1968-02-14

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a report has been received from the joint committee on the Library of Parliament concerning salary revisions of employees of the Library of Parliament, and related matters, and the library regulations.
[Editor's note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from $13,000 to $18,000 the loan ratios for insured loans to home owners, builders, and co-operative housing associations for the construction of new housing units.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many juveniles are in federal penitentiaries?
2.	In how many cases did the court have presentence recommendations from social workers, probation officers, psychiatrists, etc.?
3.	What facilities, if any, are there for segregation of these juveniles from the adult inmates?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Soliciior General):: 1. As
of November 20, 1967, there were the following numbers of inmates in federal penitentiaries within the age group shown:
17	years	and	under	18	years	5516	years	and	under	17	years	1215	years	and	under	16	years	6Under 15	years	0Total	732.	This information is not available within the department.3.	In the Montreal area, many are transferred to the Federal Training Centre. In Ontario, most juveniles are confined in the Collins Bay Penitentiary. In addition, the new institutions at Drumheller, Warkworth, Cow-ansville and Springhill are designed for the training of young inmates and young offenders are being transferred, insofar as practicable, to these institutions.


CANADIAN CONTENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Brand: 1.	Does the External Aid Office have requirements that services and material procured by this program have an 80% Canadian content?
2.	How successful has the External Aid Office been in obtaining pharmaceuticals with an 80% Canadian content?
3.	What measures and methods are used to satisfy an 80% Canadian content for pharmaceuticals if such is required by the External Aid Office?
4.	Have any purchases been made by the External Aid Office which indicate that buying pharmaceuticals with an 80% Canadian content would provide a saving to the Canadian taxpayer?
5.	Have expenditures been made by the External Aid Office meeting the above suggested requirements which have in fact entailed greater expenditures than if expenditures had been made on other pharmaceuticals presently on the Canadian market?
6.	Have any plans been made to meet the proposed changes in the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act in relation to the importation of pharmaceuticals which are entirely of non-Canadian manufacture?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	All pharmaceuticals provided under the aid program which are available from Canadian suppliers have had a Canadian content of 80 per cent or above.

February 14, 1968
Questions
3.	The pharmaceuticals are purchased from Canadian manufacturers who certify the Canadian content of their product.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	The external aid office will re-examine the Canadian content requirement as it applies to pharmaceuticals in the light of any changes in the Patent Act and Trade Marks Act approved by parliament.


ARDA OFFICES, AMHERST, N.S. AND MONCTON, N.B.
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees were involved in the ARDA operation at Amherst, N.S., on January 1, 1966, what was the total staff of ARDA at Amherst, N.S., on January 1, 1968, and what is the present staff at the regional office of ARDA, established at Moncton, N.B., on January 1, 1968?
2.	From whom was office space rented for the ARDA regional office at Moncton, what was the square foot rental rate and the total annual rent for the quarters in question?
3.	What is the length of the lease for the rental at Moncton, N.B.?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. (a) As of January 1, 1966, 32 employees were engaged in the ARDA operation at Amherst, N.S. (b) As of January 1, 1968, 61 employees were engaged in the ARDA operation at Amherst, N.S. (c) The regional headquarters of the rural development branch with a staff of 18 moved to Moncton, N.B., on January 15, 1968.
2.	The office space was rented from Mac-Spear Investments Limited, at a rate of $6.21 per square foot per year, for 8,600 square feet, the total annual rent being $53,400.
3.	The lease is for 10 years from the date of occupation.


PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF STATUS OF WOMEN COMMISSION
Mr. Coaies: 1.	What amounts have been received by the members of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in salary and expenses to date?
2.	How much was received in salary and expenses by those members of the Commission who resigned from their positions?


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada as follows: 1. Amounts paid in honoraria to members of the commission to January 26,	1968, $63,087.50.

Expenses paid to members of the commission to January 26, 1968, $10,955.03.
2. Amount paid in honorarium to member of the commission who resigned November 1, 1967, $5,550.00. Expenses paid to member of the commission who resigned November 1, 1967, $655.62.


PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it intended to decrease the complement of positions in the Dominion Department of Public Works, Charlottetown, P.E.I.?
2.	If so, when?
3.	If so, by what number of positions is the District Office to be decreased?
4.	If such a move is in contemplation, what are the reasons for it?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	As retirements or relocations occur.
3.	Seven.
4.	Reassessment of staff requirements in view of the fact that the major public works project in the area (Northumberland strait crossing) is not being handled through the department's district staff.


NEWSTART PROGRAM, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. More: 1.	What projects are (a) in being (b) in prospect in the Newstart program for Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the total amount of expenditure by the Government of Canada involved in these projects?
3.	What members of the Public Service of Canada are assuming responsibility for this program in Saskatchewan?
4.	Where will such personnel be located?
5.	What is the amount already expended in inaugurating Newstart in Saskatchewan?
6. What benefits are expected to accrue to the residents of Saskatchewan as a result of the Newstart program?
7.	What insurance coverage has been required for Newstart in Saskatchewan (a) what coverage has been acquired and what are the annual premiums (b) in what manner was the insurance placed?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliameniary Secreiary fo Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	(a) None, (b) Saskatchewan NewStart Incorporated is at present developing its projects and a statement of the number of projects in prospect would be premature.
February 14, 1968

2.	A precise estimate is not yet possible, but it is anticipated that the total win be between $2.5 million and $3.5 million
3.	No members of the Public Service of Canada are assuming responsibility. Saskatchewan NewStart Incorporated is a nonprofit corporation established by the federal and provincial governments under the Societies Act of Saskatchewan. In addition to financing, it will be able to get technical assistance from the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	As of December 31, 1967-$40,000.
6.	The Saskatchewan NewStart Incorporated will address the training needs of some of the economically disadvantaged adults in Saskatchewan. The methods developed will help these people to secure better jobs. The primary aim is to experiment with methods
Questions
of improving adult training programs generally.
7.	(a) Saskatchewan NewStart Incorporated has acquired general public liability insurance with one million dollars coverage at an annual premium of $212.00. (b) The insurance was placed with a recognized company in accordance with normal commercial practice.


COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many Commissions of Inquiry had not completed their assignments in 1962?
2.	How many Commissions of Inquiry were set up between January 1962 and December 1967?
3.	What was the cost of each of these Commissions?


John Ross Matheson: 1. 5.
2. 19.
3.	Name of commission
Taxation
Pilotage
Bilingualism and Biculturalism Irregularities in processing claims under Prairie Farm Assistance Act TCA Overhaul and Maintenance Base, Winnipeg, Man.
Crash of TCA Aircraft at Ste. Therese Export Marketing Problems of Salt Fish industry in Atlantic Provinces To inquire into allegations about any improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard
Irregularities in 1963 Federal Election B.C. Inquiry into Freshwater Fish Market Inquiry into Group D. Salary Increases Working Conditions in Post Office Dept. Inquiry into Mr. Justice Landreville Inquiry into Complaints made by one George Victor Spencer
Inquiry into matters relating to one Gerda Munsinger
Farm Machinery Costs Security
Status of Women in Canada Administration of Justice, Hay River, N.W.T.
* Cost to 31 December 1967.
Year of app't	Year of termination	Cost1962	1967	$3,344,787*1962	-	856,373*1963	-	6,669,669*1963	1964	17,9571964	1966	55,3401964	1965	21,0381964	1965	42,1161964	1965	180,0531965	1965	14,1071965	1966	39,6111965	1965	7,1931965	1966	78,9601966	1966	55,8311966	1966	13,0991966	1966	54,7081966	-	370,328*1966	-	201,037*1967	-	227,569*1967	-	13,500*
February 14, 1968
Questions
SON ET LUMlfeRE SPECTACLE, OTTAWA


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many persons attended performances of the spectacle Son et I.unliore in 1967?
2.	What was the total expenditure for this spectacle?
3.	What plans, If any, are there for continuation of Son et Lumiere?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the centennial commission: 1. 79,216 persons paid admission to see the performance. An additional 1,200 persons attended the opening ceremony on May 13, 1967, and the July 1 presentation for Her Majesty the Queen as non-paying guests.
2.	Not including the cost of the amphitheatre on Nepean Point which was used and will be used for other types of performances, the capital investment in the Son et Lumiere production was $380,000. The cost of operation maintenance and administration for 1967 is estimated to be $50,000. As a gross revenue of $71,000 was realized from the 1967 operation, the capital investment is reduced by $21,000 to $359,000.
3.	The matter of the future of the Son et Lumiere program is still under consideration.


FEDERAL AID FOR STUDENTS, MONTREAL
Mr. Godin: Do unemployed students in the Montreal area receive more federal aid for living expenses than students in other parts of the Province of Quebec and, if so, for what reason?


John Carr Munro: Yes. Training allowances are considered income replacement and according to the act, are related to living costs of trainees. In the case of Quebec, in co-operation with the provincial' government, four levels of allowances were established, based upon the average wage levels in specified areas.


FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES ON CAPITAL REGION COMMITTEE
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Who have been named to represent the Government of Canada on the Preparatory Committee on the Capital region of Canada?
2.	Are such persons to receive emoluments for this task?
3.	If so, what amount and would this be additional to regular salary?


John Ross Matheson: 1. Messrs. A. D. P. Heeney, Carl Goldenberg and Marc Lalonde have been named to represent the government of Canada on the preparatory committee on the capital region of Canada.
2.	No. The three federal representatives are already employed by the government of Canada for other tasks; no special emoluments are paid for this purpose.
3.	Not applicable.


APPLICATIONS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
Mr. Fulton: 1.	Under what circumstances and for what points in time are applications for major equipment for medical research considered for approval by (a) the Health Resources Fund (b) the Medical Research Council, respectively?
2.	Is there any limit on the number of applications for major equipment for medical research for the same laboratory or the same investigator eligible for approval under the Health Resources Fund?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) Contributions from the health resources fund are paid to provinces in an amount up to 50 per cent of the reasonable costs of all basic equipment necessary for the operation of a facility. Applications are received from provinces at any time and are generally approved within a few days, provided the projects are included in provincial five year programs approved by the health resources advisory committee in accordance with the act. (b) Applications are received by the Medical Research Council at any time from individual investigators for the support of all research equipment not eligible for support by the health resources fund.
2. The only limits to support by the health resources fund of the costs of basic research equipment required by a new health training facility are: (a) Equipment is ineligible if it is delivered before the date on which the contract is signed for the construction, renovation or acquisition of the facility, (b) Equipment is ineligible if it is not installed and ready for use within 18 months of completion of the facility.
February 14, 1968


FEDERAL BUILDING, WALKERTON, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	Have tenders been called for the new federal building scheduled for construction at Walkerton Ontario?
2.	If tenders have been called, in what publications were they advertised?


George James McIlraith: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might ask when question No. 32 is going to be answered. It has been on the order paper since May 10, 1967 and for two months during the previous session.


Mr. Bechard:: We shall try to answer it.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Albert Béchard: Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notice of motion No. 44?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


FISH MARKETING-IMPLEMENTATION OF MCIVOR REPORT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Schreyer:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence and documents exchanged between the Government of the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, relative to the possible implementation In whole or in part of the Mclvor Report of Fresh Water Fish Marketing.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Subject to the usual reservation about the consent of the province, Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Motion agreed to.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
27053-423J
Inquiries of the Ministry direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether in order to carry out his stated objective of making a practical medical care program available to as many Canadians as possible and as soon as possible, he will even now take the step of calling the provinces together in a special conference on medicare to ascertain their views as to the basis on which a national, portable and practical medicare program could be brought into effect on July 1, 1968 for Canadians in all parts of the country, and particularly those who need it most.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation does provide for a national, practical and portable scheme, and it will be coming into effect on July 1. If the provinces have any views to submit in writing as a group or individually concerning what they think could be done to this particular measure after it has been in effect, in the light of the operations of the act to make it more effective, we will be glad to discuss them.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, and is based upon a press report today that some of the chartered banks have already raised the rate on their prime loans to 7 per cent, while others are contemplating taking a similar step within the next day or two.
My question is this. Before taking this action did the banks have consultations with the minister or with the Bank of Canada, and if so what justification did the banks give for this action, which can only compound our economic difficulties?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I do not agree with the final observation of the hon. member, but I can tell him that there was no consultation with the Department of Finance. I do not know whether there has been any consultation with the Bank of Canada.


Colin Cameron: Has the minister intimated to the banks that the government approves of this action, or has he expressed any concern on behalf of the government?

February 14, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no conversations with the banks about this matter.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. Is this part of his grand scheme for the banks of the country?


