1969-01-21

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question, preferably to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or the Minister of Agriculture. I ask whether in light of the continued congestion at Vancouver, which according to the January 17 market letter of James Richardson and Sons Limited-this was only last week-caused the loss of an additional 17,000-ton wheat sale to Japan, the minister could tell the house what concrete steps the government is taking to move the requested grade of grain to the ships waiting in Vancouver harbour?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am in no position to comment on the allegation that a sale to Japan was lost because of this situation; I would have to check. But I have already explained to the house that we are confronted in Vancouver with a situation that results from weather conditions, obviously, also from the desire to ship to terminal elevators for drying purposes as much damp grain as possible, and finally from the growth, unexpected in some cases, of exports. As I indicated before, and as my hon. friend knows, sales that were to be made by the United States to Japan have been made by Canada. This has created a situation in Vancouver from which we are trying to get out. All efforts are being made by the transportation committee and its subcommittee in Vancouver to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not make any comment on the explanation given by the minister with regard to why we are in this position. I would like to ask the minister whether he would take an early opportunity, this week I would
hope, to spell out the concrete action the government is taking and proposes to take to meet the difficulty in which it finds itself. I am not asking the minister to explain now why we are in this position, but I ask whether he will make a statement on motions as to what concrete action the government proposes to take to get the western farmer and the country out of this difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that all possible steps are being taken. I have also recognized that a serious situation was created by the causes that I have also indicated. A few days ago the hon. member for Mackenzie came into the house with statistics, saying that there were 1,000 fewer car loadings as compared to the same period last year. I have checked on that, and find it is not the whole truth. The whole truth is that cars loaded for Vancouver-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the minister would not agree that we are becoming involved in debate. My understanding of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition was whether a statement would be made on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In other words, I am asking the minister whether he will tell the whole truth, including the concrete steps that the government proposes to take to deal with this problem.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would go out west and really see the conditions on the prairies today, in order to realize the awfulness of the situation. I ask him at the same time whether, in view of the high authority of James Richardson and Sons Limited, he would consult the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba and learn something about the wheat situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Mackenzie rising on a point of order?


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe it is
January 21, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry also a question of privilege because the minister suggested I came into the house with some untrue figures. I received those figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and, if he likes, I am prepared to give him this information.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on this matter of ships in the Vancouver harbour, may I ask the minister, in view of the information which I received only yesterday from the harbourmaster of Vancouver to the effect that the number of ships awaiting cargo has now reached such proportions that 16 have had to be anchored in English Bay, and not in the inner harbour, whether for reasons of public relations, he would consult with the Minister of Transport to consider the possibility of foregoing the $2,500 a day demurrage on ships held there through no fault of their own?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have looked back at the record for former years and I have found that even when the situation was far from being as dramatic as it is now, requests were being made for the payment of demurrage by the Canadian government; so this situation is not new. What I am saying, however, is that short of going there myself and administering the port of Vancouver, and dealing with box car assignments myself, which would be highly undesirable, the government has done everything that needs to be done to ensure that the work is being carried out by the proper authorities, and by people who know about transportation and about port operations. I think that is all the government can be asked to do.
To come back to the point made by the hon. member for Mackenzie, I did not say that he did not tell the truth. I said that the statistics he used were good statistics but that they gave a wrong impression of the facts. It is true that the carloadings are down by 18 per cent, but one must consider how this figure comes about-


Mr. MacEwan:: Go back to the university and start lecturing there again.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would he consider doing what has been done before, that is appoint an individual or a controller who would go to Vancouver to co-ordinate the activities there?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already answered this question five times. The reason I gave for not

agreeing is that if a single man is appointed to do that job, every group might dump their problems on him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Instead of appointing one man we have appointed a transportation committee which brings together all the interested parties. A subcommittee has been formed in Vancouver to take care of that particular problem and the members of the subcommittee are the representatives of those who have an interest in and a knowledge of the problems. They are doing their best to get out of a very unhappy and difficult position.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that some of the ships in Vancouver harbour have been tied up for over a month, and in view of the many other difficulties involved in grain movement and handling over the past several months, will the government give consideration to the appointment of a grain controller to co-ordinate as well as to control and oversee all aspects of the grain situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It would be desirable that members of a particular party co-ordinate their questions first.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which I put previously to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister or officials of the department concerned considered the possibility and feasibility of diverting trainloads of drying grain to alternate sea ports and simultaneously diverting some of the ships? I am thinking of the ports of Prince Rupert and Seattle. Is the government looking into the feasibility of doing this?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member suggested yesterday that we should use the ports of Seattle and Prince Rupert. I find that transportation costs to Seattle would be altogether in excess of what is acceptable. The dryer at Prince Rupert is being fully utilized at present. Ships will be diverted to Prince Rupert as quantities of dry grain accumulate at that port.
January 21, 1969



Inquiries of the Ministry
THE MINISTRY	THE BUDGET



REQUEST THAT CHANGES BE MADE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider-and I say this seriously and not argumentatively-changing ministers and appointing in the place of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) or the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), someone with greater knowledge of the subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will bring the matter up again at ten o'clock.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I would rather hear it now than at ten o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order. I do not know whether Your Honour noticed, but the Prime Minister wished to answer my question. In fact, he did answer it, but at that time there was a little noise in the house. I think he took the question seriously. He wants to answer it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the Prime Minister should give an answer to that question.



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made in a speech by the Governor of the Bank of Canada last night or some time yesterday to the effect that the changes in the Bank Act had apparently benefitted the banks more than the public, may I repeat a question which I have put to the hon. gentleman before, but in this new context? Is he prepared to consider amending the act in order to provide some control over the level of interest rates in Canada?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: First of all, I am not sure the Governor of the Bank of Canada said exactly what the hon. member has implied he said. I shall be pleased to send over a copy of the speech. In the second place, the last parliament decided to lift the interest ceiling under the Bank Act and the government is not at present considering opening up that legislation.



TIME OF PRESENTATION-POSSIBLE DELAY IN TAX STRUCTURE LEGISLATION

David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, connected with the general position. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether a report to the effect that there will not be a budget this spring is correct, and, if so, whether this means that legislation to alter our tax structure will also be delayed, and will not be before the house during the present session.


Edgar John Benson: hardly think those are supplementary questions. They are two very important separate questions. First, with respect to the budget. My prime concern at present is to get the budget presented on October 22 cleared up in the House of Commons. What I said was that if conditions remain as they are now it may not be necessary to present a budget this spring. This will of course depend on the accuracy of the economic forecast, which we are looking at very closely and which is under continuous review. Then again, it will depend upon whether expenditures and revenues are relatively close to what were forecast.
With regard to the other question on the subject of tax reform, I have indicated, I think in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that our present schedule suggests that a draft bill on tax reform will be presented to the house in June.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it, then, the view of the minister that the economy of the country must be very strong indeed before it can stand two budgets of this government in a year?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, I think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is argumentative.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance quite earnestly whether he would not consider producing a white paper with regard to tax reform prior to introducing the bill, on the ground that once the government introduces legislation even in draft form it seems to be committed to it. Would the minister not agree that a white paper might lead to more effective consideration and better results in the end?
January 21, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: The reason I indicated we would introduce a draft bill is that people could then take a look at it and assess the implications of the various changes on the remainder of the tax legislation. I have also indicated that the draft bill would be referred to a committee of the house, and that the government would not be bound to the ideas presented in the draft bill, but would feel free to change any of them if it were convinced by representations to the committee that such changes were in the interest of the people of Canada.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question with respect to the date of a budget, but may I direct it to the government house leader. In view of the fact that one of the principal changes that we made in our rules was to provide for a certain orderliness in our parliamentary year, which envisaged the budget coming in the spring, will the government house leader discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance? Does he not agree that if the budget is put off until the fall it will mess up the first full year that we had planned to be on a regular basis?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be discussing with the Minister of Finance the question of the timing of the budget in the forthcoming session; that is the session following this one.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
A few minutes ago the minister was referring to a taxation reform and to the preliminary draft of a bill. Since there cannot be taxation without money, could he not at the same time consider a monetary reform, when the preliminary draft of the bill is studied?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister not agree that his budget of October 22 was a deferred budget and would normally have been presented in May of that year had there not been an election? Would he also not agree that the economic state of the nation should be reported to the country this spring, rather than at some indefinite date in the future?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention on appropriate occasions to keep the members of the house informed, as they desire, with regard to the economic state of the nation. As I have said, if there are any material changes from what I forecast in my budget of October 22, I will have no hesitation in coming back to the House of Commons with a budget. This does not necessarily mean there will be tax increases, but I would explain to the House of Commons the changes that have taken place, if they are materially different from what I forecast in October.



ESTATE TAX ACT


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very large volume of correspondence which has been received by the government and by all members of this house from those who are concerned with what they consider will be the adverse effects of the government's proposed estate tax legislation, will the minister use his good offices to assure those representing particularly the large groups, who feel they will be adversely affected by this legislation that they will be allowed to appear before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to express their views, before the matter comes before the house for judgment?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of correspondence with respect to the proposed changes in the estate tax legislation, which I maintain will over-all be beneficial to the people of Canada. All such correspondence is being answered. In addition to this, I have provided information to all members of the house so that they can deal with correspondence they may have received in this regard.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. I think the minister will agree that his department has never received-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask only a supplementary question; he cannot make a supplementary statement.


