divorce reform in this country. Their practical and reasonable attitude toward change should set an example for parliament, which has consistently failed to face the realities of divorce and by its inaction has perpetuated the kind of hypocrisy the Anglican clergy has recognized and will endeavor to eliminate.
At every session, regardless of what government is in power, Parliament shamefacedly sets itself up as a divorce mill to rush through divorce petitions from Quebec and Newfoundland-the two provinces without divorce courts-that have been shunted along from a Senate committee. A year ago, in answer to widespread criticism of this practice, the government promised some reforms, but these turned out to be merely a rejuggling between the house and the Senate of a responsibility that properly belongs to neither. The obvious and sensible course of removing divorce from parliament and placing it where it belongs, in a federal court, was once more rejected.
Hypocrisy was added to inefficiency when, early this year, a man was sentenced to five years in penitentiary for giving perjured evidence in a divorce case before a Senate subcommittee. Everyone, including parliament and the courts, knows that thousands of Canadians have perjured themselves to obtain a divorce. They have done so because in most provinces only adultery is accepted as legal ground for divorce.
The final responsibility for divorce reform rests with parliament. First it should cease to act

as a court itself, then should introduce the overdue legislative reforms that will recognize other grounds for divorce in addition to adultery-for example, desertion, cruelty and incurable insanity. Nothing less will end the dishonesty that tends to bring parliament into disrepute.
Mr. Speaker, only recently the Globe and Mail carried a further editorial. I have chosen the Globe and Mail in particular because of its adherence to the point of view of the government in most matters, and because I think it would carry more weight with the present government of the day. It is the hope of this newspaper-no, I will not read that, it is complimentary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted him has expired.


Mr. E. M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to follow the hon. member for Timiskaming. I think last time the bill was before the house I had the opportunity of speaking following the hon. member in question. I want first of all to congratulate him on his presentation and on the general aim and purpose of his bill, but I should like at the outset to take issue with him on two or three facts.
I am one of those-and I say this with sincerity and with a sense of humility-who belong to two bar associations, and I have often heard it said that most of the divorces are granted by collusion. Or, as the hon. member said today, you can buy a divorce. I have been practising now at the bar for 20 years and have talked to a lot of lawyers who have made a specialty of divorce law. I have handled a lot of cases myself and have talked to judges on the bench in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, and in other places in Canada. I do not think that divorce can be bought in this country. Second, although there may be cases of collusion- and I will deal with that-I do not believe that the percentage figure of collusive cases often mentioned by the hon. gentleman in the far corner, who is presenting this reform bill with regard to divorce is as high as he likes to maintain. In fact, I would say that there were very few collusive cases.
I admit, we all admit, that it is sometimes difficult to prove adultery, which in most jurisdictions is the only grounds for divorce. At least, there are other grounds, but that is the ground on which most petitions are based. But I come back to the fact that it should be remembered that the lawyers who belong to the law societies of this country are officers of the court, Mr. Speaker, and as officers of the court have certain responsibilities. They have to interview their clients and they have a good idea what the evidence

is, and can generally screen them before they come before the courts. As an example, when a lawyer petitions for divorce on behalf of his client, there is a duty upon him, if the petitioner has himself been guilty of adultery, to disclose that fact to the court, because there is a discretionary bar against the granting of a divorce if the court wants to exercise its discretion accordingly.
I have read newspaper and magazine articles charging that most of our divorces are based on collusive evidence. When the hon. member talks about buying a divorce, I certainly do not buy that statement in any shape or form. But I do go along with the hon. member on this point, that if it is right to have a divorce law at all in Canada, then it is right to have the kind of law which will enable the people of this country to obtain a divorce with dignity, compassion and justice.