FARM MACHINERY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the royal commission on agricultural machinery is making progress and when its report will be tabled in the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is progressing with its work, but I am not quite sure when that work will be finished. I will communicate with the chairman of the committee through the Minister of Agriculture.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continuing interest in the question, can the minister advise the house when he expects to be able to announce the geographical co-ordinates for the Pacific coast under the territorial seas and fishing zones regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the moment I cannot add to what I said in the month of November, but I shall look at the question again to see if further information can be given.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of labour, which he may want to take as notice.
IMr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
In view of the fact that the Department of Labour has received the Murchison report and recommendations regarding the labour standards code and particularly the hours of work in the trucking industry, and in view of its constructive and reasonable approach to this problem, could the acting minister advise when the department will implement this report and the recommendations?


Hon. B. S. Mackasey (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
suggestion of the hon. member for Ontario that I take the question as notice. I might in the interval point out to him that the Murchison report is being analysed at the present moment by officials of the department, and that talks have already begun in their presence between union officials and representatives of the trucking industry. These talks have resulted essentially from the recommendations of the Murchison report. I shall seek further and more detailed information in the interim.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's refusal, expressed yesterday to the Canadian Labour Congress, to stimulate the economy, will the Prime Minister take the earliest opportunity to outline what alternative plans the government has to get the economy moving and thus combat the steadily rising rate of our unemployment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member not to put his questions in a form which makes it impossible for them to be answered on orders of the day.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am putting my question in substantially the same form as the right hon. gentleman's colleagues put their questions during six years in opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Since their questions were
answered then I submit that the Prime Minister should answer this question now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is following a very bad precedent.
February 14, 1968


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: My
question is intended for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Minister without Portfolio, the Acting Minister of Labour. In view of the alarming increase in unemployment in Canada, can the minister advise the house what steps are now being taken by the government to alleviate this very serious situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a statement which ought to be made on motions.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Labour, of which I gave him notice. Since an injunction of the superior court in Montreal ordered the International Longshoremen's Association and the shipping federation to arbitrate their differences as to the interpretation and application of the Picard report, would the hon. gentleman inform the house whether the Minister of Labour was requested by the nominees of the parties or by the parties themselves to appoint a chairman for the arbitration board. If so, has the minister failed or refused so to appoint a chairman?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is not in the habit of failing or refusing with respect to anything that is reasonable.
I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me prior notice of his question, though for various reasons I received his notice just as I came into the house. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, a request was made by the courts that certain clauses of the Picard report be sent to arbitration, that the two parties concerned name a representative and that the minister name a chairman. Unfortunately only the unions complied with the request of the courts; the shipping federation has failed to name a representative. It is thus impossible for the Minister of Labour to name a chairman. I might also point out, of course, that the wage agreement has now terminated and both parties are in the midst of new negotiations.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from the minister's remarks that the shipping federation has not appointed its representative? The basis of my question was that both parties had appointed members and had asked the minister to appoint a chairman as the result of a court order, so that arbitration should take place. Do I understand from the minister that it is not the intention to appoint such a chairman, even now?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I shall make certain of my answer, since I was speaking from memory. As I recall the matter, however, the shipping federation had named then-representative and immediately withdrew that representative, on the argument, valid or otherwise, that the spirit and intent of the Picard report had been violated by the unions during the Christmas holiday. Whether the minister intends to name a chairman to the arbitration board will depend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether in the light of remarks severely critical of winter transportation on the St. Lawrence, made in Halifax by Mr. Talbot of the National Harbours Board, the hon. gentleman might not in his wisdom reconsider the entire practice of navigation on the river during the severe winter months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question as asked is of a very general nature and would call for the type of statement which should be made on motions.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then could the minister give the house an assurance that in the light of the severity of the criticism by Mr. Talbot he will consider making a full statement on this matter at the earliest opportunity?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Perhaps I can get a transcript of what was actually said, and if a statement is warranted I could make one at an appropriate time.



February 14, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
Now that a subvention of $9 million has been granted for the development of the Toronto air terminal, does the minister intend to re-establish the subvention granted to the Montreal airport? Does the minister intend to make an announcement on that matter soon?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have received a preliminary report on the 20-year plan for the Montreal airport, and it has raised certain questions which are now being investigated by the consulting engineers who were retained for that purpose. I hope to receive a final report soon and, after that, to make a statement at the earliest possible date indicating what new structural facilities will be required in the Montreal area and when we may expect work to go forward.


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1966-67 CROP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the final payments on the 1966-67 wheat crop will be made.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be meeting with members of the wheat board tomorrow. After that I shall be able to make a statement.


CHLORAMPHENICOLS-INQUIRY AS TO CLINICAL TESTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence I would address it to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman inform the house what clinical tests are now being done to protect the Canadian public against the use of the chloramphenicols which are now on the Canadian market, but which were taken off the United States market about six weeks ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Hellyer.)


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO PROMOTION OF FURTHER SALES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. During the hon. gentleman's absence in Europe and Asia we were informed that part of his mission was to try to sell wheat. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the house whether any positive sales resulted from his efforts?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): I think we laid some pretty constructive groundwork. There are prospects of sales of wheat to some of these countries, and we are pursuing them actively.


Stanley James Korchinski: Could the minister let us in on the secret and tell us what countries he has in mind?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I do not think that would be in the public interest at this time. It might compromise possible sales.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based on a very dramatic effort to bring peace to war stricken Viet Nam. Has the minister been advised of a message sent today to His Holiness Pope Paul, as follows:
Humbly beg Your Holiness become hostage Hanoi so that barbarous American bombardment stop due your holy presence. This could lead negotiations and American withdrawal and put end Vietnamese agony.
The message is signed by Zaira Singh, a Roman Catholic, and is supported by a number of others. Has the minister received a copy of this telegram, and has he any comment to make on this very unusual suggestion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even if it is an urgent matter I doubt whether the hon. member can ask a question in this way. I doubt whether it is acceptable put in this form.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister received any information along these lines?
February 14, 1968	COMMONS


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, when I was coming into the house my hon. friend was kind enough to give me a copy of this telegram. This is the only indication of it that I have seen.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister inform the house whether he intends to cause proposals to be laid before the respective legislative councils of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories with respect to the participation by those two territories in the medicare program?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, for some time my officials have been in consultation with officials in health and welfare, and of course the advantages of medicare are available to the people who live in the territories so long as the territories acting for their people come up to the criteria set here. I understand that in the case of the Northwest Territories, principally due to the difficulties of geography, they are leaving the matter over for discussion this year, and I think in the case of the Yukon the question is going to be before the Yukon council next month.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan-Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the growing need for national control over pollution, will the minister indicate whether the Canada water act will be introduced this session?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I have already said to the house, Mr. Speaker, that being a realist I thought it would be introduced at the next session and not in this part of the present one.
DEBATES	6721
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As reported in Le Droit yesterday, according to the estimates for the current year, the Department of Public Works will spend $84 million in Ottawa, as compared to $1 million in Hull, which has prompted a Liberal journalist to say that there is a difference-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should put his question.


David Réal Caouette: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, a horse to a rabbit ratio. Does the government intend to revise its policy and grant Hull more attention, and if so, when?


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member is too general in character to be put at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give us any information as to the possible credence to be put in rumours that the suggestions being made to the Russians regarding the reconvening of the Geneva conference, have some prospect of success?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government would be happy to support any move to bring about a resumption of the Geneva conference in the hope that peace talks might be begun. However, I have no reason for believing that there is any immediate prospect that the co-chairmen together would agree to calling the members of the conference. Therefore I do not think it is possible at the moment, notwithstanding the efforts being made in this regard by the Secretary General of the United Nations.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg Souih):: As a
supplementary question, can the minister tell the house when he expects to have a report available from Ambassador Ormond Dier?

February 14, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I now have a report from Mr. Dier, who has returned from Hanoi. This report was sent to the government from Saigon. We are now examining the report, and consultations will be carried on in respect of it. I note in this connection the statement made by the Secretary General to the effect that he believed that if the bombing were to stop there might be talks within a period of about two weeks.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has received information from Saigon which approximates the information we have been receiving from the press and radio, does he intend to send a strong protest to the government at Hanoi with regard to the slaughter of missionaries, women and children which has been undertaken by the forces which that government supports?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the report I have received I would not be in a position to modify the answer I gave on Monday.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could indicate, as a result of his communication from Ambassador Dier, whether there is greater reason to believe that the government of Hanoi would be willing now to come to the conference table.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will understand that it is not desirable or possible at this time, until this report has been fully examined and discussed with other parties, to give a reply with regard to a matter which is as important as this.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government decided to participate in a plan to give assistance to the refugees in South Viet Nam and, if so, what form will the plan to render this assistance take?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that this matter is being examined by the external aid

board. That examination is under way. Dr. Vennema has been asked to go to Viet Nam to assess the situation in the hospital area which formerly was under his jurisdiction.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, normally I would direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but because of his absence with the committee on procedure I might put this question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the fact that the estimate for the Atlantic Development Board has been reduced from $60 million to $38 million can the Prime Minister tell the house whether this will have an influence on the acceptance or rejection of proposals advanced last week by the premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Justice. Is it the policy of the Department of Justice, as expressed by the department's Toronto director, that drug prosecutors will be asking for jail terms instead of suspended sentences with probation for first offenders convicted of possession of marijuana?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: am not aware of the statement, Mr. Speaker. I will have to look into the matter.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Labour. In view of the constitutional problems raised by the report
February 14, 19G8

by Mr. Justice Nemetz which was tabled yesterday in the British Columbia legislature and which recommended a permanent industrial inquiry commission, has the Department of Labour requested or received copies of that report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge we have not yet received the report. However, I assure the hon. gentleman that as soon as we do I will keep him abreast of developments.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Public Works. Would he advise the house what is now delaying the appointment of the joint special committee on the national capital?


George James McIlraith: Nothing, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that last September the appointment of this committee was promised for early in this session of parliament, would the minister now indicate when it is proposed that the committee be appointed?


George James McIlraith: Whenever the house can deal with it, Mr. Speaker. We propose putting the notice of motion on the order paper within the next few days.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this question is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Carleton. When this committee is being set up will the minister consider my question which appears on the order paper? Will representatives from other provinces be appointed as members of this committee?


George James McIlraith: The setting up and the constitution of a committee of the house is a matter for the house. I believe the whips usually endeavour to give regional representation on the committees. It is not a matter for the government; it is a matter for the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY FOR TARIFF BOARD REPORT ON GREENHOUSE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl (Ont.)):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister advise the house, if he has not already received it, when he expects to receive a report from the tariff board in respect of the submission made to it on behalf of the greenhouse industry?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, it would be unlikely that the report would come to me first, but I will make inquiries about it. I have not yet seen it.



ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask her whether she has received a request from the province of Ontario for assistance in respect of the serious flood damage suffered by southwestern Ontario and, if so, what decision has been reached.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such request. If it were delivered to me I suppose I could only supply blotting paper. It would have to go to one of my colleagues. I would think perhaps it would be a matter for the Department of National Defence.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has he any answer at the present time to the question I asked previously concerning persons wishing exemption from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan on religious grounds?
CTranslation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of that problem; however, we cannot do anything, because the legislation would have to be amended and this is not considered at the present time.
6724
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act [English]
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