George Harris Hees: In view of the great importance of this matter to a great many citizens of this country, would the minister use his good influence to see that those representing these
January 21, 19G9
large and importantly affected groups are enabled to appear before that committee and give testimony?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, who appears before the committee is up to the committee, not the Minister of Finance. However, I can assure my hon. friend that I will provide hon. members with all the information they desire in regard to the changes to the Estate Tax Act. I think it might also be wise if some people who are making statements in connection with this matter would properly inform themselves before so doing.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this the Prime Minister's idea of the government having a dialogue with the people of Canada to find out their views on important questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport about the important meeting the government house leader said the minister had the other day with the provincial ministers on the subject of highway safety. Could the minister make a statement about the outcome of that meeting, and about plans and decisions made with regard to highway safety?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most significant aspects of the meeting were reported in the press release. I do not know if my friend has had a chance to see it; if not, I shall be glad to send him a copy of it. In effect, the provincial governments welcomed a role for the federal government in research, in co-operation with the provinces. Furthermore they welcome the idea, if it should meet with the approval of the government and parliament, of our introducing legislation designed to control the standards of automobile manufacture at the manufacturers' level. It was a most productive meeting and, I think, a good step in the direction of close and harmonious co-operation between federal and provincial levels of government in this most important area.
4549
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NATIONAL PARKS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Having mentioned several times that Quebec had no federal park, while the federal government has spent $225 million in the other States during the past ten years, the minister told me that negotiations were taking place and that he might make a statement later on.
I would like to ask him now whether negotiations are still in progress between the federal government and the province of Quebec regarding the planning of those federal parks, how far they have gone, and if there is disagreement, what is it about, as it seems that everybody is anxious to get an answer on the subject?


Hon. Jean Chrelien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Norihern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that we made a concrete proposal to the government of the province of Quebec in October 1968; we are still expecting its reply.
As for us, we are ready to proceed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for his answer, and I would like to ask him whether Quebec has acknowledged the offers made by federal government, and what they were.


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question is of a general nature, it seems to me. I do not feel it is very urgent; the hon. member could put it on the order paper. If it is urgent, he could discuss it on the adjournment motion.


André-Gilles Fortin: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the interests of higher education would he identify the "pip squeak" universities he recently referred to?


An hon. Member:: Is that a degree?

January 21, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very important question. Since this government is supposedly doing all it can to support education in this country and since the Prime Minister has taken it on himself to refer to our universities as "pip squeaks", I think for the sake of our students he ought to identify the universities he referred to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is he now in a position to announce government policy on the form of interim assistance for our east coast groundfish industry, as promised before Christmas?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West asked a similar question on Friday and my parliamentary secretary took it as notice. Actually, within the month we will be outlining the short, medium and long term development program for the groundfish industry in the Atlantic region. One of the main objectives of this program will be to ensure that the prices paid to fishermen will be maintained at or about the 1968 level. Measures to be taken will include loans, which will help to improve the efficiency of the groundfish industry and make all phases of the industry more attractive from the income point of view.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SALT FISH MARKETING CORPORATION

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussion on January 16 regarding the setting up of marketing boards, could the minister say when the government will be in a position to announce that a salt fish marketing corporation will be set up?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under active discussion and I will be discussing it with the representatives of the Newfoundland trade and federation of fishermen very shortly.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the loss by fire of the Canadian National car shop at Sydney has the minister, in the interests of continued efficiency and employment, made strong representations to the management of the C.N.R. to have the shop replaced as quickly as possible and, if not, would he give the house an/ undertaking to take this step at the earliest possible opportunity?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to pass along the hon. member's representation to the management of the railway.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, last week in a number of questions undertakings were sought of the Minister of Transport by myself, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) concerning long hours of flying by Air Canada pilots operating passenger jets. The minister undertook to reply to all those questions some time this week. Is he now in a position to answer, in view of the inherent great dangers to the travelling public?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have received a considerable amount of information since that time, but in respect to the one particular question asked by the hon. member the information supplied to me is incomplete and I would prefer to have time to get the supplementary data required before answering.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the limitations in that respect contained in the aeronautics legislation, concerning the hours of work within which air crews must limit themselves, is there any disciplinary action or criminal proceedings contemplated against anyone for the breach of those regulations or laws?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must deny the allegation, and then go on to say that if the hon. member was talking about the
January 21, 1969

hours of work, there was not a breech of regulations but in respect to the conditions under which the landing in question took place, it is a different matter and disciplinary action was taken in the United States by the licensing authorities. In addition we suspended the licence here of the company involved for a period of time, until satisfactory assurances could be given that in future regulations would be observed.
With respect to the hours that a pilot may operate or be on duty, I may say these were worked out by the Department of Transport in co-operation with the air lines and the Air Line Pilots Association. It is now some time since they were agreed to and I understand they are presently being reviewed, with the prospect of revisions based on the experience gained since the time they were first agreed to.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the minister give an assurance that as of now Air Canada pilots are not continuously on duty for more than 17 or 21 hours at a time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is part of the question the hon. member asked before, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to reply at once and give that assurance. Certainly I can in respect to the way the hon. member posed the question the other day, but I would like to have the total information rather than reply piecemeal.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the current meetings of the Northwest Territories Council will the minister soon be in a position to tell us that he will be able to make an announcement about government policy regarding self-government in the territories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a decision on this matter and submitted a proposal to the cabinet. I hope it will receive approval within the next weeks and I expect to be in the Northwest Territories, to announce the new policy, in early February.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF POLICY RESPECTING CLAIMS

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian and Christian Affairs of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Dumont: Does anybody question that he is a "Christian?"
In view of the claim filed by the Indians on 85 per cent of the Quebec territory, what is the attitude of the government and his department about this?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this claim was sent to the Quebec government and it will have to give an answer, favourable or not. This is not my problem at this time.



YUKON TERRITORY


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister with respect to the forthcoming reforms which he is going to announce regarding the form of government in the Yukon Territory. Is it his intention to announce those reforms within the next week or two, or to wait until the Sourdough Rendezvous that he will be attending in Whitehorse at the end of February?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be there, and I hope the hon. member will be present also.
As for the policy regarding the Yukon, I shall not proceed with its implementation before I have announced that of the Northwest Territories.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and refers to the question I put to him last Friday, which he took as notice. Is the minister now in a position to state when he will be
January 21, 1S69

Inquiries of the Ministry tabling the Stanbury-Field report on taxation of Indians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we received that report in September. That document was prepared for the exclusive use of the department.
We are now studying this report. I do not think that we are in a position to table it now, considering that the document deals with taxation among the Indians in British Columbia and includes confidential details on certain individuals. We are studying the scope of that report. It might be possible some day to disclose its nature in the House of Commons.
We might also give new directives to the committee, because the information provided is not entirely satisfactory.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this report has a direct bearing on the current negotiations between the government and the provincial health and welfare ministers, with respect to Indian Health and Welfare Services, could the minister expedite this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are trying to act as quickly as possible in order to get a true picture of the situation regarding the taxation of Indians.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister assure the house that the termination of the special Czechoslovak refugee program on January 10 does not refer to applications by persons from Czechoslovakia who are genuine political refugees?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement terminating the program was an announcement with respect to the special program that had been in effect for a period of some months for Czechoslovak refugees. The normal refugee principle is still in operation for persons from that country and indeed all countries.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Does he think it is possible to review the standards that determine the closing of post offices at the present time?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEDURE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government house leader. In constituting or reconstituting the Committee on Procedure and Organization will he give consideration to suggesting the inclusion in its terms of reference of the possible position regarding the installation of radio and television in the standing committees, and/or in this chamber, with a view to this matter being given full consideration and with the possibility of a recommendation being made to the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and discuss it with my colleagues. In connection with the committee, I might say that we hope at an early date to have from hon. gentlemen opposite a list of their nominees to the committee and we will discuss with them broader terms of reference, along with those discussed on December 20 in relation to the proceedings of the house.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In view of the statement made by Mr. Dozois, the Quebec Minister of Finance, to the effect that he would have requested a meeting with the Minister of Transport in connection with the selection of a site for the
January 21, 1969	COMMONS
new international airport, can the minister tell the house whether he has set the date of that meeting?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dozois' telegram was in reference to a further meeting with Mr. Lus-sier to continue the discussions undertaken some months ago with respect to a site for the new Montreal international airport. I indicated to Mr. Lussier in December that it would only be after the first of the year the government would have available to it the information required to continue with these discussions, and that I would advise him some time in the new year when a meeting would be possible. Subsequently we have been able to arrange a mutually convenient time for a meeting and I hope we will be able to come to some meeting of minds in the not too distant future, so that a definitive choice can be made by the government to enable us to go ahead with the airport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I take a brief moment to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be running short of time very quickly. I ask the co-operation of hon. members to give as many members as possible an opportunity to ask questions. I would suggest that the questions be short, that there be not too many supplementaries and that the answers also be brief.


Roch La Salle: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell us whether, in his opinion, Mr. Dozois' statements are of a personal nature or if they would commit the Quebec government?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe the question to be in order.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that we have learned from authorized sources, in fact from a Quebec government publication, that the government of that province was recommending the south shore of the St. Lawrence river for the site of the future international airport, does the federal government intend to abide by the Quebec government decision to choose the south shore as the site for the new airport?
DEBATES	4553
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The ultimate choice is one which must be taken by the federal government, which has the primary responsibility in these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think it would be helpful for me at the moment to enter into a discussion concerning the relevant merits of the different sites proposed, because I really feel that would not be in keeping with the agreement we made with the government of Quebec some weeks ago that we would carry on discussions at a technical level before reaching a decision and making our decision public. So I would prefer not to comment on the statement of the hon. member.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. The minister announced that, effective immediately, an upper limit will be placed on the number of boats permitted to fish for lobsters in the maritime provinces in 1969. In view of new lobster fishermen who may be desirous of entering the industry, will the minister indicate what steps have been taken to establish local appeal committees to review applications of boat owners.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question which is lengthy and which should be made on motions. I wonder whether he might like to ask the minister to make a statement on motions.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of Your Honour's ruling, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he would be prepared to make a statement tomorrow on motions concerning the question I raised.