Therefore, I should like to break up my address this afternoon into three parts, but before I do so I should like to put this premise before the house. I think you have to look at this question carefully, because as everybody knows it is rather a hot potato in this country, a country of different cultures and different religions. Even in our bill of rights, which was introduced by this government and which was always a matter very dear to the Prime Minister, it is spelled out that we should have freedom of religion. In fact, this freedom was granted to the people in this country even before it was granted to the people in Great Britain. Therefore, first of all we must respect other people's viewpoints. It depends whether you look at the matter from an ecclesiastic viewpoint and whether you say that marriage is a holy union based on the law of God, or whether you say that it is a legal, civil contract. Some people feel that there should not be any divorce at all, that divorce should not be granted by any court or parliament or any other body. But I say in all sincerity that if we are going to have a divorce law in this country it should be the kind of law which will serve the individual with dignity, compassion and justice.
Therefore, as I say, I want to break up my address this afternoon into three parts. First of all, if divorce is right at all in Canada-and I go along with the hon. member in this regard-then we need reform by extending the grounds of divorce. Second, we should do away with having these divorces come before parliament and the other place; I agree with that. Third, the question of jurisdiction, which is based on the domicile of the male spouse-there are some exceptions to that which I will deal with in a moment-should be changed. But I come
Dissolution of Marriage back to my original premise that, if it is right to have a divorce law at all in this country, it should be a law which will serve the individual in this country.
When you analyse it, it is not a new problem. All countries have had this problem. All civilizations have had to face this problem where man and wife have united in marriage and difficulties have arisen. You have only to read chapter 24 of the book of Deuteronomy, and I referred to this the last time I spoke on this bill. This question is dealt with in the Holy Book itself as follows:
1.	When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2.	And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3.	And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4.	Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
So that when we look in the Old Testament we find this was a problem in those times; so it is not a new problem, and certainly not a new problem in Canada.
I agree with A. P. Herbert, who was one of the great reformers in Great Britain who fought for reform of the divorce law, and who based his argument exactly on what we are talking about today, when he said that if divorce is right at all the grounds should be sane grounds in the sense that they serve the average individual in the country. I think he draws a pretty good example on this question at page 17 of the book to which my hon. friend in the corner referred, "Holy Deadlock".
At page 17 he states as follows:
Very odd. And yet the wise and pious state took no trouble at all to prevent the young man from making the mistake, to impose delay between the decision and the fatal step. A decree of divorce was not made absolute until six months after the wise judge had decided that there ought to be a divorce-for fear the wise judge might have made a mistake. But there was no decree nisi for marriage: the foolish young man could tie himself up for life seven days after he had made his decision by walking into a register office and filling up a form or two. Very odd. All those laws and regulations to prevent a man from eating the wrong things, drinking the wrong things, seeing the wrong pictures, reading the wrong books, working in the wrong way-but nothing at all to prevent a man from marrying the wrong wife.
Or put it vice versa. I suppose what he is saying is briefly that the law will forgive you for any error, particularly if you are a

Dissolution of Marriage minor. You cannot enter into most contracts if you are too young. But if you enter into a contract of marriage, then the law says that except in certain circumstances we will disregard, you cannot make a mistake. Coming back to the point of A. P. Herbert, M.P., he was a great reformer and finally brought about reform in this subject in 1937 in England when the grounds for divorce were extended in the way mentioned by my hon. friend in the corner of the chamber.
Now I should like to mention something else, as I was rather enthused by an argument which was presented by one of the Social Credit members the other day who said that probably the place to start reform or to get it started was by amending the B.N.A. Act in its application to divorce and make divorce a provincial responsibility. That might be the place to start. I do not know. But in respect to jurisdiction, there is no questipn as to what the jurisdiction is. I am pleased to read from a book of an old friend of mine from Calgary. I refer to no other than W. Kent Power, Q.C., who has now passed on but who was a very distinguished member of the law society of Alberta and whose book has been used as a reference in all jurisdictions in Canada. It is known as "The Law of Divorce in Canada". He was a top constitutional lawyer and in his opening chapter he says this:
Only the dominion parliament can legislate in relation to the substantive law of divorce. Exclusive jurisdiction over the subject was assigned to parliament by the British North America Act, 1867, sec. 91 (26)-"Marriage and Divorce." Therefore, no provincial legislature or delegate thereof can enact a divorce law where, as in Quebec, none exists, or interfere with the substantive provisions of the law now in force,-
Then he goes on to point out in this chapter, and I have not time in which to read it all, that the law existing in Britain at the time of confederation became the law of some provinces in various fields. For example, we adopted the divorce law, the Matrimonial Causes Act of Great Britain, in Saskatchewan and Alberta when we came into confederation in 1905; and I think the law of England, the Matrimonial Causes Act, is substantially the same law that exists today in Canada, except the act in reference to domicile.