PATENT ACT-TRADE MARKS ACT AMENDMENTS RESPECTING IMPORTATION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner for the second reading of Bill No. C-190, to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act.
Mr. Harley:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. This arises as a result of something which came to my attention late last evening. During the debate on Bill No. C-190 on February 12 as reported at page 6851 of Hansard I stated that chloramphenicol manufactured in the United States by nine companies had been allowed back on the market after rechecking. My information, Mr. Speaker, was incorrect. These products have not been allowed back on the United States market. I apologize to the house and express my appreciation in particular to the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) for drawing this matter to my attention.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking last evening I tried to stress the point that we in the official opposition agree with the stated objectives of this bill. However, we have grave concern on two main points. The first is the almost impossible task facing the food and drug directorate in attempting to assure the safety and quality of drugs for Canadians, if the drugs are easily imported from other countries without adequate supervision. Second, we are concerned that the legitimate pharmaceutical research in this country may be needlessly but seriously hindered and reduced as a result of this bill in its present form. With regard to the first point, I should like to quote a telegram which was received this morning from the president of the Canadian Medical Association. It is addressed to the president of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, with a copy to the Prime Minister and others, and reads as follows:
Re Bill C-190; further to our previous communications to the Hon. John Turner on this subject the Canadian Medical Association continues to be deeply concerned that Bill C-190 in the form now being presented to parliament may open the door to drugs whose safety and effectiveness are below the standard expected and deserved by the Canadian public. Although we too favour the availability of drugs at a lower cost we are not convinced that the implementation of Bill C-190 will accomplish 

this end and we fear that the more important factors of safety and effectiveness may be compromised.
Our concern is not restricted to the importation of generic drugs. We fear that confusion may arise due to the importation of brand name drugs some of which have ingredients, physiological activity and dosage forms different from similarly named Canadian brands.
Under present government requirements quality control is responsibility of the drug manufacturer under the supervision of the food and drug directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare. Under this new legislation allowing the importation of drugs it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for the food and drug directorate to maintain the same degree of supervision over foreign manufacturers.
We urgently request that this bill receive further detailed study and necessary amendments to provide adequate safeguards for the public. The association stands ready to aid in any such investigation.
Dr. N. J. Belliveau, President, Canadian Medical Association
Since coming into the house I have received another telegram which is brief but,
I think, very important because it comes from a large Canadian owned drug manufacturer which I think specializes in generic drugs. This telegram is addressed to myself and reads as follows:
As a major Canadian owned pharmaceutical enterprise Empire Laboratories is vitally concerned with consequences of Bill C-190. Contrary to statements by bill's advocates, bill seriously threatens existence of Canadian owned segment of drug industry. Moreover the public health is threatened. Food and drug directorate cannot possibly ensure every import is manufactured under sanitary conditions-
And so on. With regard to the second point, I should like to point out that during the course of this debate I have heard various supporters of the bill say a great many times that the pharmaceutical industry has earnings which are twice as high as those of the average industry in the country. However, at page 12 of its report the committee says: Your committee believes this to be true for pharmaceutical companies generally, whether they be so called "innovators" or "copiers"; or brand name or generic producers. It should be pointed out in all fairness (as seen in table 4 of the appendix E), that the pharmaceutical industry showed (in 1963) the seventh highest rates of return on resources employed, and are exceeded by distilleries, wineries, motor vehicles, petroleum and coal products, motor vehicle parts and accessories, wire and wire products, and office and store machinery.
So there is a wide range of activity here in which the new minister can indulge. With regard to the pharmaceutical industry, it is my belief that they are good corporate citizens generally speaking, and I believe they
February 14, 1968

would welcome negotiation or discussion with the Department of Consumer Affairs with regard to prices, advertising and guide lines which might be set down which would have the effect of reducing the cost of drugs to the consumer.
It seems to me that the government in drafting this bill has flailed about with a bludgeon in a situation where the deft use of a scalpel is what is required. We in the official opposition hope that the minister will see fit to withdraw the bill from committee of the whole and refer it to a suitable committee to bring it more into line with the recommendations of the special committee, while preserving its position on the order paper.
If the minister does not accept this suggestion, we in the official opposition expect that he will have the bill suitably amended or will agree to suitable amendments in committee of the whole on the points I have stressed, so that the public interest will be safeguarded. We of course reserve our position with regard to third reading until the final content of the bill is established by the committee of the whole.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few moments of the time of the house this afternoon to pay tribute, first of all, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner) for having brought this legislation before the House of Commons. Both as a member for a workingman's area and as a physician, I have a deep concern for the health of our people. I believe that Bill No. C-190 is another step in the legislation introduced by this government to provide assistance for our citizens in order that they may achieve good health.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I have said in the past, and I repeat it today, that the cost of drugs to the patient who buys them at the drug store is much too high. In fact, we in this country pay one of the highest prices in the world for drugs. I welcome very much the assurances of the minister who has voiced his concern in the house about not only bringing down the cost of drugs through this legislation but also providing for the safety and efficacy of drugs.
I should also like to express my concern on the question of safety and efficacy.
It is my opinion that the telegram referred to by the previous speaker, sent to the Prime
27053-424J
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act Minister (Mr. Pearson) by the Canadian Medical Association, should be given serious consideration by the minister. We would like to hear in the course of this debate and in the study of the bill in committee, assurances that the food and drug directorate and the minister's department will do everything possible to ensure that drugs will be not only economical but safe, and will do the job they are intended to do.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker in this debate I shall be very brief. It is possible for me to be very brief because hon. members who have spoken in the debate in the last few days have gone into the technical aspects and ramifications of the bill in great detail. I was greatly impressed with the contributions made to the debate by those hon. members who are of the medical profession; in particular, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley), my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) and the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Isabelle). I listened closely to what was said by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and then read his speech in Hansard.
With respect to the reasons which have been advanced by members of the official opposition who are opposed to the bill, I find myself completely unconvinced by their arguments. The two main arguments put forward in opposition to proceeding with this bill, as I gather from listening to them and then reading the speeches in Hansard, are that while the legislation shall bring into the Canadian drug market a greater degree of price competition, it will somehow lead to a deterioration of quality control and will make it more difficult to maintain high standards of drug safety.
They also make much of the argument that if the profit of drug companies is reduced their capability to conduct research and development will be lowered. In advancing these arguments hon. members apparently failed to take account of some obvious facts. First, as was shown clearly by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley), drug safety inspection can be taken as a fact. It must be policy on the part of any government to see that medicines and drugs put on the market, regardless of price, measure up to certain criteria or standards of safety. Any attempt to relate price to drug safety is spurious and illogical.
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
In respect of the argument that any reduction in the margin of profit will encourage a greater degree of price competition in the industry and lower the capability of that industry to undertake research and development, let me point out that the industry spends about four and a half times as much on promotional advertising as it does on research and development.
If research and development is a prime function of the industry, as it ought to be, there is nothing in this legislation which will reduce the capability of the industry to engage in research. The industry may have to cut back on its promotional activity but, as has been suggested by several hon. members, particularly those of the medical profession, there seems to be a proliferation on the part of the industry to seduce the medical profession, through the use of a great number of brochures and advertising gimmicks. As has been said, many doctors in this country feel the time has long passed when material emanating from the pharmaceutical manufacturing houses serves any useful purpose. Much of this material is consigned to the wastebasket. All this promotion increases the expenses of the firms, which they pass on in good measure to the consumer.
Let me refer to one other point which was brought forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He took exception to what the minister sponsoring this bill said about the inclusion of those charts which were appended to Hansard for Monday, and which indicated that the price of drugs in Canada was much higher than in most other industrialized countries.
That hon. member suggested that these charts were misleading because they do not take into account the relative purchasing power and wage scales in these other countries where drug prices are considerably lower than in Canada. The hon. member was obviously suggesting that since wages or incomes are lower in these countries, the price of drugs should be lower. Apparently he feels there can be some reason for higher drug prices in Canada if only because of higher incomes. While there may be some validity to the argument, the hon. member has ignored one essential point.
The pricing practice used by pharmaceutical houses is obviously divorced from production costs and the cost of research. Obviously their pricing practice is not related to the cost of production as it should be, but rather to some judgment as to what the market will


bear, or what the Canadian consumer will pay without complaining too much. The differential between costs and selling price is enormous. The practice over the years has been to increase the price little by little over a period of time. Whenever it is felt there is imminency of consumer price complaint, the increases are stopped.
I suggest that if it were not for action of responsible public bodies such as parliament, this practice would likely continue. Many interesting pieces of information were brought to light in evidence presented to the committee on drug costs and prices, and by evidence presented to two other investigating bodies. Inasmuch as much of this information has been aired and discussed in this chamber,
I feel I would be serving no useful purpose in referring to it again.
Let me conclude by saying there is no question but that there is a direct and obvious responsibility on this government and parliament to pass this legislation, even though, taken by itself, it may not have a great impact. Together with other measures the minister has indicated this government is contemplating, this measure will have the effect of bringing drug prices in this country down to levels which can be justified by the cost of production and research. I wish to commend the minister and his colleagues for the enlightened and bold position they have taken which was not really expected.


Mr. Speaker:: I must remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members of the house for allowing me to close the debate at this time, so that the bill may go to the committee of the whole for further discussion and elucidation, particularly in respect of some points referred to in general terms during this debate on second reading.
Let me deal briefly with those points referred to by hon. members on all sides of the house, particularly the chief spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). He suggested that the bill was confiscatory in that it took away property rights of patentees under the Patent Act. I assure hon. members that I listened to his point with the greatest interest.
February 14, 1988
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I want to say to the hon. member in general terms that this bill does not, to use his words, virtually abolish patent protection. In effect, a five year monopoly under the patent is maintained because of the period that elapses under the present food and drug regulations, and thereafter the patentee, if there is a compulsory licence issued, will enjoy the protection he has gained through establishing a position in the market. This is a position he would enjoy under ordinary circumstances for five years under the patent. In addition, he will enjoy the royalties from any new rivals who may have been able to obtain a compulsory licence from the patent commissioner. This is not confiscation of property, Mr. Speaker, because what we are doing here is diluting, to a certain extent, the patent protection in a way that is analogous to reducing a tariff.
The purpose of this bill is to reduce the effect and use of a patent as an analogous economic weapon, if you will, to the tariff. I may say that the domestic drug industry will still obtain the 15 per cent most favoured nation tariff. Both the patent and the tariff are economic institutions that are designed to achieve particular economic ends. I want to say to the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that much research, innovation and invention is not patentable. I want to say also to the hon. member that patent laws vary widely around the world according to the needs of the individual economies. A patent right is not an absolute right. It is a right that has to be weighed in the balance of economic convenience. In this case, it is the objective of the bill to weigh the legitimate rights of the Canadian consumer against the legitimate rights of the inventor and the drug industry. In this sense, this bill moves Canada closer to the position already adopted by the United Kingdom and the United States.
Many members were worried about the fact that this bill, if carried by the house, would have an effect on employment. In my opening speech, sir, I recited the figures relating to the people employed by the drug industry in this country. It is my view, on the basis of the best advice I was able to obtain, that this bill will not adversely affect employment within the drug industry in Canada. About 85 per cent of the Canadian drug industry converts the basic chemical ingredients from their basic form into final dosage form, that is to say into the pill, the tube or syrups. This
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act bill, if effective, would introduce more competition into that manufacturing process. It should not affect the amount of manufacturing done in Canada. It would tend to make manufacturing more competitive, but the amount of employment should not be affected to any degree.
Some members were disturbed by the possibility of Canada importing large amounts of drugs from Italy, Hong Kong and other parts of the world. Here again, I want to remind the house, if I may, that 85 per cent of the Canadian drug manufacturing industry in Canada really exists on importation of the basic ingredients, and conversion of those basic ingredients into the final dosage form. We already import 85 per cent of the basic chemicals into Canada. We do not expect this bill will unduly rearrange this percentage.
Then, some members were concerned, and perhaps I would share their concern if I were criticizing this bill, about the possibility of research in Canada being adversely affected by this measure. It is our view again, sir, and I hope I was able to make this point in my opening speech, that patent protection by itself is not an inducement to research. We have had patent protection in this country ever since confederation.
Until very recently only three major drug companies did any appreciable research in Canada, and the increase in research done in this country was probably attributable more to direct government intervention by way of research grants and tax incentives than it was by virtue of the patent system. The existence of a patent, therefore, is not the sole reason for research being done here. I hope that government programs for research within the competence of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) would amply encourage the continuance of whatever research in drugs is done in Canada.
I think the house ought to recall that the drug industry is an international industry. All the major companies having 85 per cent of the business in this country are controlled abroad, either in the United States, Switzerland, the United Kingdom or some other country. When these international concerns, subsidiaries and related companies in various parts of the world decide where they are going to put research, they will put research where the market is or where available scientists can be found.

6728	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
In most cases, research has to be concentrated in one place because of the highly complicated, highly specialized nature of the research and because of the expensive equipment needed to mount it. Not very much of the international research done in the drug industry has found itself resident in Canada. There is nothing in this bill, to our mind, which would promote the changing of the location of research in Canada, if that research were otherwise economically desirable here.
Finally, I want to deal with a point that seemed to be occupying the minds of most speakers who had the courtesy to enter the debate, and that is the question of safety. I was particularly impressed by the learned address by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) last evening, as well as the very respected member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). They dwelt particularly on this subject.
I want to say again that, regardless of the economic motives for this bill, that is to say, to provoke more competition, to encourage more free enterprise, to encourage competition in price rather than merely in a promotional sense, there are two other objectives. As I said at the outset, the first of these objectives is to maintain safe, efficacious, high quality drugs in Canada. There is no doubt about that. I want to restate my concern and the concern of the government on that score. The second objective is to maintain a viable domestic drug industry.


Mr. Nowlan:: Will the minister permit a question? If the prime purpose of this bill is to affect prices, would the minister not agree that just about all manufactured products in Canada could be brought into this country much cheaper, but that is part of the price of having a Canada?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is enticing me into an argument which I should like to have with him on any public platform.


An hon. Member:: He is not a leadership candidate.