John (Jack) Davis: certainly would, Mr. Speaker, but I think the press release I made yesterday covers this matter. There will be appeal committees in each of the provinces.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister.
January 21, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Many people across this nation are perturbed owing to the fact that he, in an interview while overseas, made a statement that he was in favour of true communism. Would the Prime Minister tell the house how much difference there is between true communism and that behind the iron curtain.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the increased level of unemployment, and in view of the urgent necessity that some of those unemployed obtained upgrading in technical skills, can the minister say whether or not there are additional funds available to those provinces which wish to improve their facilities for technical instruction.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. When will the right hon. gentleman be able to table the expurgated copy of the report on security procedure.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The report is now being reviewed by the relevant government people. We are attempting precisely to find out what part of this report should be deleted, in conformity with the guide lines I laid down in an earlier statement.



FARM CREDIT ACT


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that increased funds were made available under the amendment to the Farm Credit Act in order to set up economic farm units, and in view of the fact that the proposed changes in the estate tax are in direct conflict with this principle, will the minister consider a promotion for one of the ministers so that we will know what the policy is?



FISHERIES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Souih Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Fisheries. Could the minister advise the house to what extent consultation was held with the fishermen in connection with the limiting of boat licences which was announced yesterday.


John (Jack) Davis: good deal of consultation, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Some time ago it was suggested that the MacFarlane task force on agriculture would report before next year. I wonder when we will have a final report from that task force.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there will be no final report until the end of 1969. Indeed there never has been an indication that there would be. We have asked for interim reports on certain parts of their studies so that these reports could be used as position papers for the agricultural congress which is to be held in Ottawa late in March. I believe some of these have been received and will be circulated. They will be distributed to the interested parties, the delegates to the congress. I see no reason why members of parliament could not have them as soon as they are distributed.
f Translation]



AIRPORTS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question with regard to the future international airport.
I should like to know if the report of the study made by the federal-provincial committee on the subject has been forwarded to the Minister of Transport or if this study is not yet completed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have two or three reports now. I am in the process of digesting them all.
January 21, 1969	COMMONS



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
[DOT] (2:50 pjn.)
Mr. Rene Maile (Champlain):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate briefly on the statement I started on yesterday.
Though we agree that this legislation will have an antimonopolistic effect, we want to emphasize that it does not go far enough; it is merely a poultice. To the small taxpayer, it will feel like a light tranquilizer. At first, he will believe the price of drugs has suddenly gone down only to discover in the end that big business in the drug industry has managed once more to by-pass the law and maintain the extravagant prices we know at present.
It is a shame to take advantage of the unhappy circumstances of disease to make profits. Therefore the government should be afraid to compel all the people responsible for producing and consuming food and drugs to act fairly and above-board. Retail prices should be relevant to cost prices. The true cost of drugs should not be altered. An end should be put to the collusion that is prevalent between doctors and pharmacists.
And, above all, doctors should stop their practice of selling to their patients the drugs offered free by drug manufacturers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should seriously consider, endowing the citizen with a greater buying power so that he may freely obtain whatever is essential to the maintenance of his health.
A healthy people within a healthy government, that would be the ambition of any Creditiste administration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill with mixed feelings about its provisions. At the outset may I say I agree with the remarks of my colleagues who spoke earlier in this
DEBATES	4555
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act debate and with the feelings of a large number of people outside the house. The bill is in effect a faltering and insufficient step in the right direction. I think that most, if not all, hon. members agree there is a need for legislation of this kind. The need for a bill of this kind is very apparent. In the manufacture, distribution, promotion and particularly the cost of drugs we have a classic example of the failure of so-called private or free enterprise. I say there has been a failure in the sense that these companies have failed the people of this country but have succeeded in their own purely selfish aims. They have succeeded in their goal of making a profit but they have failed miserably to provide service at low cost to the sick of Canada.
My opinion that there is immorality on the part of enterprises of this kind is, I think, shared by some. Any enterprise that engages in making a profit out of the misfortunes of others is basically immoral. For the benefit of one hon. member on the opposite side of the house who rose to dispute with me about profits on an earlier occasion, let me say categorically that this is one instance where profits should be prohibited because they are immoral. Profit-making or the receiving of a reasonable return on investment is a privilege in our society, not a right. I believe that these companies in the so-called free enterprise drug industry have so outrageously abused this privilege that they now deserve the condemnation of the public and the intervention, supervision and control of the government.
Much has been said about foreign drug companies. On the one hand a great deal has been said by the so-called Canadian drug industry, particularly during a fear campaign some years ago, to the effect that there is something bad about foreign drugs. There was a great fear campaign about safety, control and so forth. My fears are not the same as some of those expressed by proponents of the pharmaceutical industry. Mine are more related to the international take-over and control of the Canadian industry.
The Toronto Globe and Mail of August 13 last, after examining one of Canada's totally Canadian owned and independent drug manufacturers-compared with other drug industries it is one of the smallest in Canada- pointed out that in the past decade the following has happened to Canadian drug companies: Charles E. Frosst Company of Montreal has been taken over by Merck Co. Inc., New Jersey, Elliott-Marion Co. Ltd. of Montreal by American Home Products, Ayerst-McKenna and Harrison of Montreal by
4556	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act American Home Products, Frank W. Horner of Montreal by Carter-Wallace Incorporated, New York, and L. D. Craig of Toronto, Bell-Craig Pharmaceuticals, by the Denver Chemical Manufacturing Company of Stamford, Connecticut. It seems hardly valid for the drug industry to express the hope that the government and the Canadian people will worry about impure and inadequate drugs being brought in from foreign countries when at the same time it expresses no concern about the foreign take-over of Canadian drug companies.
It is rather strange that some foreign drug companies which were alleging that Canada could receive impure and unsafe drugs from those countries have seemingly banded together with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada. The president of that association-a noted columnist said he is a much-travelled master of the graceful phrase-was in Stockholm last summer to meet with drug corporations of other countries. As a result we now have an international cartel, about which my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) spoke last night.
One of the objectives of this international organization, as outlined by Dr. Wigle, is to:
-promote the development of ethical principles and practices throughout the pharmaceutical industry.
Perhaps it is pure coincidence, but among Ottawa lobbyists the term "unethical practices" usually means price-cutting. When this industry speaks of ethical practices it seems to me all one can say is that it shows the ethics of a tomcat in the way in which it has exploited the sick, the chronically ill and the injured in this country in respect of the prices of drugs. This organization should be the last to talk about ethics.
I suggest to the minister that this bill does not go nearly far enough. The minister and the government of Canada cannot by themselves deal with this international association. The minister and the government will only be able to deal with this international association is consort with the governments of other countries. A Canadian law by itself will not be sufficient to regulate, scrutinize and oversee this industry. It is my hope that the minister and his officials will maintain constant consultation with their equivalents in European countries and in Japan where the manufacture and export of drugs represents a fairly substantial operation.

DEBATES	January 21, 1969
There is another factor that causes me to wonder just how enthusiastic and wholehearted the government is about drug prices. I point out that while the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, (Mr. Basford), who I am sure is very concerned about this matter and will be very diligent and enthusiastic, will be implementing a piece of legislation designed to reduce drug prices by a variety of mechanisms, another department will be helping the industry. In other words, while he is trying to restrict, control and supervise the drug industry, certainly in respect of costs, one of his colleagues will be aiding the industry.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
With regard to the pharmaceutical industry development assistance program, commonly known as PIDA, I should like to quote the minister's words of last October 17 as recorded in Hansard at page 1511:
The pharmaceutical industry development assistance program, which is administered by the Department of Industry, is a direct loan program designed to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the sector of the pharmaceutical industry which manufactures and sells prescription drugs at lower prices. These companies, most of which are Canadian owned, engage in or are prepared to engage in, effective price competition against the international drug firms.
I do not very often find myself in agreement with Mr. Western, a columnist of some note, but in the Winnipeg Free Press of last April he commented at some length on this program and I find myself in agreement with most of what he said. If the government is so anxious to restrict, control and supervise the drug industry, that is, Canadian and international drug companies, I hope that in the implementing of the PIDA program the minister will persuade his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to use great discretion as to which companies qualify for loans from the Department of Industry.
I ask the minister to urge upon his colleague that all United States owned Canadian subsidiaries be excluded from this program. I say this because I notice that in the speech in Hansard, part of which I have just quoted, the minister qualified his remarks by saying that most of these companies were Canadian owned. I hope he will persuade his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to go farther and provide that only Canadian owned drug companies shall qualify for such assistance and that no assistance
January 21, 1969

shall be available to United States subsidiaries or subsidiaries of any foreign owned company. I do not think these corporations warrant any concern by the government as to their welfare. They are hardly candidates for the poor-house. If investment is needed in Canada for drug research and production at competitive prices, or opportunities therefor,
I submit that these international companies have adequate finances of their own and can raise the money here or in their own countries. They, least of all, warrant any consideration by the government and the Department of Industry.
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who began the debate for our party, listed five areas in which this party believes the government should be taking action in addition to the steps it has proposed in the bill. I should like to review these areas quickly without going into matters already covered. We hope the minister will look seriously at all five of these proposals. If he finds he is unable to agree with them now or is unable to persuade his colleagues to agree with some or all of them, we hope that as the months go by he will be able to implement some and eventually all of them.
Our first point is that we should abandon brand names for all new drugs and generic names should be applied to all new drugs being developed for sale in Canada or brought into this country. Again, I find it incomprehensible that those who promote the best interests of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry should have waged a scare campaign about generic drugs being unsafe or cast doubt upon their quality, while at the same time competent institutions and people connected with them, private and public hospitals and federal and provincial governments, continually purchase drugs in large lots by their generic name. I suspect that their efficacity has been proven to be even better than that of brand name drugs.
Our second point is that the minister should persuade his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to place a maximum of 10 per cent of total sales on the allowable tax deduction for advertising and promotion expenses incurred by drug companies and related industries. In my opinion even this limitation is too generous, but that is the proposal of our party.
Third, we suggest-this is an area that the minister himself can deal with through his department-that drug advertising be strictly