Let us now take a look at the points I have raised. We need reform to extend the grounds for divorce. I am one of those who believe that divorce, if it is right at all in Canada, should be based on grounds other than adultery. I think it should be based on grounds of desertion for one year or two years or maybe longer and also on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. I
[Mr. Woolliams.l
think it should also be based on the grounds that one of the spouses is confined to prison for life or for a longer period of time; and there may be some other grounds including insanity. However, I add this, that I think everybody agrees that the home is the foundation of society. Our Canadian homes are the foundation of Canadian society. In order to create in the minds of young people and other people who are going to get married, a little bit of caution, if we are going to extend these grounds, then we should make certain it is written in the law that no one can come before the courts or any other jurisdiction that has the right to grant a divorce until five years or three years after the marriage. Five years may be too long. Three years may be just the right time. Some have recommended three years and some have said five years. In Britain I believe there is that waiting period.
I also think there are some religious groups and churches which lay the foundation and help young people-and particularly young people-in coming to the right decisions on marriage, and which set up we might almost say marriage clinics based on the ecclesiastical law and the law that we understand, namely God's law. I think it is commendable that churches hold such premarriage clinics. Let us reorient our thinking a little bit for our purpose, first to keep our families together; and all of us wish to keep our families together. If people getting married are given some encouragement in this regard and some education in this field, we prevent people from making wrong marriages; we place the emphasis there at first and then we relieve those people who have made an honest mistake. I go along with the hon. member in that regard.
What about other matters than grounds? I wish to deal with jurisdiction. When I am dealing with that matter I wish to say that there is no question that Mr. Power, who used to speak at service clubs and other places in western Canada and place his argument with force before Canadians, stated that there are thousands of families living in the state of adultery in Canada or at least the parties were not legally married. In fact last year a man from a very respectable family whose people had been in public life-I am not going to mention this person's name-was charged with bigamy. Few people realize that when they go down to the United States and get one of those United States divorces, those divorces in some cases unless that male spouse is domiciled in the United States are illegal. It is true that parliament attempted to relieve this situation some time ago and that the wife can now take action two years after

she is deserted in the domicile where the desertion took place. But for that exception the law works a great hardship on people because it is the domicile of the husband that governs the jurisdiction. Particularly in a country like Canada with 10 provinces the husband may have deserted his wife, may have left the province of Alberta and acquired new domicile in the province of Newfoundland or in another province. In that way that particular female spouse has no remedy or at least the remedy is very difficult. So I feel that on that question of domicile and jurisdiction there should be reform.
I am going to come back to the question of bigamy for a few moments. Bigamy is the act of a person who if married goes through a form of marriage with another person in any part of the world. Many people feel that the offence of bigamy is based on the fact that the person went through a form of marriage in Canada. If spouses go through a form of marriage in the United States and were not legally divorced as far as Canada is concerned because our jurisdiction will not recognize this particular United States divorce then you may be charged with and convicted of bigamy particularly if you knew you were not legally divorced. In this particular case the defendant was acquitted because the crown filed a document of a certain state which states on that document that that spouse was domiciled in that state, and no evidence was presented by the crown that he was actually domiciled in the province of Saskatchewan. That happened to be a technical defence but it succeeded. I draw that analogy in order to show that there are people living under those circumstances and probably unknown. Then there are other serious ramifications because those people have children. They may be illegitimate children. Then there is a question whether they inherit the estate and there are problems all along the line. I say that is another reason why we need reform in this field: Let us clean up the mess.