John Napier Turner: The relevant argument is free trade against protection. I think that this country, in terms of surviving economically, must always weigh the balance of having free trade for the benefit of the consumers, and a certain amount of protection for the benefit of a viable domestic industry. I am saying to

DEBATES	February 14, 1968
him that indeed this measure tends to have an aspect of freer trade attached to it. By lowering the patent protection we are, in effect, lowering a non-tariff barrier to trade.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
On the other hand Mr. Speaker, the domestic drug industry, even after the passage of the bill-assuming the bill gains the assent of this house and the other place-will have a good deal of protection left. For example, there will be the 15 per cent most favoured nation tariff and the advance five year period under the new drug status of the food and drug regulations. The industry will have the advantage of its high promotional and selling detailmen. It will have the advantage of having imprinted on the minds of the public the brand names under which most of the major companies sell drugs. So that the protective element in the drug industry is still quite considerable; and it is because we are able to weigh the balance of economic convenience that we have confidence that the bill will not adversely affect the domestic drug industry.
I want to get back to safety, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. members expressed concern that the bill did not contain what they referred to as adequate safeguards respecting quality and safety of drugs. I would emphasize what I said previously, Mr. Speaker, namely that in the government's program designed to reduce the price of drugs, the need to supply the Canadian market with safe and efficacious drugs is paramount. If I or the minister of health, or if the government were not satisfied that this objective could be achieved when the program becomes effective, then I would not have introduced the bill.
The patent and trade marks legislation is not designed to deal with matters of this sort. This is primarily a question for the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare, who administer the legislation respecting safety and quality of drugs. The proposed section 41(13) of the Patent Act makes it mandatory upon the commissioner of patents to give immediate notice of any application to the Department of National Health and Welfare and the food and drug directorate.
In the preparation of this bill I had the advantage of the advice of officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the food and drug directorate, the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice and the Department of Industry, as well as the advice of senior officials from my own
February 14, 1968	COMMONS
department, which at the time was that of the Registrar General, now the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this bill has received the consideration of the most senior men in a number of government departments.
Since we announced our intention to introduce the bill, and the introduction of the bill itself, I have received delegations from all major and smaller companies manufacturing drugs in Canada that wanted to see me. On two occasions I had interviews with the executive of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. I also saw the Canadian Independent Drug Manufacturers Association and other bodies interested in the industry.
I want to say to hon. members that when we get into committee of the whole I will entertain all amendments that might be presented, and will look into them thoroughly. If they add to the protection accorded the Canadian public, then they will certainly meet with my approval and with the approval of the government. However, I want to say that the food and drug regulations at the moment do provide, in our opinion, adequate authority to control fully the importation of drugs.
In this regard I want to read into Hansard section C.01.055 of the food and drug regulations, which provides:
In the case of a drug sought to be imported into Canada, the director may require-


J. Michael Forrestall: "May" require.


John Napier Turner: -may require
(a)	Information and evidence satisfactory to him that the conditions of manufacture described in section C.01.052 have been met in respect to such drug, and
(b)	before such drug is released for sale, the testing in Canada of the drug by an acceptable method in the form in which it is sought to be imported, and if, in the opinion of the director such drug or any lot or batch thereof does not conform to the requirements of these regulations, the drug or lot or batch thereof shall not be admitted into Canada for use as a drug.
It should be recognized that the drugs at present imported into Canada-I have already pointed out that 85 per cent of the industry's operations consists of converting the imported basic drugs into final dosage forms-are already and will continue to be subject to the control of this regulation.
With regard to resources being made available to the food and drug directorate, hon.
DEBATES	6729
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act members will have seen the blue book of estimates for 1968-69 which was tabled in the house on Monday. Those estimates provide for an increase of 110 man years in the staff of the directorate, and for an increase in the budget of the directorate of roughly $2 million. Not all of this increase, of course, is occasioned by the present bill, but I have it from the director of the food and drug directorate that sufficient and adequate resources will be made available to implement this bill and to meet any extra work occasioned thereby.
I think I owe it to Dr. R. A. Chapman, who is the director-general of food and drugs, to refer to a remark that was made by the hon. member for Wellington-Huron (Mr. Howe). The hon. member attributed to Dr. Chapman certain statements that in fact were taken directly from an article that appeared in the January 1, 1966 issue of Maclean's magazine. These statements were attributed to Dr. Chapman, and yet there was no attribution in the magazine. I think it only fair to correct the record, and I am sure it was inadvertence on the part of the hon. member for W ellington-Huron.
The first statement related to the fact that an F.D.D. inspector found a kitchen table manufacturer putting out a drug which lost its potency within two days, compared with the six month shelf life of the same drug produced by a reputable company. The second statement was that in Italy the laws call for these manufacturers to assay their own products, but F.D.D. inspectors often find the test equipment dust covered and obviously unused. Dr. Chapman has assured me that these statements were not made by him; and indeed I have the Maclean's magazine article containing these two quotations with me this afternoon.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, some hon. members opposite suggested that the government might refer the bill to the standing committee of the house, for further review. It is my feeling that the suggested amendments to the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act now before the house have received very lengthy review indeed, both by the standing committee of the House of Commons and at the hearings of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. When the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission was reviewing a number of subjects relating to drug costs and drug prices, it dealt with the question of patent and trade mark protection. At that time 146 manufacturers were consulted, as well as 80 professional,
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act trade and hospital associations, health and welfare organizations, universities and so on. In addition to this there were 25 days of public hearings and the testimony occupied 3,260 pages of transcript. Thirteen legal counsel and 78 witnesses were heard.
The standing committee of the House of Commons, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Halton, who is known professionally as Dr. Harley, produced 2,717 pages of evidence and appendices. The committee took 14 months to complete its hearings; 108 witnesses were called and the committee held 63 meetings.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the result of the consideration of the recommendations made by that committee. Some of its recommendations have been accepted in toto. Some have been modified and some have been rejected, for reasons which I tried to set forth in my opening remarks. I think at same time it might be useful for us to review just how many of the 23 recommendations of the Harley committee have already been implemented. If this bill receives the approbation of this house, all statutory amendments which are involved in the recommendations of this report will have been implemented. That includes those recommendations which fall within the authority of the federal government. The bill deals with recommendations numbered 11, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the house for allowing this matter to go to the committee stage. On this side we shall consider seriously all reasonable amendments which are presented during the committee of the whole stage. I suggest to hon. members that they can help us to digest amendments and to process them, if they give us those amendments at the earliest possible moment. The text of some amendments has already been suggested by members of the official opposition, and more amendments may follow.
I shall now sit down, and speak again perhaps during the committee of the whole stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
[Mr. Turner.!
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-190, an act to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1.


Mr. Richard:: Mr. Chairman, I refrained from speaking diming the second reading stage, thinking it would be better if I spoke when the house is in committee. Many hon. members in the debate spoke at length about the drug industry and about the price of drugs. I do not intend to speak about the necessity for immediate measures to reduce the price of drugs. That this necessity exists was fully demonstrated in the committee chaired by the hon. member for Halton.
I am satisfied that the price of drugs is excessive and that that is harmful to the economy and to the nation. I am also satisfied it has been proven that the safety and quality of drugs is not related to ownership or control of patents, or to the products of a few brand name firms. On the contrary, it is well known that certain licensees of patent owners have produced better quality drugs than the so called ethical or brand name firms have produced. I am also satisfied that a large proportion of the profits which are accumulated by our pharmaceutical industry, so called,, which is foreign owned, reverts to foreign hands.
In view of recent legislation which has been enacted in many provinces and by the Canadian government, under which medical and hospital care would become a responsibility of government, I have become particularly worried about the cost of drugs. It has been said that over 30 per cent of medicare costs will be attributed to drugs and pharmaceutical products. Unless effective legislation is introduced, this country could price itself out of any scheme which will provide the medical services that it wishes to extend to its citizens. The United Kingdom met this difficulty by importing its drugs directly from Switzerland and other countries. Under its medicare plan these drugs are distributed at a very low cost.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, deals with amendments to the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act. In passing, I wish to say that it is unfortunate that we are still dealing with the old Patent Act eight years after the royal commission made a report on patents to this house. Nothing has been done since then. Had something been done we should not now be
February 14, 1968

faced with the difficulties that we are faced with.
The minister has already indicated that this bill is only one step in a larger program which is to effect a reduction in drug prices. Owners of patents should realize that they are beneficiaries of a monopoly extended to them by parliament. In effect, that monopoly gives them unlimited latitude to fix prices for their products, and to control their distribution. There has been little investigation into this feature of patents. Furthermore the house knows that the term of a patent, which is for 17 years, is much longer than necessary under modern conditions.
True, certain clauses in the Patent Act which relate to compulsory licences deal with abuses, but it has always been most difficult, or almost impossible, to make a case of abuse before the courts, because of the great litigation costs in appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, and because the relevant sections of the act are not strong enough.
In the case of patents on drugs, a great body of opinion has held that patents should not be granted for medical products and foods. Italy is one country which has subscribed to this view. I do not intend to take sides, but I venture the opinion that at the present time our large brand name firms will do as well without patents as they now do with patents, so long as they have their present unlimited resources for publicity, advertising and soliciting, and so long as they have the co-operation of the medical profession, the members of which find it easier to order drugs by their trade names instead of by their generic names.
I remind the committee also that 95 per cent of our Canadian patents are held by foreign firms that the control, distribution, quality and availability of drugs lies in their hands.
I now wish to say a few words about the legislation. In my view it is very fair legislation. It is a fact that foreign firms which hold patents in Canada have the right to import drug ingredients-sometimes they import the finished product-from their parent companies. The legislation which has been submitted to this house gives that same right to an approved importer who is other than the subsidiary of the owner of the patent, except that any new licensees will have to pay royalties. Such licensee must satisfy the food and drug directorate and must find a market for his product in the face of stiff competition. He will have to satisfy the food and drug
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act administration that his product is satisfactory from the point of view of safety and quality.
I should like to pay tribute to our own food and drug directorate. I remind the committee that though we do not follow the United States practice, which is to publish the results of investigations and court cases, it might be a good idea to do so. Hon. members may be surprised to learn that investigations are not always direced against the so-called-and I do not know whether this is the correct term to use-disreputable companies. Somebody said that some firms which are not reputable are selling drugs. To make that suggestion is not to pay a compliment to our food and drug administration.
If the results of investigations were published it would be found that even the so-called brand name firms have been looked into. They are just as likely as other firms to produce products which are not of good quality or approved purity. The fact that a firm overprices its drugs gives us no guarantee of the quality of those drugs. True, certain sections in the Patent Act relate to compulsory licensing and to abuses but, as I have said, those abuses are hard to prove.
Not too many firms can afford the cost of the proceedings that are involved in obtaining a licence, and very few licences will be certified by the food and drug directorate. That is why this legislation will create little problem for those who sympathize with the large companies. Licences must be approved by the food and drug directorate. Firms seeking those licences must have money to obtain them and money to compete with firms which are already established.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This legislation will at least give a chance to Canadian firms to get established, in the hope of developing a Canadian pharmaceutical industry providing drugs at a competitive price. The large patent owners have only themselves to blame for this legislation. They have consistently refused licences to reliable small firms, while at the same time they have willingly licensed some of their large competitors so as to restrict the market and control prices. This is one feature which I believe should be investigated in greater depth by the combines branch.
A great deal has been said about research to be carried out by some of the large firms in Canada. I am satisfied that very little research is being carried on, in comparison with the benefits which accrue to some of the
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act larger firms. As a matter of fact, the few discoveries we have made in the field of drugs in Canada can be attributed, not to these firms but to government agencies, universities or hospitals. A great deal of the staff involved in research comes from these sources, and the money comes from governments.
I repeat what I said earlier about the term of life of patents for drugs. I consider that a term of 17 years is far too long. It has been my experience that the commercial use of a drug patent is from five to seven years after which, for many reasons, including economic ones, a substitute is developed under a new brand name. There are some doctors present in the committee and they should know this to be true. I know it to be the case. There is the example of librium, which came out a few years ago. It had a real life of only some four or five years before it was superseded by a tranquilizer which was stated to be much better-and of course it was-namely valium. This is why I do not like the provision for a fixed five-year term in connection with the refusal of licences.
I should like to say a word about applications for licences. I am sure the minister realizes that the commissioner of patents has very heavy responsibilities and that he will not be able to hear many applications in one year. The minister should assure the committee that he will be provided with the necessary power and staff to enable applications to be heard by a properly constituted board, say three or four men, otherwise the delays will be endless.
I am against appeals to the Exchequer Court from these decisions. Under the legislation with which we are dealing, decisions by the commissioner are always followed by appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada and the cost of such appeals is excessive. Some hon. members have drawn attention to the fact that under the present practice only a few applications for compulsory licences have been heard in past years. This is the reason, and it is easy to understand. I speak as a patent lawyer. I never could find a client who was in a position to drag litigation out for four or five years culminating in hearings by the Supreme Court of Canada, to be faced in the end, possibly, by a bill of costs which could run to $7,000, even if I did not charge him one cent.
I shall not say much about the trade mark provisions in this bill, except to remind the committee that the most important protection