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act scrutinized and controlled as to its claims and the manner in which it is presented to the public. As all of us in this house know, this has been a major factor in the ever increasing cost of drugs.
The fourth point we make is that the minister and his department should require the drug manufacturing industry to submit regularly and often standard cost reports for all new drugs, particularly those for which projected or expected sales are over $500,000 a year. Again, I believe this is a little too generous and that standard cost reports should be obligatory in respect of the development, production and eventual sale to the public of all new drugs no matter what their projected or anticipated sales may be. It seems to me this would provide the minister and his department with excellent information as to how to implement this and any other legislation that may be brought before us in the future. This should be a requirement and should develop into a standard practice as between the industry and the minister's department.
The fifth point is that raised by my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). He dealt with it very well the other evening and therefore I need not repeat what he said. It is that the government should establish a crown corporation to manufacture and sell a limited number of the more important prescription drugs, probably somewhere between 15 and 30 of the most commonly used and most basic drugs of the prescription industry.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I repeat in this regard what I said earlier, that it seems to me the making of profits from the misfortunes of people who become sick is immoral. Surely this is a proper and logical place for a government business or crown corporation no matter what party happens to be in office. It is a perfectly logical and justifiable area for government intervention in the business world, not only to serve as a check upon the remainder of the industry but also to show these companies how to provide safe drugs to the sick at the lowest possible cost and without unconscionable profits and improper and false advertising.
The same column by Mr. Western in the Winnipeg Free Press to which I referred quotes the former minister regarding patents in these words:
When the patent on terramycin recently expired in England, the drug appeared under a brand name at one-third the price charged by the original
January 21, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act manufacturer. On Chloromycetin in the United States, the reduction in the same circumstances was almost 50 per cent. It is noteworthy too that where there is effective competition, as in the case of hospitals, which buy on a tendering system, remarkable savings emerge. Thus a cortisone preparation selling at $17 per 100 units to Saskatchewan retailers was obtainable by hospitals and government departments at the price of $1.95-
In assessing royalties for compulsory licences, the commissioner (in Canada) will not, as in Britain, take into account expenditures on research, development and promotion. An important reason is that the manufacturer introducing a new drug secures, under the food and drug regulations, a five-year monopoly which should be adequate to ensure a reasonable return on research.
If the manufacturer is given a five-year monopoly for research, development and promotion, then he should be required by law to file complete information on his costs to be recovered. This will serve as a check on the price he wishes to charge and will enable the government to check him if he seeks to engage in unreasonable and unconscionable pricing within the five-year period which he has to recover these costs. Just giving these manufacturers a blanket five years without knowing what is involved in the make-up of these prices certainly leaves the door ajar, if not wide open, to going to every possible length-I will not say to cook the books-to exaggerate or enlarge these so-called costs of research, development and promotion to maximize profits.
I shall support this legislation even though I am convinced it does not go nearly far enough. Once it has been in operation for a year or at most two if as a result of that experience the members of this group are shown to be wrong and that the legislation has actually been effective in reducing and controlling drug costs, we will be only too happy to have been wrong. But if such proves not to be the case I hope the minister, who I am convinced, as I said earlier, is deadly serious about this matter and is enthusiastic and vigilant, will then proceed very quickly to bring additional legislation into the house that will go even farther than the legislation he is proposing now.
I repeat that in principle this is an area of enterprise in our society where the profit motive has no rights, no privileges and no business, and I hope that the measures that the government is proposing now and those they will introduce in the near future will go even farther to put an end to social need being made use of by those who place profits first and service to the people second.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, on February 13, 1968, I had the opportunity of speaking on Bill C-190 which is now being presented as Bill C-102 with minor changes. I have no intention of repeating what I said then. However, those who may be interested can find my speech in Hansard of that date at page 6698. At that time I stated that now that the bill's contents were known all people who will be affected should have the opportunity to appear before a committee and that the bill should be sent to a standing committee in order to give those who are interested the opportunity to be heard.
In accordance with the new rules adopted by parliament, this bill automatically goes to a standing committee. However, I feel that those who are interested may not be given the opportunity to be heard, and I would like the minister to give us the assurance that at least the representatives of the pharmaceutical industry of Canada will be heard, as well as all other interested witnesses. It has been stated that the representatives of the pharmaceutical industry have already appeared before the special committee on drug costs and prices headed by Dr. Harley and therefore nothing new could be added. However, at the time they appeared the recommendations on which the legislation was based were not known, and now that the contents of the bill are known the people affected should have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee.
There are many new members in the house since the last election who are unaware of the complications which this legislation will create for the industry and the effect it will have on some segments of the Canadian economy. Many Canadians feel that drugs are priced too high, and I believe that ways should be found to reduce these prices. I believe this could be achieved by convening a federal-provincial conference on drug prices to find a proper solution to this problem.
I am in favour of increased competition. The greater the competition, the greater the pressure on high prices. I believe that this legislation will not bring this about. What it will do is to bring in outside competition, imported competition, competition by importation. It will bring competition based on lower foreign wages. This legislation looks good on the surface. However, the so-called competition that exists in Canada is the same competition that exists outside Canada, and to allow finished patented drug products into
January 21. 1969

this country is not detrimental to the companies themselves but rather to the thousands of Canadians employed by these internationally owned companies.
What this legislation is actually doing is to favour the owners of these internationally owned drug companies by giving them carte blanche to become importers of drugs. In the past they were forced to manufacture patented drugs in Canada. Now they will have the opportunity to choose whether they should continue to manufacture in Canada or simply import these drugs into Canada from their foreign, home-based parent companies.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
From page one, column six, of the Montreal Star of January 18, 1969 I quote the following paragraph:
Ayerst, an American drug firm, is a classic case. It has decided not to extend its Montreal plant. It has located in Rouses Point, just across the border, in the United States. Quebec nationalism is a factor, but so is the probability of enactment of a federal drug bill which the company fears would inhibit their operations in Canada.
Actually the company had a choice between extending the Montreal plant or extending the plant at Rouses Point. It chose Rouses Point. Other drug companies have held back decisions affecting their plants until the outcome of this bill is known.
I do not believe the solution is to import drugs as finished products in dosage form. Most of the pharmaceutical firms are internationally owned; they hold patent rights in all countries. The effect, therefore, of allowing importations as proposed in Bill C-102 would be seriously detrimental to all Canadians employed in Canada by these internationally owned companies. Why should such companies employ people in Canada, or expand their production in Canada, if they are able to export drugs to this country from their home bases? As I have indicated, these firms hold patent rights in all countries. Solutions must be found in Canada itself to force these internationally owned firms to reduce their prices. Otherwise, many Canadians who are now employed will be looking to the United States for jobs in the future.
The international pharmaceutical firms which have established themselves in Canada pay municipal taxes, school taxes and corporation taxes. They have formed a community in which many persons in their employ pay income tax, sales tax, school tax and property taxes. They pay sales taxes on all building materials used in the construction of their
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act premises as well as on their sophisticated machinery and laboratory equipment. They are responsible for tax revenues which are badly needed for the expansion of our municipalities, our educational facilities and the economy generally. I point out that when we import pharmaceutical products these taxes and revenues are no longer available and that the effect is therefore detrimental to the expansion of the Canadian economy, detrimental to the expansion of our municipalities, to the improvement of our schools and to the growth of our labour market.
The importation of drugs would lead to a reduction in Canadian supplies and halt the expansion of the pharmaceutical industry here. Some firms may discontinue production altogether and disappear, like elements of the textile industry, to become importers and distributors rather than manufacturers.
The provisions in this legislation having to do with the importation of finished drug products will, to my knowledge, not succeed in reducing the prices of drugs. In the event, they would confront the drug industry and its employees with precisely the same problem as was created for the Canadian textile industry and its employees by the relaxation of duty on textile imports. I do not believe prices of drugs will be reduced at the retail level.
In its attempt to reduce drug prices some time ago the government removed the 12 per cent sales tax, an action which resulted in the loss of some $20 million in revenue. There is still no sign that the prices of drugs have been reduced at the retail level. On the other hand there is a definite indication that the government felt obliged to raise the income tax in order to replace the $20 million. Even if we remove the total net profit of this industry, the prices of drugs will not be reduced. I point out that the federal government received more revenue from the pharmaceutical industry in taxation than the industry made profit.
I hope that during its consideration of this measure the committee will hear witnesses from the drug industry, from the Department of Labour, from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, from the Department of Manpower and Immigration, from the Department of National Revenue and from the Department of Finance in order to assess the effect of this legislation on the economy, on the budget, on industrial expansion, on future employment, on revenues, and so on.
January 21, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
After hearing these witnesses, I hope the committee will attempt to estimate the effect on the present budget of the removal of the 12 per cent sales tax from drugs, and the impact the proposal to import manufactured drugs is likely to have on our total tax revenues and, in particular, on tax revenues flowing to municipalities and school boards. If committee members examine the figures in this connection I doubt that they will recommend the provisions dealing with the importation of finished drugs.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, if we refer to the official report of the House of Commons Debates for October 17, 1968, we find the speech of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), concerning this Bill No. C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act. The minister expressed then his point of view on the results that the proposed amendments would have for the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be frank and say that I do not consider this bill in the same way as the minister; therefore, I am not as optimistic as he is. If we base our considerations on what we already know, that is if we stop for a moment to examine our personal experience-or to make a few comparisons in the light of the briefs and reports that have been filed, we reach the conclusion that we are facing an important monopoly which, in my opinion, originated under the present legislation. The unimportant amendments contained in the present bill will not change anything. Therefore, when the minister states, as reported in the Hansard of October 17, at page 1515, and I quote:
-the drug industry differs uniquely from other industries.
I quite agree with him. That industry differs from other industries first because the aim has been diverted from its end, and experience has taught me that drugs have served more often to enrich than to cure. First, at the manufacturing level, that industry fixes selling prices which are not proportional to costs.
I had a translation made of a few pages of the book of a serious and famous author, Mr. Stevenson, in which he mentions some extraordinary costs and prices relative to Canadian drugs. He says that profits made on some drugs range between 26,000 and 28,000 per cent.