With reference to the question of proof, as the law stands today the main ground, of course, is adultery. There are other grounds such as sodomy but the main ground is adultery. I want to come back to the question of collusion and deal with that for a few moments. I think the last speaker has the wrong idea of what legal collusion is. There is nothing wrong in having the right kind of agreement. There is nothing wrong in entering into a financial agreement. There is nothing wrong if one spouse says to the other, "I want a divorce". May I suggest that collusion exists where some fraud has occurred or where there is some agreement that is bad in law. For example, if one spouse encourages
Dissolution of Marriage the other to go out and commit adultery, that in itself would be collusion. It would also be collusion if one spouse committed perjury, as my good friend says. It would be perjury if the husband or the wife or one of the witnesses set out certain facts under oath that were wrong.
There is a lot of talk about perjury in divorce actions and I want to deal with that for a few moments. There is no more perjury in divorce actions than there is in any other kind of litigation. For example, let us examine the automobile accident cases. People will get on the stand and both plaintiff and defendant will say that they were on the right side of the road going at a very reasonable rate of speed in the opposite direction on a highway 66 feet wide. Yet there has been a head-on collision. Somebody must be committing perjury or at least, to put it midly, must be mistaken. I want to make that point because there is too much talk about divorces being collusive and I do not go along with the point of view that there is more perjury with reference to divorces.
With regard to collusion, I want to read what a distinguished author has to say about it. On page 65 of his book, "The Law of Divorce in Canada", there is the following:
In order to constitute collusion there must be a corrupt agreement or conspiracy, to which the petitioner is a party, to obtain a divorce by manufactured evidence or of some fraud or deceit practised on the court.
I want to repeat that there is nothing wrong with one spouse saying to the other, "I want a divorce", if the evidence exists. Let us assume that the husband says to the wife: I was out with Nellie last night, certain things happened and you had nothing to do with it. Let us assume that she then goes to a lawyer who issues a statement of claim or a petition and brings the matter before the court. Such co-operation is not collusion. There is nothing wrong with that kind of agreement. One spouse can assist another in getting a divorce as long as there is no fraud or deceit, as long as you do not tell the court a lie. That is why I say people are talking loosely when they say that many divorces are based on collusive evidence. I have respect for the courts of our land and for our judges, who are men of experience and well trained in the field of jurisprudence. They hear the witnesses and they are able to determine in most cases whether or not the witness is telling the truth. In defended divorce the art of cross-examination brings out certain facts and from those facts the judge may draw certain inferences. Of course, we must all admit that on occasion it is very difficult to prove-
1000	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Dissolution of Marriage


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to speak as well as possible because several members have complained we speak as last as machine guns. In future, in order to maintain goodwill and national unity, I shall strive to speak more slowly so as to be clearly understood.
Since I came here, there has been some talk about planning and the agreement which exists between the 118 socialists who sit in the house. It is now proposed to subject marriage to planning.
I should like to recall the statement made the other day by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he stated, in reply to my speech, that we had no respect for minorities.
I invite him to tour the province of Quebec for that will enable him to see that in our province, the French Canadian people have great respect for minorities. He will then have the best example of the kind of respect he will be able to demand for minorities throughout Canada.
We, from Quebec, who are particularly guided by our mother the Roman Catholic church, admit that in certain cases there are serious reasons which favour a separation from bed and board. And the Roman Catholic church that is broadminded recognizes that such cases exist. The Roman Catholic church considers all Canadians as her children. She is opposed to divorce because from her point of view, it infringes on the rights of the individual.
People are afraid of cancer, and a moment ago we heard of certain drugs which can cause certain illnesses but some dare ask for more laxity in a statute the consequences of which are more serious for the soul than cancer is for the body.
Hon. gentlemen opposite give us clear evidence that divorce has solved many problems in the U.S., that it has solved some in Great Britain. If your evidence is conclusive we will send you to the ecumenical council, so that you may discuss those rights which, according to you, we are refusing minorities.
In Bill C-12, before us today, I find this under clause 4:
For the purpose of this act, a party to a marriage who is domiciled in any province of Canada shall be deemed to be domiciled in every other province of Canada.

Now, what would prevent someone who tomorrow will have left for the United States or Europe, to ask for a divorce, since the act will be relaxed more and more every year?
The intent is to have a very lax statute. The other day I remarked that within a few years we would find in procedural practice only pitiable rot.
Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 6, reads like this:
That, since the marriage, the other party to the marriage has, without just cause or excuse, wilfully deserted the petitioner for a period of not less than two years.
Those are terms that can result in endless lawsuits, terms which are neither clear nor precise. I agree with the hon. member from Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) who, earlier today, told us that he wanted the legislation to be seriously scrutinized, especially if there were distaste in respect of discussing each case of divorce in the house, a procedure, as which, as I said, does prevent numerous divorce cases we otherwise would have to deal with.
At this time, it prevented us from being flooded with a great number of divorces because, very near us, in the United States, we find there is one divorce or more granted every second. Well, in Canada, we are still protected from this great calamity.
Subsection (k) of section 6 reads as follows:
-that the other party to the marriage has, for a period of not less than one year, failed to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights made by a court in a province.
I do not know how this is done in the rest of Canada, although I did go to Vancouver, where I met wonderful people, with whom we can certainly get along. But at home, in Quebec, I cannot conceive a court decreeing a restitution of conjugal rights. In Quebec, we have learned that when a man has come to the point where he cannot and not to the point where he will not, it is very difficult for him to comply with a court's decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
Proceeding with the reading of this bill, I find that under section 8, subsection (2), paragraph (d), a marriage may be annulled:
Where the consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because it was obtained by duress or fraud.
How can this duress or fraud be proved? Indeed, a law can be given various interpretations when it is too broad.

I remember reading in an American magazine some time ago that divorces were granted for many reasons, for instance, because of overcooked eggs at breakfast. Let us broaden the act and then we shall see pretty things.
With regard to reference made to the Bible earlier by a member from Alberta to prove that Christ sometimes permitted adultery, I suggest that if Christ recognized adultery as a ground for divorce, why did he say: "Whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery"? This is definite evidence that Christ does not accept divorce.
That is why I am of the opinion that our procedure does not enable us at the present time to increase the number of divorces in Canada. And I repeat that if we find that procedure offensive, let the province of Quebec be given back its right to legislate and minorities will be treated very well in Quebec as they have been in the past.
It would be advisable to know the opinion of the hon. members opposite, the Liberals, who do not dare to take sides in the matter, those people we consider however as good fathers, who are supposed to have the faith, those people who want to continue their happy pleasure-seeking life, their excessively materialistic life, and live among children who would never have the chance to know their fathers and mothers. Those children have the right to have a good father to give them sound advice and a mother to take care of theii daily problems. Those children would keep s well-balanced mind. In case of sickness, madness or other serious cases, gentlemen, do as we do in Quebec-practise continence. It enables us to lead a better life.
And this reminds me of a man whom you have seen here for quite a while, as member for Bellechasse; I mean the late lamented Hon. Louis Philippe Picard, a good Liberal, who had at least a dozen women friends in Canada and who had about as many when he was abroad. Besides, the Liberal party was so much ashamed of him that, one day, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent said: "If at least this man were presentable."
In our province, Mr. Speaker, we do not ask for annulment of marriage, but only for separation from bed and board. Divorce petitions which would be submitted to a Quebec court, through an amendment to the British North America Act, are now sub-
Dissolution of Marriage mitted to the Senate, so that our hon. senators may have something to do. On the other hand, this brings us to realize that divorce is a disaster.
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, first of all we should be grateful to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for solving one of the puzzling problems of the day. Up until the moment he stood up in this debate this afternoon some of us had wondered what N.D.P. stood for. In my case, I thought possibly it stood for no discernible principles, but now I see it stands for no divorce permitted. Was ever such an arrant case of blackmail presented to any group of adult citizens in the House of Commons, that unless parliament took such and such action citizens would be deprived of the rights to which they were entitled by long constitutional practice? I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have stood this nonsense from the hon. member for Timiskaming and his partner in this matter for more than a year. But how long can society put up with an affront such as this? We have two men putting a gun to the heads of citizens outside this house and saying that unless parliament bends itself to their will they will deny these citizens their remedy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I would suggest to the hon. member that he come back to the principle of the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was about to do so, sir,
having disposed of the hon. member for Timiskaming. I point out that his approach to the problem of divorce contains all the fallacious thinking, all the errors that have accumulated during the 1930's which he is trying to bring into the 1960's. This approach has been a signal failure for some 30 years or more in solving the problem of divorce.