afforded to brand name firms is the trade mark under which they sell their drugs. As long as the medical profession insists on prescribing by brand names, and if governments do the same, there is really no other protection required in order to maintain the status quo.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this legislation will achieve the desired result. But this will happen only if there are enough competent and approved applicants for licences. In any event we must remind ourselves of the fact that any reduction in prices would also be within the power of the licensee. How much will that be?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to make a few further observations on Bill C-190. I have already placed on record my views with regard to the question of patent rights, and I have described what might be the effect of these provisions on the drug industry. I have expressed the view that the main requisite when prescribing drugs is safety-that drugs should be safe, and able to do the clinical job which they are supposed to do. I have put on record what the granting of patent rights has done for the Connaught medical research laboratories at the University of Toronto.
I doubt whether any of this research could have been carried out in the absence of patent rights with respect to insulin. The number of employees there now is about 800. Sales alone amount to more than $6 million, and the export trade to just under $2 million. But the value of the work this laboratory has done is immeasurable. I could cite the names of many professional people engaged in research who are able to continue to carry out work of great value to mankind, as a result of the discovery of insulin and similar drugs. Because their lives were saved they were able to carry on with some of the most fruitful work which has been done in the University of Toronto area. Whether one thinks of all this in the terms of the suffering which has been relieved or in the economics of dollars and cents, the benefit is beyond measure. I do not think for one moment we should disregard these aspects in a country of 20 million people. When insulin was discovered, our population numbered only 10 million. Yet the discovery was made here in Canada, and nowhere else in the world.
It has been stated disparagingly that the drug industry puts only 7 per cent of its budget into research. I want to ask you this, Mr. Chairman: What does industry generally put into research? What do other industries
February 14, 1968	COMMONS
in Canada devote to research? The figure in the case of the drug industry is higher than that of any other industry in Canada. This is a state of affairs that we must preserve. Do the people of Canada want to pay for all their research to be done in the United States or some other foreign country, as it is done today for many Canadian subsidiaries? I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that it cost us well over $300 million last year for research done in the United States-a lot of it by people who were educated in this country; we paid the cost of their education and then they went to the United States because research jobs were not available here. What a folly that is. As I have said previously, the cost of educating a medical doctor is well over $50,000. Are we going to let that go as an asset to some other country because we do not provide doctors with facilities for research in Canada? This is folly of the worst sort. The same applies to pharmaceutical research.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
When our young doctors go to the United States they become American citizens. Not so long ago I was in Boston, where I met three young Canadian doctors who had been educated in this country. Consider the cost of raising them, paying the baby bonus, paying for their education, putting them through medical school, giving them three or four years training afterwards, and then consider that they went to the United States because that is where the opportunities for research are. They did not have the opportunity to do research in Canada.
Last year the drug industry in Canada poured $12 million into research. I will not say this bill will destroy our drug industry, but I wish to indicate what has happened in other fields. The government takes the attitude that so much of our drug industry is owned outside Canada that the rest does not matter. I ask how much of the oil industry and of the manufacturing industry is owned outside Canada?
How are we ever going to build a country if we do not keep our university educated young men and women in Canada? At present they are going to the United States. I could name Canadians who are top flight men not only in research but in every other field in the United States. I wonder how many hon. members know that last year we paid over $300 million to the United States for industrial research. Surely we cannot build up a country by doing things like that.
DEBATES	6733
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
All of us want cheaper drugs, cheaper food, cheaper automobiles and lower rents. It does not faze the government, but we also want lower taxes. Our cost of living is at an all time high and I have not heard any suggestions about what the government will do in that regard. True, the government wants drug costs lowered. I am in favour of that 100 per cent, if the safety of drugs is protected. But what is the government doing about the cost of living and about high taxes? These are the things that make us non-competitive in many fields of production.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is smart. I think he is flexible, and I hope he will not be arrogant when it comes to making some amendments to this bill. He has a nice smile. He certainly leads you to believe that he is going to go along with you. I really like him, but I know he has to pilot a bad bill through this house and I sympathize with him. I hope he will show that elasticity and good judgment which will go across Canada to show the people that not only is he concerned about their getting cheaper drugs, but also that he is concerned that the drugs they get will do the job they are supposed to do. In the final analysis we will expect to make this a good bill.
One of the things which has struck me about the government, and this is something I said the other day, is that it allowed foreign imports of boots and shoes to increase year after year, until they pretty nearly put the Canadian boot and shoe industry out of business, a business which, per dollar, employs more people than most other industries. At present about 6 per cent of our labour force is unemployed. The rate of unemployment is going up and up like an escalator, but the government is not protecting the drug industry.
The same thing applies to the textile industry, and this really bothers me because there is a textile plant in my constituency. It is not a big plant by United States standards, but if the government does not move to abolish textile dumping, on July 1, 1968 foreign manufacturers will be able to dump more textiles in Canada in one month than all of our own textile firms could produce. The result will be more and more unemployment.
The same thing applies to farming. What is the government doing about the dairy industry? More and more people are being forced out of dairying with the result that we will have to buy more and more dairy products from other countries. I could also speak about
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act the fruit and vegetable industry. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said we have to be competitive. How can we be competitive in the drug field, or in any other field, when workmen in some other countries are being paid a third of what Canadian workmen receive? Does that make common sense? The result will be to put Canadian workmen out of jobs. We cannot have the second highest standard of living in the world and import all foreign goods. Look at our balance of payments situation.
Now the government is sponsoring this bill even though its spokesmen have said they do not know what its ultimate effect will be. They hope it will not be disastrous; but this government has done so many things that were disastrous that naturally I am a bit suspicious.
I now wish to deal with the comparative prices of drugs. Many tables which I think are not too relevant have been published during the course of the debate on this bill. I think the hon. lady from Grenville-Dundas put it very clearly when, as recorded at page 6702 of yesterday's Hansard, she said:
We have heard a great deal about the possible savings that can be made by using generic as against brand name drugs. An independent company, International Surveys Limited produced a report dated November 27, 1967 on its investigation of the relative cost of prescriptions written under brand names compared with those under generic names. The basis for the selection of drugs to be studied was as follows: they had to be well established, they had to cover as wide a range as possible in different therapeutic fields. Controlled drugs and drugs restricted by the Narcotics Act were excluded from the inquiry.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Major cities across Canada were chosen for use in the survey and pharmacies were selected at random from the yellow pages of telephone directories.
In the 11 categories of drugs studied, the differences in cost between brand and generic prescriptions were found to be negligible in nine of the categories. In one category the price of generic drugs was significantly higher and in one other the brand name prescriptions were significantly higher in price. The differences in price as between one outlet and another were found to be considerable.
I believe that is very true of the situation across Canada.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Winnipeg North had to say. I listened to him and I read his speech, and it was not too clear to me what he meant. However, I believe he said that the hospitals across Canada used generic drugs. I should like to say that I am not deriding generic drugs; there 

are some very good generic manufacturers. There are generic drugs which have been tested clinically and which have come up to standard. However, to come back to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, or what I thought he said, I checked with 12 hospitals across Canada today and found that they do not use generic drugs: They use brand name drugs. I was advised by one of the hospitals that they had at one time purchased other generic name drugs, but they found that it was necessary to test them clinically and that after testing many of them did not come up to the standards they required in the treatment of their patients. They found that the cost of testing was too high and therefore discarded the idea of buying other than brand name drugs.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member would permit a question, I should like to ask him whether when making these inquiries of the hospitals across Canada he asked what prices they were paying for the drugs they are purchasing, and how these prices compared with the prices the large drug manufacturers charge to other users of the drugs.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Is it not true in respect of any business that if you buy in great quantities in bulk you receive a cheaper price. If one goes to a drug store, surely the druggist must be paid his prescription fee. To have it otherwise would be nonsense. I hope what I have said deals effectively with the situation. I have taken the trouble to check into this matter. As a member of a research board I believe I am fairly familiar with the situation. I was therefore surprised to hear the hon. member say what I thought he said, and what apparently he did say. I do not think he intended to give the house false information. Probably he did not do his homework correctly.
I should like to ask the hon. member how he arrived at the figure of $5,000 in respect of the ratio per detail man and physician. I do not wish to enter into a debate on this matter, but according to my calculations that would amount to $100 million for detailing the doctors of Canada. I know the detail men have not spent $5,000 on me, and I have been in practice a long time. I know also that they have not spent it on any of the other doctors in my group. So I do not know where that figure came from. If the hon. member would
February 14, 1968	COMMONS
like to tell us where it came from I would be glad to give him the opportunity to do so, if he has your permission, Mr. Chairman.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the figures in front of me when I made the statement, but if the hon. member for Simcoe East would read the evidence given by the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association concerning the cost of promoting drugs he would find that 30 cents out of every dollar goes into the promotional costs, the salaries and expenses of detail men, and the very expensive glossy multi-coloured pamphlets which flood the offices of every doctor in Canada. They come from every large drug company which sells prescription drugs in Canada.
If the hon. member would look at the figures showing the amount they spend, and divide that by the number of doctors in Canada he will find that if my figure of $5,000 is not quite correct it is not very far out.


J. Michael Forrestall: The figure is out by $4,000.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Halifax says that the figure is out by $4,000 per physician. I think we should be careful, when saying things in the house, that we are sure of the source of our information.
I do not want to suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has deliberately misled this house; I would not like such an interpretation to be taken from my words.
Patent rights have now been running for 17 years. I have given some thought to this and I believe we should do something about it. The manufacturers charge a price for their drugs that would enable them to recover the research cost over that number of years. The period now has been cut to five years. It has been stated that some members of the cabinet think that perhaps it should be cut to two years. I am not sure I would agree to a period of 5 years. This would give manufacturers less than a third of the time they have had formerly in which to recover their research expenditures. It might be that the manufacturers will say that they will have to charge enough in that five year period to recover the cost of research of the drug. If they do not recover it, it seems to me they would either go out of business or would be very badly hurt.
Most of the drugs on which they have patent rights, such as Chloromycetin, are antibiotics. They play a part in the saving of lives,
DEBATES	6735
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act in infections and therefore in the long run I wonder whether our action might not result in the patient paying more. I think this is worth consideration. I am sure the minister will take a look at this and reply to the question of whether the shortening of the patent right period will influence the cost of the drug. I wonder whether in this way we might be doing a disservice to the Canadian people, because it is only the worthwhile drugs that will be researched to any great extent, because of the part they play in the clinical treatment of patients. In other words, we might well be increasing the cost of lifesaving drugs to the Canadian people.
I should like to mention the clinical efficacy of drugs. I am disturbed by the statements we hear to the effect that some drugs have exactly the same components, and yet clinically will not do the same job. I believe this is one of the things many of us do not grasp. There was a very well known example of this which has to do with Chloromycetin. I stated in the house the other day that chloramphenicol had been withdrawn from the United States market and that only Chloromycetin was allowed to be sold. The fact of the matter is that chloramphenicol is manufactured by the Parks, Davis Company under the trade name or brand name of Chloromycetin.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
They had that patent for 17 years. The interesting thing about this drug is that, if my memory serves me correctly, it cost Parke, Davis something like $5 million to research and produce it. I believe my figure is correct. I am going back in my memory to information which I received at the Mayo clinic, Rochester, in the state of Minnesota.