An employee who holds an important position in that industry told me last year that certain pills which sold wholesale in the United States for $3.00 per thousand retailed in Canada at $5.50 for 50.
This was not an accident or a mistake since most of the drugs are manufactured in the United States by parent companies, then shipped to our country. Their branches pack, bottle these products and label them with rather pompous names. In fact, 5 per cent only of the drug patent rights belong to Canadian residents while we import 85 per cent of the raw material necessary for the production of drugs used on the Canadian market.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In the field of information, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the rather scarce details available on pharmaceutical products are sent to hospitals, doctors and druggists, it is not surprising that the names on the labels of the drugs are meaningless for the ordinary customer. The names and the labels are totally beyond our understanding; however we have every reason to believe that these customers are not always obtaining the best quality products.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize a significant point: certain officers, responsible for the administration of the Food and Drugs Act are not choir boys and unfortunately sometimes carelessness prevails over a sense of responsibility.
A druggist, the owner of a rather large establishment employing 15 people, told me recently that no inspector had visited his establishment for the past 26 months. He could have sold anything in perfect peace of mind.
As far as the work at the plant is concerned, the same situation prevails. The inspectors in charge of controlling the finished products are away more often than they should and the manufacturer is only too glad to be allowed to select himself the samples which are necessary to insure the prosperity of that industry in Canada. And yet the analysis of those samples should protect the health of all Canadian citizens.
We are facing a tricky problem, and I say it once more, a very powerful monopoly because it allows the manufacturers to speculate on the quality of the products. That monopoly is dangerous in that it allows people to alter the figures. As long as these tumblers are allowed to use publicity as a means of inducing people to believe they are the
January 21, 1969	COMMONS
friends of the sick and of the aged, that monopoly will be a menace. This industry, aims at squeezing out their last farthing from the sick and the aged. One subsection of this bill, Mr. Speaker, tend to suggest that competition will improve the situation.
Well, let me tell you that I do not believe a word of it, for there is no competition in that industry; that is a proved fact. How could improvements be made at a non-existing level? So, whether this bill is passed or not, the results will be the same and the people are expecting more than that.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I beg the minister to forget all about that very insignificant bill and to ask the people in charge of drafting the bills for the Canadian parliament, to draft a more detailed piece of legislation that is closer to reality and which will bring about practical effects.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, over the years few industries have mounted the kind of lobbying of members of parliament that this industry has. Therefore without knowing too much about the situation we can assume that what the government is doing in its small way is advantageous to the average man in the street but probably detrimental to individual members.
In the last two days I have heard two speeches by members who have obviously had to take a position different from other member in their parties. They are members who represent ridings within which large segments of the drug industry are located. I sympathize with these members and realize that we have to weigh, on the one hand, the number of people employed in the industry against, on the other hand, a lowering of prices. I am sure that the industry in these ridings is responsible for the extreme pressure of all kinds that has been put on the members concerned. I note from information that is available that drug companies have even made contributions to election campaigns. That situation is not unusual, though it has not been common in Canada so far as this industry is concerned because there has not been need for this type of control.
A long time ago when the house was discussing drug supplies to hospitals under federal control, I suggested that part of this industry should be nationalized so as to permit the supplying of generic products to hospitals under federal control, public welfare agencies in the provinces, sanatoria and like
DEBATES	4561
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act facilities. This would establish some kind of yardstick.
It is all very well to say that aspirin has some advantages over Bufferin, or that Buff-erin has some advantages over A.S.A., but anybody who knows the composition of these tablets realizes that basically they contain acetylsalicylic acid, that really the only difference is in their advertising on television, which itself is not a small factor. I have watched television advertising of a particular brand of beer and have asked myself why I did not buy that particular brand. The same is true of cigarettes that are advertised as yielding ten puffs more than other brands.
Again, we all know the advertisement which depicts a hammer banging the side of a man's head, and if you happen to have a hangover you think that the product advertised would be appropriate to remedy your condition. Therefore advertising is a major factor, though I wonder what people some years hence will think of us when they dig into the archives and produce some of the tapes of this kind that have been filed away for posterity. They will probably consider our knowledge of ailments and ills somewhat elementary after viewing the sort of advertising that appears on the television media. In this regard I cite the advertisement dealing with stomach acidity. If our stomachs work in that way and little levers permit the flow of anti-acid solutions in the proper direction, then it would seem that the whole thing works like clockwork.
We are continually being subjected to very heavy propaganda by the drug industry. However, I still subscribe to the belief that in government institutions which take care of patients and in veterans hospitals it would be to our advantage to use drugs that are a little cheaper than others, though they would have to meet high standards.
I note from some literature that has been published that the drug companies spend an average of $5,000 a year per doctor in advertising. This is a fantastic amount. There are a large number of people in Canada who do not earn that much money; yet the drug companies, unsolicited, spend that sum on advertising to entice doctors to buy a specific type of drug. This must have an effect upon the doctors.
Some time ago I went to a doctor who suggested I needed a certain type of pill for a period of time. As a member of parliament I decided that I could afford to buy it, though had I not been I might have had second
January 21, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
thoughts. However, I told the doctor that I wanted a drug whose cost was reasonable and asked him to use the generic form. Having a fairly exclusive clientele the doctor was a little amused by this request, but eventually he told me there was a little company in Canada by the name of Empire that manufactured a very good product at reasonable cost. He marked down "Empire brand" on the prescription and put in brackets the word "cheap". When I presented the prescription to the drugstore I was asked whether I was sure the doctor had written the prescription and I informed the man behind the counter that he had. The cost of 100 Empire brand tablets was $17 less than another brand. The druggist concerned does not want me to mention his name. He continues to supply me with those pils at a fairly reasonable price.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In discussing this general subject with a doctor I learned something that many of us may not know. Except when writing prescriptions doctors have little to do with prescription drugs. A doctor told me that not long ago he had prescribed for a woman a specific type of penicillin which contained an additive. Originally the drug had been expensive, but he assumed that over the years it had come down in price and now sold for about $2 or $3 per dozen tablets. He sent the patient whom he knew well to the druggist for the prescription, telling her that it contained penicillin with an additive. It was not basic penicillin. When the lady came back three or four days later saying she was no better he asked her if she had taken the pills he had prescribed. She said, "No, I did not. I went to the druggist and he told me the pills were $16 a dozen. I cannot afford them, and I did not get any pills." Then the doctor phoned the druggist and had one heck of an argument with him, saying that the pills were unreasonably priced and ought to be worth only about $2 or $3 a dozen. The druggist said, "Yes, we have that kind of drug." He mentioned the generic name, with the additive. He continued, "We have that under another brand name. But you have always prescribed this specific brand. You specified that brand and we had no alternative but to supply the lady with that prescription." I say that the woman need not have gone to the doctor in the first place if she could not afford his prescription. In prescribing a drug he thought would cure her ailment the doctor did not consider that the drug he was prescribing was [Mr. Peters.1
out of her financial reach. In the end he prescribed a substitute drug and the woman's problem was cleared up. The doctor told me that since his intern days he had not been familiar with the price of drugs. He assumed that the more expensive drugs became cheaper after the passage of years and he was surprised to learn he was wrong.
What this doctor thought many others think. Forceful advertising plays its role in influencing doctors to prescribe certain drugs. Obviously, the $5,000 a year the drug companies spend per doctor in advertising and promoting their products must be effective or they would not advertise.
Hon. members have argued that if we loosen our regulations and allow the importation of generic drugs we shall lower the quality of drugs used in this country. The Financial Post of August 3, 1968, carried an article indicating that, among other things, the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare has been authorized to add 11 new inspectors to its staff. Their main job will be to monitor imported drugs. I do not know how many inspectors at present monitor drugs in Canada, but I suggest we do not have enough to do other than a superficial job. Our government agencies have not had the facilities to undertake development or monitoring work. Hon. members will remember that a few years ago, after Connaught Laboratories in Toronto produced Salk vaccine, the federal authorities were in no position to assess the effectiveness of the vaccine because the federal government had no one who could to that work. I suggest that we might take over the Connaught Laboratories which could then set national standards for drugs.
The article in the Financial Post says in part:
Two food and drug officials will visit European capitals in August to call on drug control agencies and ministries of health. Food and drug expects that, by early next year, one man will be permanently stationed in Europe.
I presume that has already taken place. I continue:
His job will be to maintain liaison with the European agencies, gather information about drug manufacturing firms and help the Canadian directorate in its job of policing imports to Canada.
The directorate has already been armed with additional regulations giving it new powers to ensure the safety and control of imports. It can now demand that any importer of drugs in their final usage form must have evidence and information relating to the manufacture and control of the drug. The evidence must establish that the Canadian requirements for manufacture and control have been met.
January 21, 1969