Let me make it plain that I am in favour of divorce reform. I have given this subject a great deal of study. May I say, with some modesty, that in my case I have given it thoughtful study. I did not simply clip from this English statute or that Swedish act or something that has happened in Europe or one of the states of the United States of America, remedies to solve the divorce problem. The hon. member has suggested here, as he has suggested before, that if one adds all these extra grounds for divorce this will automatically cure the problems which are such a headache to law officers today. I say, sir, that this is a fallacious view. If you add these extra grounds, and some of them are very reasonable grounds-they are grounds upon which divorce reformers have agreed

Dissolution of Marriage for years-you will not solve the problems that bedevil judges or parliament when these matters are considered.
May I suggest the solution? It deals with the basic grounds for divorce, the grounds of adultery. All the mischief of perjury, collusion and connivance that exists today will not be cured in more than 1 per cent of the cases by adding the extra grounds suggested by the hon. member. What is needed is a brand new approach to this subject. I venture to say, sir, that the approach I will give now will be such a startling one that it will take some time for divorce reformers to become accustomed to it. I believe it is the only ground upon which we can correct the ills that infest the divorce problem.
Here it is. I suggest that adultery be the ground for divorce only if it is on the basis of a continuing liaison between one party to a marriage and any outsider. I suggest that because this would cover some 60 per cent of the cases that come before the courts at the moment.
Now, what about the other cases? I refer to those cases in which the couple obviously agree to a divorce because of their incom-patibilty, differences in temperament and so on which do not allow them to go along with each other or to make their marriage work. I will cover those cases by a new formula, one to which it may take Canadians a while to become accustomed. I suggest that in those cases, if there is going to be divorce by agreement using the pretext of adultery, then there should be divorce by agreement after separation for a period of not less than three years. If one bifurcated the grounds of adultery in this fashion, so to speak, I suggest to you we would close up the divorce mills in Canada. We would not have the detectives in our provincial courts and we would not have the detectives in our court of parliament.
There is another point which I think should be made clear. While it is not strictly relevant, nevertheless it was brought before us this afternoon and I hope I will be allowed to deal with it. It concerns the Quebec and Newfoundland cases. It is often misunderstood why they come before parliament, but I am told that in the case of Newfoundland the chief negotiator for that province some 13 or 14 years ago, Sir Albert Walsh, insisted that the Newfoundland cases be dealt with in parliament, or Newfoundland itself would not enter union.
Finally, since time is growing short I should like to make one further point, that over the last year I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter in all the provinces with the exception of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. I have talked about it
with the judges, with archbishops, bishops, priests and social workers, and they have all agreed with me that if we are to solve the problem of divorce not only should we grant extra grounds but we should also be very careful in how we deal with the present cases in order to clean up the situation as it now exists. If parliament bends itself to that task and in that direction, it will take time bui this reform can be brought about.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It now being six o'clock, the time allotted for the consideration of private members' business has expired and I shall leave the chair until 2.30 o'clock on Monday afternoon. It is suggested that I remind hon. members of the house that there is a change of time so that it will be 2.30 o'clock eastern standard time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what business will be transacted on Monday, and I wonder if he could give some idea of the whole program for next week? It is helpful when that can be done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Monday, Mr. Speaker, we will be in committee of ways and means and will continue in committee of ways and means if the house wishes to carry on with the debate on the subject that has been raised there. Our preference on this side of the house would be to complete the ways and means work, at least the four resolutions, on Monday, or certainly by Tuesday at the latest, and then go on with legislation on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Tentatively, without making any definite commitment, we would like to deal with the special committee of the house dealing with railways owned and operated by the government, followed by the various pieces of legislation pertaining to that subject matter standing in the name of the Minister of Transport. That is the tentative program for next week.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the urgent business that the house leader has in mind be redistribution, the matter concerning the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the hon. member wishes to have that discussed next week we might make that arrangement.


An hon. Member:: That was urgent two weeks ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is still urgent under the constitution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Everything is urgent.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.