The Chairman:: Order, please. It is rather difficult for the Chair to hear the remarks being made by the hon. member for Simcoe East. Perhaps the conversations that are being carried on in the chamber could very well take place in the lobbies.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, it cost Parke, Davis about $5 million to research that drug. Their patent rights lasted for 17 years. It was a valuable drug, was most often used in cases of very serious illness. Last December those patent rights ran out. In January or February of 1967 five other companies applied for and obtained a compulsory licence to manufacture the drug chloramphenicol. These companies were granted this right, manufactured the
6736	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act drug and marketed it. Parke, Davis continued manufacturing it also. Around June doctors started to note that they were not getting the results from chloramphenicol that they should have been getting; it was not doing the job. They started to check up in hospitals and found that Parke, Davis' chloramphenicol was doing the job and the blood levels were all right. In the case of the drug manufactured by other companies, the blood levels were at various levels and urinary output in respect of the drug varied as well.
The point with any life saving drug, or any drug used when a patient is acutely ill, is to get the blood at such a level that the components of the drug in the patient's blood are strong enough to kill the germ that has attacked the patient. Therefore the drug is life saving. I do not know whether some people died in the United States as a result of the use of the drug chloramphenicol; I did not go into all the facts. But as a result of the investigation, all those drugs manufactured under compulsory licence were recalled from the market by the food and drugs department of the United States. Chloramphenicol as produced by Parke, Davis is the only such drug one can purchase today in the United States. I thank the hon. member for Halton, the chairman of our committee, for stating that he had ascertained that the information I have given to the committee is correct. I appreciate that very much.
This is the important point. You had a drug that met exactly the requirements of the food and drugs department of the United States. It met those requirements in every detail. A compulsory licence was granted for the manufacture of the drug, but clinically the drug failed. I say to the minister that this is one of the points that must be written into this bill, namely the clinical efficiency of the drug; because nothing else matters.
The drug can be safe as far as the components are concerned, but it is not necessarily clinically efficient. We have a great example of this right now with respect to Parke, Davis. I am sure the Prime Minister will look into this matter immediately. I asked him about it today during the question period. You can go downtown in Ottawa and buy chloramphenicol of different brands. I do not think this is good enough or smart enough. I do not think this should be the situation.
I point out to the minister that, leaving out other factors that may also be of great importance, the factor of greatest importance is the

DEBATES	February 14, 1968
clinical efficiency of the drug that will save somebody's life, instead of losing it. Once the organism or the germ gets ahead of the antibiotic and is not being controlled, you may lose your patient. I again say to the minister that this is something the medical profession demands above all things, namely that the drug doctors are using be clinically efficient.
Somebody said this is an emotional matter. If you have ever sat by the bedside of somebody fighting for his life, and you have been checking the blood level and checking the patient clinically, hoping and praying that the drug would make the blood level high enough to kill the organism or germ, you would know that this is not an emotional matter. Anybody who brands it as emotional should not be in the house; he is not mature enough to be here.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this should be a prime consideration in the bill. Every doctor, every patient, has the right to be assured of clinical efficiency in respect of the drugs he uses. I will have more to say on this subject when we deal with other clauses of the bill.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks at this time will be very brief, because I do not have a full knowledge of this subject and I realize that the debate and discussion on this side of the house has been under the very capable supervision and in the good hands of the hon. member for Simcoe East. However, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not express my concern for those Canadians who are unfortunate enough to have to buy expensive drugs, and many drugs in some cases. I refer to Canadians with large families, and particularly our senior citizens, who can usually least afford it, who have to pay high prices for drugs. The senior citizens of this country pay more than any other group of people because they suffer from more ailments and need more drugs. Therefore I have every sympathy for these people. And the high cost of drugs with which they are burdened.
I realize that this bill has been introduced in order to bring down the cost of drugs, particularly for the people I have mentioned. Because I shall raise a few objections to the bill I hope I shall not be accused of being in support of high prices for drugs or challenging the need to reduce the price of drugs. I appreciate the minister's efforts and what he is trying to accomplish by means of the bill. His intentions are very good. But to this point
February 14, 1968	COMMONS
I have not been convinced that the bill will bring about lower drug prices at the retail level, nor have I been convinced that all precautions have been taken for the safety and health of Canadians.
I do not know the intentions of the department as far as policing the importation of drugs is concerned. However, I suggest to the minister and the cabinet that they should take the $10 million increase that they are giving to the C.B.C. this year and give it to this department, so it may set up a force which could police the importation of drugs and provide the safety that is needed in testing all drugs. If this were done, the money would be far better spent than the way in which it will be spent at this stage in the history of the C.B.C. I hope that consideration will be given to this suggestion.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that the bill will bring about lower prices of drugs at the retail level, nor ensure the safety in this area that Canadians deserve. I am also concerned for the protection of the drug industry in general. I think of the great research fields and the great research institutions that are now functioning.
I have concern for those engaged in the distribution of this product. I have concern for these people in the drug industry, and it is my belief that this bill will interfere with this great economic sector of our country. I am also concerned that this bill will abolish some of the accepted patent and trade mark rights. The provisions of this bill appear to be designed as a serious attack on our patent system, and it might set a very unfortunate precedent.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I have made these few remarks to put my concern on record. I am in agreement with the intention of the minister, but I have yet to be convinced that the bill will accomplish those things he has set out to accomplish. I will support the bill in principle, but I hope when we are discussing other clauses the minister will allow his better judgment to prevail in order that he may accept our amendments, which will be designed to strengthen this measure and accomplish those things the minister had in mind at the outset.
I do not intend to labour the points any longer, but I did want to express my concern about those things I have mentioned.


J. Michael Forrestall: I think several matters referred to in the past few days in respect of Bill C-190 should be clarified. I do not intend
DEBATES	6737
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act to reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's West, that the speech I made in the house was utter trash. I intend rather to address myself to those assurances the minister has given about the matters which concern other members and myself as to the absence of any relationship between this act and regulations under the Food and Drug Act.
Earlier the minister quoted from the Food and Drug Act regulations. The copy I have is dated 1965, but I am sure the pertinent part is up to date. That portion quoted by the minister is to be found at page 80B of this copy I have. The regulation is number C.01.055 and is dated March 18, 1963. I accept with one exception what is implicit in this regulation. Let me quote part of what it states:
In the ease of a drug sought to be imported into Canada, the director may require-
I do not think it is sufficient for us to state in these regulations, or accept, such a permissive word as "may". We are concerned in this regard, as outlined by the hon. member for Simcoe East. He feels very strongly about the clinical efficacy of drugs. There should be more of us in this house who are concerned about the maintenance of high standards in drugs. If the maintenance of clinical standards is not possible, the very least we should accept is a tangible relationship between this measure and the regulations of the Food and Drug Act.
There are other regulations of the Food and Drug Act which may help the minister and his officials to understand my concern. Let me draw an analogy, in the hope that I can make my point clear. It is not enough for me to satisfy my concern about safety, and it is not enough to include what is said in the regulations which appear at page 126C of the regulations, specifically number C.08.003, which state:
Notwithstanding section C.08.002 no person shall sell a new drug in respect of which a notice of compliance has been issued to the manufacturer of that new drug if
(a)	the description of the new drug;
(b)	the name of the new drug or the name under which it is sold;
(c)	the specifications of the ingredients of the new drug;
(d)	the plant and equipment used in manufacturing, processing and packaging the new drug;
(e)	the method of manufacture and the controls used in manufacturing, processing and packaging the new drug;
(f)	the tests applied to control the potency, purity, stability and safety of the new drug;
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
(g)	the labels used in conjunction with the new drug;
(h)	the representations made with regard to the new drug respecting
(i)	the recommended route of administration of the new drug,
(il) the dosage of the new drug,
(iii)	the claims made for the new drug, and
(iv)	the contra-indications and side effects of the new drug-
Even with the inclusion of those requirements, and even if it were possible to spell out these things, there is still nothing that provides for safety in the use or administration of these new drugs. We have in recent years had too many cases of drugs being used before thorough and careful examination has been made. These drugs should not only be safe, but they should appear to be safe. It is not enough to say to the Canadian public that certain drugs are safe. The users of these drugs are entitled to know that as a result of regulations the drugs they use are safe because they have been clinically tested. This must be the case not only in respect of safety but in respect of purity and use. These regulations say nothing about what happens when the drug is used.
In this connection the minister has indicated that he too is concerned and is prepared to consider all amendments brought forward by members on all sides of the house. He has indicated that he will consider them and, where practicable, accept them. There are possibly three amendments that should be moved, and if I may I should like to speak briefly to them for a few minutes. Unfortunately I will not be here to participate in the introduction of these amendments, and this may be my last opportunity to make any remarks about them. Therefore I wanted to indicate to the committee, if I may, Mr. Chairman, my views on these three amendments.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If I may go back for just a moment, the first amendment would be concerned with safety. Safety is like justice; it is not enough that justice be done, because it is equally important that at all times justice must seem to be done. The same remarks apply to drugs. Drugs must not only be safe, but the Canadian public must know they are safe. If the Canadian public starts to question the safety of drugs, one reaction will be that people will not give a damn whether they pay $5 or five cents for a drug. They will buy safety.
As one whose family uses drugs extensively, I am very conscious of this reaction on the

part of a parent or husband. The piece of legislation with which we are dealing in the bill before us has nothing to do with safety or food and drug regulations. This bill seeks to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act. I believe the committee, as a result of its deliberations, was most anxious to make the point that the commissioner of patents cannot accept responsibility for drug safety in Canada. Indeed it is not the final responsibility, either, of the director general of the food and drug directorate. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. You see, Mr. Chairman, already in connection with this bill we have two ministerial authorities involved. First there is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, second, there is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I suggest there is a third area of interest, if we are being guided by the spirit of the recommendations of the special committee in connection with this matter. At page 6 of the final report of the committee, chapter II, under the heading "Basic Principles", I find this:
-although your committee remained fully conscious that its responsibilities in fact exceed those of the commissions-*
Here, the committee is speaking of the earlier studies carried out by commissions.
-in that the committee's conclusions must be such that any of its recommendations, if adopted, should continue to maintain a proper balance between industry and consumer and take into consideration the importance of continued and increased scientific research in Canada. No recommendations could be considered which, although designed to lower drug prices in Canada, might produce drugs of questionable safety or have a detrimental effect upon other aspects of the Canadian economy.
We were admitting in that report that we were not sure how such a balance could be struck. If any hon. members are interested in reading them, there are further comments in the report pertinent to basic principles. However, the chief basic principle is there, and I suggest it is clear there is a third area of ministerial responsibility involved. I suggest this third area comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry. These are the three areas involved; but there is no simple way, within the confines of one act, of bringing these responsibilities together.
In so far as licensing is concerned, I believe that an applicant should have his request considered by a tribunal of these three responsible ministers. Practically speaking, I suppose, the tribunal would not be
February 14, 1988

composed of the ministers themselves, but rather their designees. In the case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, his authority would be vested in the commissioner of patents. The Minister of National Health and Welfare obviously would be represented by the director general of the food and drug directorate.
I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that my lack of understanding of the Department of Industry, for which I do not apologize, is such that I am not certain who his representative would be. In any event, I suggest that on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the Harley committee, the Department of Industry should be concerned.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to ask the hon. member whether his reference to an applicant being subjected to a departmental review would not be covered already by clause 13 of the bill, in which reference is made to the need for referring an application to the Department of National Health and Welfare or the food and drug directorate.