In addition, the directorate can demand that an importer either test every imported batch of drugs in Canada to ensure its identity, potency or purity, or satisfy the directorate with evidence that each batch has been properly tested in its country of origin.
These new regulations, according to officials, close all expected gaps in the safety and inspection procedures of imported drugs. In effect, the directorate, faced with an unknown manufacturer, can order all tests conducted here.
Officials point out that, when drug ingredients are imported rather than the finished product, the act now provides them with sufficient authority to ensure safety. For one thing, the final drug will be manufactured in Canada and therefore come under their jurisdiction. In addition, they have power to order that any bulk or raw material import be tested here, prior to final manufacture, to pass standards of identity, potency and purity.
The article then lists a number of other steps which have been taken to control drug quality, thus answering the objections of hon. members who are worried about what will happen if we allow the importation into this country of generic drugs.
Some hon. members whose ridings contain drug manufacturers have argued against some of the provisions of this bill. Unless we can control what a legitimate mark-up on drug sales should be there is a good case for developing and testing new drugs. Although there is some dog eat dog competition in Canada, a good many drug companies have reached understandings with their distributors. The original manufacturer of a drug wishes to maintain a certain profit margin; yet companies manufacturing that drug under licence sell it to retailers at similar prices although they have not incurred the development costs of the original manufacturer. I doubt that it is a good idea to have small manufacturers developing new drugs. Since the development of new drugs needs a great deal of money it is obvious that it should be limited to those companies which are able to put them on the market as safe and satisfactory commodities.
I hope the government will consider extending the provisions of this bill. It is essential for us to know exactly how much it costs to manufacture generic drugs. Hon. members must be aware that everyone here is expendable. If we should catch the Hong Kong flu we are expendable, not being on the preferred list as recipients of Hong Kong flu vaccine. There is not enough to go around. The amount available is being used to treat the old and the very young, and this is as it should be. I am pleased that intervention has made this possible rather than the price being jacked up. We do not want drugs available

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act for the rich and not available for the poor. But, Mr. Speaker, a young lady died in Ottawa the other day from Hong Kong flu. I do not know if she had access to the vaccine. She was a secretary. Probably that category is expendable from the medical viewpoint in the selection of persons who should get the vaccine, but I maintain that with our modern, technical knowledge we can afford to provide this type of vaccine for everybody in Canada. Certainly people should not die in the same numbers as those who died in past epidemics of typhoid, strep throat and the like, simply because vaccine was not available at that time to prevent their deaths.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In my opinion we will never be able to get enough vaccine. Salk vaccine is a good example. There was never enough to treat all those in the age category threatened by polio. We did not have enough because it was being developed by private industry. To be successful private industry must be assured that it will dispose of all the product it manufactures.
There is no point in private industry manufacturing a drug that does not have a long shelf life and must be disposed of quickly and economically. I understand that in the case of the Hong Kong flu vaccine eggs must be inoculated. The vaccine feeds on the eggs and it has a short shelf life. Even though a small private company may have the right under licence to manufacture this vaccine in Canada it may not be tempted to manufacture it if sales are made only to 3 million instead of 15 million Canadians. On occasion such a company may manufacture 3 million doses on the basis of anticipated sales and then discover that 8 million or 10 million doses are required. A crown corporation would be in a position to satisfy such a need.
We should also consider the provision of drugs in many fields of public welfare. In my area many people are in an age category that does not qualify for old age pensions. It is an area with little employment for those over 45 or 50 years. These people do not have old age pensions, but when they require drugs such as insulin the province of Ontario, through the municipalities, supplies them at cost. It also provides drugs free of charge to welfare recipients. The amount of such drugs provided all across Canada must be considerable. If the government established a crown corporation to manufacture drugs it could have a large part of its production based on the
4564	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act drugs distributed through welfare agencies and other government institutions.
Many people write me to say that their monthly drug bills are $15, $20 or $25. Some of us on occasion have monthly $15 drug bills. Just the other day one of my colleagues was not feeling well and I went to the drugstore for him to pick up his prescription. Cough pills cost $4, some other pills another $4, and something else another buck. The bill came to $8 or $10 for a few days in bed with a common cold. I do not think his cold had reached the Hong Kong flu stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
he well now?


William Arnold Peters: No, he is still in bed. The old remedy of going out and buying a bottle of rum is probably still the best. Even if you do not feel better you can enjoy your sickness.
The cost of drugs is probably as important to many people as the limited amount of food which they can buy with their old age pensions and other forms of assistance. The cost of drugs always comes out of the food portion of their income. In many cases they either eat or buy drugs; they cannot do both.
I suggest that the minister should consider the establishment of a crown corporation. Possibly some companies in Canada might be interested in forming a partnership with a crown corporation so they would have the benefit of national research and of a large welfare market. At the same time they would have an opportunity to develop new drugs and act as an agent for the government in the use and control of imported drugs.
Canada is not the only country having trouble with drug prices. I notice a headline in one of the newspapers which says, "Swedish Pharmacies Threatened With Nationalization To Cut Prices." I know that one or two hon. members who have spoken in this debate are in the peanut drug trade. They have small companies employing 50 or 75 people. There are lots of these companies throughout the country. They buy pills in bulk, put them in bottles and sell them to grocery stores and novelty shops. They distribute patent medicines and such things, but all the big companies are in a cartel which I think has been investigated by every country in the world.
An investigation into the control of the A. G. Farben Company in the United States prior to the second world war resulted in the introduction of anti-combine legislation in that country. Drug companies formed a monopoly in Germany and most of Europe,

DEBATES	January 21, 1969
and such monopolies are not less apparent today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. It is so easy for these companies to get together and decide, "You work on this drug and I will work on that one. When we get them developed we will set the price and we will all make a good thing out of the drug business."
We have mentioned some of the things that could be done to control the prices and the marketing of drugs. I suggest that what the government proposes is a step in the right direction. It will not reduce drug prices very much for the person living on an old age pension. Instead of paying $17 he may get his drugs in the future for $12 or $14. That is something and we welcome it. Further, when inspectors report to the minister that they are having trouble with such and such an importation, or that importation is not possible because of pressure applied by others, the government will have to act with a more strident voice than it has up until the present. I am sure this will happen as it gains more experience in the operations of the drug industry.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have to look at the whole matter of advertising and the legitimacy of advertising. I could say something about that. Over the holiday I was very shocked by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because it doubled its normal amount of advertising by having a period of self-gratification. It told us how wonderful it was in seven or eight minutes additional advertising. I would think it did this on its own. Self-gratification has become a real problem for those who are interested in the advertising media. Someone must pay for both the self-gratification and the advertising that is allowed under the act.
The minister will have to find some relationship between the total cost of drugs and the amount spent on advertising, not only advertising to the doctors but advertising to the industry and to the public in general. Lastly, the government will have to give consideration to the lowering of the cost of drugs for which the government itself is responsible. I think it would be very unreasonable if we were to find the government supplying aspirin rather than A.S.A. tablets to its own hospitals of welfare recipients. This, of course, is just one example. I have nothing against aspirin. I think aspirin is very good because it dissolves faster than an A.S.A. tablet. This is an advantage if one has a real
January 21. 1969

headache. I am sure that when we as a nation supply and are responsible for these things we must get the most for our money. This probably will be done on a generic basis and there should be some education in this regard.
In closing I might mention another field we might consider. We should be thinking about the education that is given to the doctors by the drug companies in terms of generic drugs and what they will do. I am sure that when a company has a patented drug with a brand name it finds it is much more advantageous to tell the doctor about it than about the generic drug. Perhaps the doctor has the same difficulty we all have with the names of these new drugs. I will not try to name any of them. In the last couple of days we have heard some of these names. Some of them have immensely long and complicated names. Difficulty also arises because of the ease with which they sometimes can be mixed up. There was an inquest not long ago involving a case in which a doctor had prescribed over the telephone a specific generic drug but the druggist had misunderstood the prescription or the doctor had been confused. The prescription that was filled was for a drug which resulted in the death of a child. I am sure it could be argued that there would not have been that kind of confusion in respect of a brand name.
It may be that the minister should take a look at the naming of generic drugs and how this is arrived at so that some formalized code could be developed in order to eliminate confusion. Probably this in itself would tend to enable the doctor to use a coded generic name rather than admit to himself and everyone else that he cannot spell the name of a particular drug or in most cases even pronounce it. If there were a code for these various drugs which could be used I believe some of the difficulty would be removed.
I do not have very much more to say except that I hope the government through this legislation will continue to examine the problem and will not be reluctant to consider the establishment of a crown corporation so that yardsticks can be established in respect of the cost of production of new drugs and their sale price on the market.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity and privilege to take part in the debate on Bill C-102 which the federal government has introduced in the early part of the first
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act session of this parliament. I am particularly interested in this bill as a physician and member of parliament for Parkdale which is a working man's area. I feel that the Canadian public finds it commendable that the federal government has courageously tackled the problem of the high cost of prescription drugs. The three intensive federal studies carried out so far in Canada have found that the cost of prescription drugs in Canada is higher than it need be. The federal government wishes to bring relief to all Canadians who are burdened with the high cost of drugs.
The incidence of disease is far from uniform. Those patients who pay the largest drug bills because of their disability are likely to have incomes substantially below the average. Not only, however, is the incidence of illness in the population uneven, but also it is quite unpredictable so that consumers cannot budget for a situation in which they may have to assume the burden of heavy drug expenditures. Beyond all this, health is naturally of primary importance. A person's health is also a significant determinant of the productivity of human resources in our economy. Bouts of sickness, chronic disease, and permanent physical disability are social and economic misfortunes which also are frequently disastrous. The inability of many people to afford the drugs they require is reflected in needless sickness, disability, unemployability and costly hospitalization which could have been prevented by adequate out-of-hospital treatment.
Public concern over the price of drugs has been reflected in a number of major public inquiries. Federal inquiries have been undertaken by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which made its report in January, 1963, by the Royal Commission on Health Services-the Hall Commission- which made its report in February, 1964, and by the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Drug Costs and Prices-the Harley committee-which made its report in April, 1967. Public concern has also given rise to at least two provincial public inquiries- one by the joint committee of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association and the government of Manitoba, which made a report on the retail structure of drug prices in Manitoba in May, 1961, and the other by a select committee of the Ontario legislature which made its report in April, 1963. The government of Alberta made an important submission to the Harley committee urging the need for measures to reduce drug prices.
January 21, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The unanimous findings of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Royal Commission on Health Services and the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Drug Costs and Prices have proved beyond doubt that Canadian drug prices are higher than they need be. This is particularly true in the case of patented and trade-mark prescription drugs. All the federal and other public inquiries referred to were in agreement that no single measure by itself would bring about a significant reduction in the price of drugs to the consumer and that a number of coordinated steps must be taken. In consequence, the government determined to do what it could at the federal level to reduce drug prices and at the same time maintain a situation where drug manufacturing in this country would not be unduly restrained, where pharmaceutical research in Canada would not be discouraged, and also to ensure the Canadian public that drugs will be safe and effective.
Hon. members will recall that although Bill C-190, discussed in the House of Commons earlier this year during the previous parliament, was given second reading in February, it did not proceed further owing to the dissolution of parliament. On Thursday, October 17, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) re-introduced an amended bill, Bill C-102, under the title "An Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act". Certain amendments were introduced in this new bill, notably in respect of safety and quality of drugs, as a result of the previous debate and the representations which have been made.
I would not like to prolong the debate on this issue but I want to bring again to the attention of the house that the government is looking at the whole issue of the cost of drugs. There are five measures in a federal package which are designed to lower the cost of drugs. The first step, which has already been taken, included the removal of the federal sales tax from drugs, the reduction of customs duties on these products from 20 per cent to 15 per cent and also the narrowing of the application of dumping duties to drug imports.
The second step in the government's program is that contained in the measure now before us, Bill C-102. There are other measures which will be taken by the government. The

next one is the development of an information service for doctors, which was recommended by the Harley committee. The Food and Drug Directorate, with the assistance of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is undertaking a program of providing objective information to the medical profession about the properties and prices of drugs, so that the prescribing physicians will be aware of the price differential between competing drug products of demonstrated quality, safety and effectiveness. The object of this program will be to enable the physician to know that a choice of drugs is available to him on the Canadian market for the needs of his patients. While the decision as to what the physician will prescribe is to remain with him, the intention is that he should be made aware there is a choice to be made in many cases between competing products and their prices. Resources have been provided for this purpose to the Department of National Health and Welfare, and it is expected that the first monthly information bulletin will appear without undue delay.
The fourth step in the over-all program is the pharmaceutical industry development assistance program, commonly known as PIDA, to which reference has been made by many previous speakers. The parmaceutical industry development assistance program, which is administered at the present time by the Department of Industry, is a direct loan program designed to strengthen and improve the efficiency of that sector of the pharmaceutical industry which manufactures and sells prescription drugs at lower prices. These companies, most of which are Canadian owned, are engaged in or are prepared to engage in effective price competition against the international drug firms.
The fifth step in the federal program is one which involves discussion with the provinces, and it is designed to tackle the problem of the high cost of the retail distribution of drugs, important aspects of which are within provincial jurisdiction. The government of Canada recognizes, as did the special committee, the so-called Harley committee, that it is not sufficient to inject price competition at the manufacturing level only by way of legislation. An important element in the cost of drugs to consumers lies in the distribution and pricing practices at the retail level. This is a matter which, now that the federal government is completing the steps that can be taken within federal jurisdiction, is on our agenda for future federal-provincial conferences.
January 21, 1969	COMMONS
It is useful at this time to refer again to the special committee of the House of Commons which studied this matter and which stated it hoped provincial governments and provincial pharmaceutical associations would take whatever steps are necessary in the light of changing circumstances to ensure that sufficient competition can be engendered in the retail drug business to lower prescription drug prices. I hope that all the provinces will take whatever action is necessary to lower the cost of drugs.
I am delighted to note that my province, Ontario, has already taken the initiative in this matter. The Speech from the Throne announced a program in February, 1968, which will establish a negotiated price at which not only hospitals but retail pharmacies will be able to purchase prescription drugs. The drugs and biologicals under consideration account for 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the cost of prescribed drugs to hospitals and consumers.
A statement from the Ontario health department indicated that discussions with pharmaceutical firms, wholesale distributors and retailers will be held in an attempt to reach a consensus on certain principles. A negotiated price will be established for drugs and biologicals purchased in bulk. Added to the bulk price will be a reasonable price for packaging and distribution. Hospitals will be provided with a price list of these drugs, and by purchasing at the negotiated price they will reduce their operating costs.
In the Ontario plan the retail pharmacies will also be able to purchase at this negotiated price and, being allowed a modest markup, would sell the drugs at the final price plus a dispensing fee. Apparently the Ontario Department of Health has had good co-operation in its efforts so far to determine what drugs should first be considered in this program and what method of distribution should be adopted so that substantial economies may be achieved. It is my hope that the other provinces will tackle this problem as soon as possible so that all Canadians may enjoy the full benefit of the efforts of their governments, federal and provincial, to lower the cost of drugs.
I should like to refer for a few moments to the speech made last Friday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He explained to us at some length what additional resources have been made available to the food and drug directorate to protect the safety and efficacy
DEBATES	4567
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act of generic drugs and to provide for inspection of imported generic drugs. I do not want to take up the time of this house as this speech can be read in Hansard, but I should like to state that we should be assured of the safety of generic drugs. Even Canadian university teaching hospitals are prescribing generic drugs for their patients. I am satisfied that the Food and Drug Directorate is doing everything it can to ensure the efficacy and safety of drugs in this country.
[DOT] (4:20 p.ra.)
We in this House of Commons have a duty to see that the burden of the cost of illness is reduced. The legislation before us today in Bill C-102 will, I am sure, have a significant impact in reducing the cost of drugs in Canada without jeopardizing in any way the quality of the drugs offered to the public.
Our responsibility to the people of Canada is to promptly pass this bill as the law of our country. Bill C-102 is a clear indication of the government's determination to work toward a just society in Canada, a society which will seek to eliminate the social ills which disfigure the existence and impair the quality of human life for too many of our citizens. I therefore urge the members of the House of Commons and the members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to expedite the study of this bill and to enact it into law as promptly as possible.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, we have two champions in Canada today. We have ski champion Nancy Greene and we have Canada's shadow-boxing champion in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). He seems to shadow-box on the question of consumer prices; he shadow-boxes on the question of the Combines Investigation Act and restrictive practices; he shadow-boxes on hockey; he shadow-boxes on advertising by companies in Canada, and now he is shadow-boxing in the field of drugs. This is why I call him Canada's shadow-boxing champion.
I have read the minister's speech of October 17 introducing this bill. Toward the end of the speech he apologized for making a lengthy speech and said:
May I thank hon. members, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to go on for a few minutes after ten o'clock, and I apologize to them for this lengthy resume of the principle of this bill and the reasons which lie beneath its introduction. However the debate under the original Bill C-190 was so lengthy and inspired that I considered I
January 21, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
would be remiss in my responsibilities to the house were I to make this statement on second reading too abbreviated.
Here is the important sentence:
My impression has always been that there appears to be needless concern within the drug industry about the effects of the bill.
I tell the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that this needless concern is demonstrated by the drug companies. I recall the debate on Bill C-190 in the early spring of last year. The drug representatives were lined up in the galleries and there was a constant running back and forth with speeches they had prepared for certain members of the opposition. 1 looked around yesterday and again today and found there were present very few, if any, representatives of the drug companies. Therefore I am inclined to think they are laughing all the way to the bank with regard to Bill C-102.
I am rather worried about the attitude and action of members of the Progressive Conservative party. In view of the poverty in the maritimes, in Newfoundland and other parts of the country, the high prices paid by the poor people in these provinces and by the sick and elderly, I would have thought there would have been a real spark in the speeches of members from those parts of the country. I notice that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson) agrees with me. These are known as the poor provinces of Canada and the people there suffer as a result of high prices. I have been really sad to watch the performance of members of the Progressive Conservative party and some Liberals in this debate. The only strength they lent to the argument against this bill was the safety factor, and they appeared to be walking on eggs as they made their speeches.
Most Canadians are determined to have safe drugs at reasonable prices. One must look first at the cost of drugs in Canada and ask why the cost is so high. I cannot think of any better authority to quote than one successful Canadian drug manufacturer who is quoted in an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, August 13, 1968. The president of Micro Chemicals Ltd., Gryphon Laboratories Ltd. and Paul Maney Laboratories Canada Ltd. set forth in an interview the problem the small Canadian drug manufacturer is having. The problem is caused by the penetration of foreign ownership. Mr. Speaker, you have heard me and many of my colleagues speak about the problem of foreign ownership in Canada and you