J. Michael Forrestall: Patent Act-Trade Marks Act hon. members to draw their own conclusions. If I am wrong in this I apologize; if not, I stand on that statement.
I have some additional remarks to make in the form of questions to the minister. He has his officials with him and I hope he will be able to answer my questions. One or two questions involve the reprinting of a text of a speech delivered by Mr. Allmark, assistant director-general of drugs of the food and drug directorate. This speech appears in the Medical Services Journal of Canada, volume 23, No. 3 for March, 1967. I would appreciate the minister's comments on Mr. Allmark's contention that
-when violations of the law are uncovered, remedial or punitive action is taken. It is not, however, a proper function of the food and drug laboratories to act as a control laboratory for the industry. The first responsibility for safety and potency is put squarely on the manufacturer.
I appreciate that Mr. Allmark is right, but I am sure the minister will not rest until he too is fully satisfied that this type of awareness is built into the bill. Several other statements underline this point. He goes on to deal with the role of the directorate as compared with the industry in the matter of drug control. I read his statements with great interest.
I also have one or two questions about raw material control, drug availability and so on. However, I will say no more for the time being. I just wish to assure the minister and all other members of the committee that I recognize the need to find practical ways to reduce the cost of drugs to the consumer. As I said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I support any measure that has this objective as its goal.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I cannot lightly pass over something that is most important to users of drugs in Canada, the question of safety. I know that safety is simply a word, but I should like to think that users of drugs in Canada, whether the drugs being used are obtained under their brand names or generic equivalents, may use then with an absolute assurance of their safety. I should like to think that such users know full well that the regulations under which their drugs are processed and put into dosage form are such that one's physical protection is absolutely guaranteed. We have had few exceptions to this sort of thing in Canada, and we may count ourselves most fortunate. It would be unfortunate if Canadians thought that that situation did not prevail.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I want to enter this debate very briefly to clarify a misunderstanding which arose during the second reading debate. I did not take part in that discussion; neither was I a member of the committee, though I read the committee reports.
I must confess that as I listened to the discussion during the second reading stage, instead of becoming more enlightened I became more confused. I became confused about the minister's purpose in introducing this legislaton at this time. The bill itself is described as "An Act to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act". That sounds like something a lawyer might concern himself with. Matters involving patents and trade marks seem to occupy the attention of the legal beagles in the house. Those who have not that professional background are not so preoccupied with such matters.
It seemed to me, after listening to the minister's speech the other afternoon and reviewing it in Hansard, that he was talking about a bill which would lower drug prices in Canada. That need not necessarily have anything to do with the Patent Act or the Trade Marks Act. Nevertheless the minister kept emphasizing all the wonderful things that this legislation would accomplish in terms of lowering drug prices in Canada. As father of a large family, I say that that is a consummation devoutly to be wished. We all agree that the problem of health care in Canada is aggravated by high drug prices. Unfortunately none of the multiplicity of welfare and health programs on our statute books at the present time has done anything to deal with that problem.
As I listened to the presentations of other hon. members in the house I had the impression that the actual effect of this bill would be to threaten an important industry of Canada and lower the quality of pharmaceutical products. I was impressed by the leading spokesman of this party when he spoke on second reading the other day. I thought he summarized the legislation logically, and concluded by recommending that since there is much confusion about this bill, as expressed in the various viewpoints in the house, it might be wise to send it to a committee for further consideration so that this confusion might be clarified.
This afternoon the minister indicated that he had had representations from many groups outside the house and advice from hon. members in the house. I can only conclude that if
February 14, 1968	COMMONS
he has received such representations, he has not read them carefully. From my reading of those representations, I thought some important and legitimate points were made.
One reason that I wish to speak at this time is that I was impressed by the presentation last evening of the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle. Since he spoke from the government side of the house it is obvious that he has no partisan axe to grind. He spoke from the standpoint of quality and safety of drugs, a viewpoint that has emerged in several speeches, and also about the threat that this legislation poses to the continuing health and progress of an important part of our industrial complex. The hon. member I thought spoke with authority, representing an area which has located in it a substantial part of our pharmaceutical industry. He brought information before the house, read from letters and mentioned names, and I think he persuaded the minister that it might be wise to follow the advice of the hon. member for Simcoe East and recommend that this matter be referred to a committee.
The minister says that the purpose of this bill is to lower drug prices. It is impossible to demonstrate at this juncture whether that can be done. Also we do not seem to be sure of the end result of the legislation; it has been suggested that one effect will be the lowering of quality of drugs and the endangering of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. It has been my experience in the house that when an important item of legislation which will have a multi-pronged impact and which is full of uncertainties and imponderables is introduced, the course of wisdom dictates that we should be allowed a further opportunity to sort out any confusion that has arisen. That confusion has arisen was demonstrated in the debate on second reading.
Unhappily we have gone beyond the stage where this matter can be referred to a committee. We are now in the committee of the whole stage. Nevertheless I shall make one final plea this afternoon. If we are to avoid some of the potential dangers which have been outlined, the minister may wish to move amendments to the bill. The necessity for those amendments has been demonstrated to him, and I think he is convinced that they are necessary. I saw him nodding his head during the course of the debate as various points were raised. I think he is convinced that the legislation, as it stands, will not necessarily accomplish its objectives. Certainly, it will have some unforeseen effects which have been pointed out by other hon. members.
DEBATES	6741
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
While the debate has taken place at a relatively high level there have been partisan overtones from time to time. For example, the hon. member for St. John's West yesterday tried to equate the members of this group with high drug prices in Canada. That is a straight partisan approach, of course, because in Canada at this time of soaring prices and general inflation anyone who aligned himself with high prices in Canada would need his head examined. We would not need a pharmacist, we would need a psychiatrist if that were the position we took. The hon. member's approach was a directly partisan one and I believe it will be judged as such. While I was tempted to enter the debate at that time I restrained myself and was content to make only one or two comments. It seemed to me that the hon. member for St. John's West was reflecting the voice of one who has since departed from this chamber. I notice it was reported in Hansard that I referred to him as a "pocket Pick". I had to be careful in that respect because if I reversed the words they would have created a wrong impression.
Similarly the hon. member for Winnipeg North tried to align members of this group with the drug industry. This too is a partisan approach. Unlike the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle, I do not have the privilege of knowing that this important industry is established in my constituency. I come from a western constituency where we are striving mightily to broaden our economic base through industrial development. One of the encouraging developments which have been taking place in my area has concerned the drug industry to a minor extent. The Ayerst Company has established an important branch plant in my constituency and we have received inquiries from other companies which are engaged in providing this valuable service to Canadians. For this reason I would not object to a suggestion that I might be interested in the industrial developments aspects which may be involved in this legislation. But this is not special pleading; it is not a special case approach of any kind.
If it is true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North suggested, that there is abuse in the pricing practices of the drug industry I do not think we need special legislation of the kind before us to get at it. We have at our disposal all the combines investigation procedures for dealing with any price abuses which may exist. Moreover, by a happy chance, the very minister who is interested in
6742	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act this bill before us also has responsibility for combines investigation. I would suggest to the bon. gentleman, if he really feels there is price abuse in the drug industry in Canada, he should seek to remedy it by using the machinery already established for that purpose. If there is wrongful price maintenance or restraint of trade or any other abuse capable of correction by the combines investigation branch, let him use that machinery instead of this shotgun approach, in the hope that the legislation will have a beneficial side effect by lowering drug prices to consumers.
We all share this hope, but as I have already indicated, and as I am sure the minister has been made aware, there are other side effects implicit in this legislation which could have dangerous consequences from the standpoint of the safety of drugs and also from the standpoint of Canada's economic well-being. I am not necessarily quoting anybody from this side of the house; I am quoting one of the minister's own supporters in this respect, a man who should be most knowledgeable, the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle, who has the industry in his constitutency and who of all hon. members should know what he is talking about in this connection.
Let me make a few additional comments with regard to the fundamental points which have been raised in this debate. The minister has told us his proposals will lower the cost of drugs to consumers. He also admits that they constitute only one of a series of actions which are required. Several hon. members have said that one of the reasons for the high price of drugs on the Canadian market is the high cost of promotion and distribution-the high pressure advertising which is used. Again, if this is so, it is not peculiar to the drug industry. All one has to do is read the interesting little book by Vance Packard entitled "Hidden Persuaders" to learn about these activities in the whole marketing process in Canada. Why select the drug industry in particular for criticism of this kind?
Again, high prices are not exclusive to the drug industry. Prices are high right across the board. For example, I pay much more for my automobile bought here in Canada than I would for an automobile bought across the border or in Europe. Despite this wonderful agreement which has been arranged, I still have to pay $500 more for my car than if I had bought it in the United States. This applies to almost every product distributed in Canada, and if excessive advertising cost is

DEBATES	February 14. 1968
the reason for the difference in price, let us direct our attention to advertising; let us not discriminate against one particular industry. I realize there are many who say that avertis-ing costs are excessive and add to the flames of inflation. But let us make sure we are not doing the wrong thing by using this measure to solve that particular problem.
I am always suspicious when a minister wants to rush legislation through the house and bypass the committee stage of discussion. When I look at the special report of the committee and read its recommendations I find that the minister has selected only one small recommendation from a whole series of some 23 recommendations. It seems to me that the measure before us represents a panic response on the part of the government to the revolt of the ladies of a year ago, though at that time they appeared to be complaining more about the price of food than anything else. Protest groups sprang up spontaneously right across the country, and the government was under considerable pressure to do something.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This legislation is being rushed through more in an effort to create an impression than to get to the heart of a basic problem. Again referring to the hidden persuaders who operate mysteriously behind the scenes in the home marketing process in Canada, we know what they can do in the field of image creation. With this legislation the minister is attempting to create for himself an image of one fighting the villains of high prices and inflation. He is pushing the legislation through, without referring it to a standing committee, as was recommended on both sides of the chamber, and the result may be that we may end up in a worse state than we were in previously. There is a phrase in the scriptures which says something about the second state being worse than the first state, and by this bill the minister may be creating more problems than he is solving.
Several hon. members have dealt with the safety factor. The minister has assured us that the food and drug directorate will be able to do all the necessary policing, to avoid the difficulties that caused certain drugs to leap into the headlines. Notwithstanding the powers of control, investigation and licensing which the directorate has, errors have been made. If we are going to pile on to the overworked Canadian food and drug directorate the responsibility for policing drugs manufactured outside Canada, then I am afraid our
February 14, 1968	COMMONS
second state is indeed going to be worse than our first.
From reading the evidence given to the standing committee, I understand that the directorate has admitted it cannot do the necessary inspecting and policing to ensure the safety of drugs. By this bill we are adding another almost impossible task to its responsibilities. However, the minister did point out that in the long run the quality of drugs depends on the integrity of the manufacturers. I agree with him.
We can be assured of the best quality drugs only when we deal with reputable manufacturers. I am sure that by far the greatest number of drug firms operating in Canada are in that category. They are here to serve the public to the best of their ability, to give them the best quality medicine for the treatment of disease and illness. They are not out to exploit the public in any shape or form.
If the situation be otherwise, then as I have already indicated the combines investigation machinery should be put to work; but the minister should not try to create a smokescreen through the sort of legislation we have before us. As one who is concerned about the state of the economy and the prospects for expanding industrial development in all parts of Canada, I am concerned about the suggestions that have been put forward by several hon. members, that if this legislation is arbitrarily imposed upon the Canadian drug industry it will mean a decline in that industry.
This legislation could add to the brain drain. I have received one or two letters-I will not put them on the record-from individuals, specialists in the field of research in Canada, who have written to say that if this legislation is passed they will have no other alternative but to join the brain drain, as we call it, that treks regularly across the border into our neighbour to the south, where opportunities for research are already much more plentiful than they are in Canada.
I think the minister is a responsible person.
I know he is seeking even greater responsibility. If he wished to demonstrate to the people of Canada that he is serious in his current ambitions, now that he has refused to send the bill to a standing committee I trust he will seize the initiative and bring forward amendments to the bill which will remove beyond shadow of doubt the possible bad side effects mentioned by several hon. members when they spoke about safety, quality, and the impact of the bill on the drug industry.
DEBATES	6743
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I come from a simple school that goes right back to Plato. Some of these drugs do not go back that far. The school of which I speak asked questions and sought answers, and before saying anything about the details of this bill I would like to ask a few questions of the minister and hope he is able to answer them. Is this bill the first attempt to change section 41 of the Patent Act, which has been in existence since 1952?


John Napier Turner: In answer to the question of the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, an exception was originally made in the Patent Act, so far as it related to food and drugs, in 1923. At that time the machinery for applying for compulsory licensing was introduced. The commissioner of patents has interpreted section 41(3) as it now stands as limiting him to issuing a compulsory licence only for the manufacture of medicines and foods, not for their importation. The purpose of this amendment to the Patent Act is to extend the purview of compulsory licensing from that of mere manufacture to that of the importing of medicines and drugs.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If I understand the minister correctly the purport of this bill is to change a statute that has been in effect since 1923. Is that correct?


John Napier Turner: Yes, sir.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then I come to my second question; but may I say that answer actually is the basis for a full blown speech, in view of some of the remarks made from the opposite side and made by my friends to the left. I do not have any drug firms in my riding. I would like to have some, but if I am to believe some of the things which have been said in this chamber within the last day or so, not too many members are going to have too many drug firms left in their ridings.
The minister's answer leads me to my next question. However, before asking it I would like to interpolate that one of the reasons I was prompted to take an interest in this debate-I was not a member of the standing committee-is because I was incensed by a few remarks made by members yesterday, members who will remain unnamed, and especially by the disposition of my friends to the left. When I say to my left, I mean hon. members sitting to my left, and a number of others opposite me. I think it is time to become interested when they join together.
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act Indeed it is time Canadians became interested in this unholy alliance between some hon. members opposite and those to my left.
Let us not talk any more about vested interests and about protecting the drug industry. If it is 1923 we are talking about, then members of the party opposite and of this party have formed governments and been in office for X number of years since 1923. The hon. member for St. John's West, whom personally I respect but with whom I politically do not agree, made some unfortunate remarks yesterday to which I take strong exception. He waxed eloquently but most misguidedly about a situation that has existed since 1923. Unfortunately, since 1923 one party has been in power for a long time. Certainly if there is any suggestion of there being a vested interest or a selling of a soul for the price of a drug-and some such suggestions have been made by hon. members opposite-then let us knock out that nonsense.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In view of the fact that there has been no relevant change since 1923 I should like to ask the minister why he has not awaited the report of the Economic Council of Canada in respect of the drug industry which I understand he told several groups, including the chartered accountants, he would wait for before proceeding with Bill C-190. The subject matter of this bill strikes every household in Canada. No one has a monopoly interest about trying to do something to lower the prices of drugs or to ensure their safety. Certainly all members of this house would like to see low prices for drugs. Unfortunately, there has been no change in this legislation since 1923. I should like to ask therefore why we are proceeding with this legislation with haste now, without awaiting, first the report of the Economic Council of Canada or, second, the report of the Medical Research Council on the drug industry in Canada. I understand that both reports are in various stages of preparation.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, it is true that there is a general reference to the Economic Council of Canada. This was made on July 22, 1966. It has to do with patents, trademarks and copyrights. The reason the government decided to proceed with these amendments was that an exception had always been made in the general patent act with reference to food and drugs. Therefore, this was a particular matter which could be dealt with, without affecting the general patent law. The second


reason is that because of the urgent problem concerning drug prices in Canada, the government felt it should not await the report of the Economic Council of Canada, which we do not expect to have until late 1968 or early 1969.
The third reason is that on this particular subject of patents and trade marks, as they affect drugs, there have already been made a number of very profound and serious reviews. In other words, in this particular instance it was not felt that the added review by the Economic Council of Canada would in itself buttress the conclusions already arrived at, first by the combines branch of the Department of Justice in 1958 and next by the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in 1963 as well as by the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services-the Hall commission-in 1963. In addition to these reports we have the report of the committee under the chairmanship of my friend, the hon. member from Halton, of April last year. Therefore the subject matter under review had, in the government's opinion, been thoroughly digested and buttressed by evidence and argument, and by the opinions of witnesses from all sides of the economic picture.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for that answer, which leads me to my next question. I appreciate his answer, and I realize that there have been several reviews of the drug industry. I remember the commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Ilsley. This royal commission made its report a few years ago and not very much has been done about it. I wish I had a copy of the minister's speech before me, because I understand he did tell various bodies that there would be no action on this bill until he had the report. Am I wrong?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member is wrong. I did say that no general review of the Patent Act would be attempted before we had received the report of the Economic Council of Canada. I do not think I went further than that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Does the hon. member wish to direct a question to me or to the minister?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to direct it to the minister. It has to do with this particular
February 14, 1968

subject. The minister indicated that the combines investigation branch suggested there was something rotten in Denmark. I should like to ask therefore why the government did not proceed under this act.


John Napier Turner: I should not like the hon. member to confuse the issue. The combines investigation branch was looking at the structure of the Canadian drug industry in 1958, and certain aspects of the economic environment of that industry which related to the high drug prices. It was particularly interested in the monopolistic aspect which resulted from the patent and trade mark protection. I would not want the hon. member at this stage to be confused by believing that there were allegations alleging that there are sinister or collusive practices in the industry. That is not the case at all.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This was mentioned several times during the debate.


John Napier Turner: If the hon. member would be good enough to review the opening remarks I made on second reading I believe he will find that I made no allegation that there was anything sinister about the way the drug industry has been conducting itself, and that it merely has been taking advantage of the economic environment. I believe I said that we wished to change that situation in order to induce more competition in a free enterprise system in order to lower prices.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Even if the patient dies?


John Napier Turner: Well, now-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member should not use the pretext of asking a question in order to enter into a debate with the minister. I should like to ask another question. The minister answered fairly well my two-pronged question. He mentioned the general reference to the Economic Council of Canada.
The second part of my question concerned the particular reference which I understand has been made to the Medical Research Council in respect of the drug industry. Does not that reference concern this whole problem of drugs, which we have been discussing here for the last day or so? If all the necessary reports in respect of the drug industry have been completed, why is the Economic Council of Canada taking so much time to review the drug problem? In particular I should like to ask the minister the purpose of the report of the Medical Research Council, and whether it
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act might not shed some light on the problem covered by this bill.


John Napier Turner: I am advised that the review by the Medical Research Council has to do with medical research. At the moment we are not aware of any particular report affecting the drug industry. In any event we have not received one.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that my information is that the drug industry as such is a specific item of the report. The minister has much better advisers than I, and they are closer to him geographically and physically. Therefore I will accept his answer on that.
In view of the minister's answers I should like to come back to what I said as an opener; that is, whenever I see such interest shown by my friends to the left, and of the left, in something proposed by my colleagues opposite I become somewhat suspicious. Despite the red herrings which were drawn across the path by some members opposite, if we take the 1923 base we are all guilty of the things mentioned by some hon. members opposite.
I have been disturbed by this bill. During second reading stage the minister said that its basic framework is an economic one. In answer to me now he has stated that it was the interest in the matter of prices and consumer affairs, as well as all the controversy which has surrounded the high cost of living, which acted as a catalyst in persuading the government to bring in this legislation now. Yet if I understood him correctly, the minister was fair enough in this debate to say that this bill in itself will not bring down prices, and that perhaps some other things will have to be done. I believe that was the purport of his remarks.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This bill will not of itself be the cure. On the other hand, we have heard all the arguments about safety that have been advanced by members on this side of the house and I know their opinion is shared by members on all sides of the house. We then get into an area that one hon. member opposite raised yesterday. It turns out that his was an economic argument. I refer to the concern shown by those now involved and those who will be directly involved when this bill passes, namely those in the drug industry.
We have heard the dispute as to the alleged implications of the bill when it becomes law.
February 14, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act We then get down to an area of economics. If the only premise of the bill is cheaper prices, and the minister himself says that the bill by itself will not create cheaper prices, and there is the argument about the safety issue-which is not perhaps shared by all, but the concern is obviously shared by all-I ask, why cannot we make the same argument about any product manufactured in Canada?


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Good idea.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Certainly the hon. member for Oshawa and other members across the way could apply this argument to cars. They are made outside this country a little cheaper than we can make them. I heard an hon. member to my left say "Good idea". Where do they want to stop? Do they want any type of Canada? There is a price to be paid if we are to have a Canada. The Prime Minister, the first man in the land, the minister's political boss and the Prime Minister of all of us, said at the constitutional conference not too long ago that some adjustment and give-and-take must be applied to the question of linguistic rights and the constitutional structure of Canada. He said this was part of the price of being a country.
I do not want to get into the ramifications of free trade, or tariff walls, but when an industry is affected why should they not show their concern to members of parliament when a bill is placed before the house that they think is detrimental to them? Why should they be castigated, criticized unduly, unfairly and misguidedly when they come before parliament and present briefs in respect of matters which affect their livelihood?
The drug industry is concerned about the implications of the bill. The minister has fairly stated that the bill itself will not cut prices, although its general framework was intended to have this result. Then we get the argument on the economic side, the argument on prices. This argument can be made about any product manufactured in Canada. You can apply that argument to cars manufactured in this country. I can see my hon. friends to the left starting to wail, wallow and cry if those people manufacturing cars were put out of work, or if the workers in International Nickel at Sudbury were put out of work. Many of their friends, and the friends of many of us, would be out of work if there were not manufacturing industry in Canada. I do not know the effect of all the implications of this bill as far as the drug industry is concerned; I have not read all the evidence


given to the committee. But is the government taking it upon itself to attack an industry which certain members opposite accuse us of supporting because it is a vested industry, because it is a small industry, because it does not have membership in factories, people involved and union members from coast to coast, because it does not have farms from coast to coast?
Wheat is being imported into Canada and is being sold cheaper than our wheat. You can advance the price argument to any product manufactured in this country. This argument applies to any product manufactured here, but we must take into consideration the economic position of Canada vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The argument about price could be used in respect of many of our primary products. If hon. friends to my left say they would like to see this situation in Canada, I would like to know where they will get their political support when a great many of their friends in unions and other places are out of work.
On the one hand we have the concern' shown by the industry affected. On the other hand there is the fact that the minister himself says the bill by itself will not bring about cheaper prices. I fail to appreciate fully the need for this bill when the statute has been on the books since 1923. This bill is put forward as being in the interests of all Canadians. Sometimes we perhaps move too quickly. Canadians do become a little exercised about high prices. We all become exercised on this subject. However, I fail to understand why suddenly, out of nowhere, this bill should be presented to parliament and be accepted.
I should now like to refer to the members of the fourth estate. This debate has lasted two days, but the members of the fourth estate have started to criticize hon. members on this side of the house because they are prepared to debate an amendment to an act that has been on the statute books since 1923. Certainly any bill brought before parliament that will affect a material segment of our industry warrants close examination. This applies to any industry, let alone our manufacturing industry. We have in this respect had relatively good law in the past. It must have been relatively good law since 1923, otherwise an attempt would have been made to change it.
Perhaps the minister is extra courageous and is finally bearding the lion in his den, and changing the law. His party has been in government a great deal longer than mine,
February 14, 1968

unfortunately, and deserves condemnation for having this act on the statute books since 1923, if the situation has been such that amendments should have been made in the past.
You have the fact of this industry saying it will be affected by the provisions of the bill, rightly or wrongly; I do not know, although I have read some of their briefs. On the other hand you have the minister's fair statement that the bill will not reduce prices. Then you have the bona fide argument on safety, with respect to which there is a division of opinion. In view of these facts, I fail to understand why the bill was not referred to a parliamentary committee before the minister moved further down the road in respect of legislation in this area.
The argument on lower prices could be made with regard to any goods manufactured in Canada. We can import these goods much cheaper from outside the country. We can import fish cheaper, in most cases, from outside Canada. I would not want to embarrass the Chairman, because he has some interest in fish. You can bring cream, butter and beef into this country cheaper than we can produce it. These are some primary products. You can certainly bring manufactured products into this country at a price lower than that at which they are produced here. This argument applies to every manufactured product. You can bring mattresses and everything else into this country cheaper than we can produce them.
We have the sincere and honest controversy about the safety factor involved in this question. We have the questionable value of the argument advanced in respect of lower prices. The minister himself says that the bill will not create lower prices in the drug industry. You also have an industry that fears it will be severely restricted and perhaps choked off or eliminated. I can see why, in the face of these facts, governments have not moved in respect of the act since 1923.
I only hope that the minister's prognosis as to the implications of the bill will prove to be correct. I hope that the advice he receives from his advisers is correct, and that the industry will not be wiped out. I say this because it appears to me at first blush that a catalyst has been created on the government side under the cloak of concern for the consumer. We all share that concern. It seems to me that this catalyst has started the machinery of government working against a very
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act small segment of industry which really can be so identified, so attacked and so criticized that it cannot defend itself and mobilize Canadian opinion in its favour.
More morally irresponsible than anything said in the house has been the attitude of the fourth estate with regard to this legislation. Members of the fourth estate have criticized us in editorial comment. We are concerned with an industry that has given service in Canada. Members of the fourth estate have referred to vested interests in this matter and have suggested that opposition members have sold their souls in order to prevent a courageous minister establishing a landmark in respect of drug prices in Canada.
It is our duty to examine these matters. We are paid, whether we are here or not, and whether or not the members of the fourth estate are here. Quite frankly, they also are paid whether they are here or not, and they should be here and do a better job in reporting what is happening on the floor of the house. They should be here and earn their money.
One hon. member opposite is a personal friend of mine, but yesterday he was an anathema to me and I to him. He spoke according to his viewpoint but he was not speaking in an objective manner, and he almost admitted this.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Several hon. members should be commended for their objective representations, and for presenting a picture of the other side of this coin. I give due credit to the minister for this courageous move in uncharted waters, and for pointing out the serious concern held by the medical profession and the industry in respect of safety. He also is frankly concerned about the survival of this industry. I too am concerned, as are many Canadians, about the philosophy behind this bill. Hon. members opposite can laugh and chortle, but when we start to fix prices we must remember that the next thing is the fixing of wages. I ask those hon. members in this house who are prepared to fix prices and wages to stand up and be counted.
This bill involves a philosophical argument completely separate from technical practice. One could wax on and on about this measure, but I am sure you, Your Honour, do not intend to stay here indefinitely. Perhaps I should call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.

February 14, 1968
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can indicate the work we will undertake tomorrow, Friday and Monday?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that we call item 55 on the order paper, house in committee of the whole on Bill C-193, to amend the Income Tax Act, which will be followed by item 57, second reading of Bill C-197, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. If by good fortune item 55 is completed tomorrow we will call the supplementary estimates. The estimates of the Department of Finance will be the first called, in order to allow for the debate suggested earlier in the week. If these should not be completed on Friday, I expect, although I am not sure, that Bill C-197 in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act will be considered. I must enter a caveat in this regard. I expect the government house leader will return tomorrow, at which time I will consult with him.


Michael Starr: Did I understand the Solicitor General to say that if we did not complete the bill in respect of the Income Tax Act tomorrow we would go on with the Unemployment Insurance Act Bill on Friday? Why should we not carry on until we complete this in order that we may debate the supplementary estimates on Monday?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I understand the Minister of Finance has a long standing engagement and it will not be possible-


Michael Starr: On government business or in respect of leadership?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 15, 1968