are well aware of how conscious we are of it. I ask the house to take note of the words of the president of the three companies I have mentioned. He said:
In the past decade, says Mr. Cook, running through a mental list without effort, these Canadian companies have been sold:
Charles E. Frosst and Co. of Montreal to Merck and Co. Inc. of Rahway, N.J.; Elliott-Marion Co. Ltd. of Montreal to American Home Products Corp. of New York: Ayerst McKenna and Harrison Ltd. of Montreal to American Home Products; Frank W. Horner Ltd. of Montreal to Carter-Wallace Inc. of New York: L. D. Craig Ltd. of Toronto (Bell-Craig Pharmaceuticals) to Denver Chemical Manufacturing Co. of Stamford, Conn.
That is just a list that he gave from memory of Canadian firms which have been sold to foreign companies. Then he said:
Some of these, like Frosst, Ayerst and Frank W. Horner, had been giving Canada an international reputation in drug-making. They were also providing the country with a competition in drug marketing that has practically disappeared, Mr. Cook says. Competition now is strictly in the marketplace, depending mainly on how good the companies' sales and advertising campaigns are.
The article continues:
The solution was to tackle the large companies in the area of the money-making drugs to which the large companies alone had patent rights.
Here you have a successful Canadian manufacturer setting forth what is probably the main reason why there is so little control over drug prices. The reason is that foreign ownership has gained the day and dictates to the Canadian public the price it should pay for drugs. This is a sad commentary on our government, a government that pretended to be concerned about foreign ownership, set up the Watkins commission and received its report but did nothing about it.
I am sure the minister will agree that a more important factor in the cost of drugs depends upon the stroke of the doctor's pen when he writes a prescription for his patient. When I speak to my doctor friends they say, "Mr. Gilbert, I always put in the prescription the generic name of the drug." Sometimes I wonder just what doctors set forth the brand names, because the culprit appears to be the brand name drugs with their high prices. I think that most druggists are dependent on a medical book called the Vade-mecum. I had not heard of it until a doctor friend of mine told me that the Vade-mecum is the bible that doctors use in prescribing drugs. Many doctors thought it was a public book, but in point of fact the Vade-mecum is compiled by a commercial firm which sells space to different drug companies throughout the country, and
January 21, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act this allows them to publish the book. So these Directorate compendium, setting forth the drug companies buy space in the book on different types of drugs and their relative which doctors depend in writing prescriptions, costs.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Then there are the promotion men who utilize 30 per cent of every dollar to promote drugs. These men go round to the doctors and after giving them half a bag or sometimes a bag of samples they engage in a whisper campaign in which they say: "These other drug companies, including the Canadian companies, are what is known as copiers; in other words, they try to copy drugs of other patent companies. They are known as non-research houses and backroom plants." This is the whisper campaign which these men promote on behalf of drug companies. They spend 30 per cent of every drug dollar on promotion. I might add that it has become so insidious that when pharmaceutical students complete their courses they are invited by these companies to what is known as an orientation program, which is really brainwashing. The drug companies take these young graduate pharmacists to Detroit or Montreal where they wine and dine them and show them all the great advantages of dealing with them. It is a sad commentary that 30 per cent of every dollar is spent by the drug companies on the promotion of drugs and only 7 per cent on research.
Let me say at this point that I give the Harley committee credit for immediately dismissing the argument presented to them by the drug companies that high labour costs in Canada were responsible for the high cost of drugs. The evidence disclosed that this was not so, that it is the promotional costs and the high profit factors that bring about the high price of drugs. In fact, there are many other factors. There are drug companies that not only line up members of the official opposition but also members of the government by giving them money to promote their election. One of the most effective members of the Harley committee was a member of our party who represented the former riding of Hamilton South. During the recent campaign 40 doctors in his riding contributed over $2,000 to ensure his defeat. This is the type of conspiracy that prevails. It is promoted by these drug companies and sometimes receives the support of members of the medical profession.
If we are really serious about tackling this problem, our first measure should be the replacement of the Vade-mecum. The Food and Drug Directorate should prepare a book, which could be called the Food and Drug


Mr. Basford:: Would the hon. member permit a question? In the light of his remarks I was wondering whether the hon. member had read the speech made during this debate last Friday by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, during which he said that is exactly what we intend to do?


Mr. Orlikow:: When, and where is the money?


John Gilbert: We are again witnessing the artful shadow-boxing of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The question is, when is the government going to do it and why does it not do it now? When it does, it should follow the precedent that has been set in the case of radio and TV stations which are licensed to operate in Canada. In the same way I believe the drug companies should have to pay a licence fee to cover the costs of this compendium on drugs.
The Food and Drug Directorate compendium would list brand names only under the generic names and show the price of each asked by pharmacists for patient-size packages. Such a book without prices is already published by the druggists association. I would like to see the minister stand up in his place and say that he would do this immediately and that the cost would be borne by the drug companies. Then he could not shelter himself under the excuse that because of the cost reduction program of the government we cannot afford it at this time. The companies are the proper ones to charge.
Second, I would like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to create a pharmaceutical products board which, first, would review applications for the marketing of a pharmaceutical patent to determine whether it is a genuine new drug meeting a unique need. This is very important when one considers the cost of patent applications and the experience with regard to such applications that when a patent is about to expire nearing the 17th year clever chemists and their lawyers make another application for a new patent. All it really involves is molecular manipulation in which they indulge. This is the method by which they attempt to increase the life of the patent. So we should have a pharmaceutical products board which would determine whether these patents involve
January 21, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act genuine, new drugs to meet the unique needs of the public.
Second, the board should have the power to establish the price of the product based on the company's submissions of its costs for development, promotion and manufacture in Canada as evaluated by an examination of its books by board auditors. This is not a unique proposal. These are the requirements that are demanded from telephone and transport companies with regard to the operation of their businesses. There is no reason why this should not also apply to drug companies.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
My second point relates to the safety factor. This aspect was gone into quite deeply by those responsible for the Harley report. The report said, in effect, that the safety factor was no greater in the case of drugs put out under a brand name than in drugs sold under generic names. The best example we have of the serious consequences which can arise in connection with a brand name drug is, of course, thalidomide; there is no assurance that because a drug has a brand name it is necessarily safe. We think of the meagre 7 per cent that these drug companies expend on research. We recall the minister telling us that if there is to be real research carried on in Canada in the field of drugs the government must make the major contribution. This being so, we are forced to accept the argument set forth by the main spokesman for our party on this issue, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), that the establishment of a Crown corporation which would manufacture these drugs and distribute them is necessary. Such a corporation would probably get some of the research moneys which the government intends to make available for the development of drugs in Canada.
What amazes me is that certain drug companies operate here even though they do not meet all the standards set by the Food and Drug Directorate. A pharmaceutical products board or some such board should, therefore, declare the manufacture of pharmaceuticals to be as essential for public purposes as is broadcasting or banking. It should require that each company be majority-owned by Canadian citizens, and it should set up minimum standards of internal control over laboratory functions within each company. This is what should be done by the pharmaceutical board. It should set the standards

by which these laboratories operate in connection with the manufacture of drugs. If companies do not comply with the regulations and requirements of the board they should be disallowed from doing further business in Canada.
We have urged strongly that a Crown corporation be set up to manufacture drugs, to set guidelines with regard to cost and to ensure the necessary safety factors. I hope the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will vacate the title I have given him this afternoon of Canada's shadow-boxing champion and become the leader in giving Canadians drugs at a reasonable cost with the highest possible safety factor. To do this he will need courage and determination to set things right with regard to foreign ownership. He will need to establish standards in Canada by telling doctors they will be provided with a Food and Drug Directorate compendium setting forth drugs under generic names rather than under brand names. He will have to set a standard with regard to the laboratories in which drugs are manufactured. If he does these things he will make a mark for himself in Canadian political life. If he fails, he will remain as Canada's shadow-boxing champion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty to inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I understand the new rules, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the second reading debate is to give bills a preliminary examination before referring them to a committee. I therefore do not intend to speak at any length today.
This bill has received its preliminary examination in the house and I hope it will be referred immediately to the committee on health and welfare. My position, and the position of the government, was clearly set out in my statement in the house in October when I introduced the bill for second reading, as well as in the excellent statements by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) and my own parliamentary secretary. All these statements have, I think, successfully rebutted various suggestions made by other speakers in the house that the bill before us is a bad one or an unnecessary one.
My officials and I look forward to the hearings of the health and welfare committee
January 21, 1969

when we will have an opportunity to set forth our analysis of this measure in more detail and explain the meaning and purpose of each clause of the legislation. I am confident that when we give these explanations members of the committee will see the wisdom of this bill and share my hope that it will be passed and reported back to the house as soon as possible.
I was amused by some of the allegations which have come from members of the New Democratic party. They indicate they support this bill, and I thank them for their support, but they are certainly not loud in their praises. I was amused at the shadow-boxing of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). Members of the N.D.P. insisted throughout the campaign that this legislation would never be introduced. Well, if the legislation is as ineffective as they pretend it is, I do not know why they were so concerned about it during the election campaign. Naturally, there was no doubt in the mind of the government or in the mind of the Liberal party that it would be introduced. And it has been introduced. If it is as ineffective as the N.D.P. alleges, I am amused they should have made it a campaign issue.
Again, the other night the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) took full credit for the fact that it had been introduced. If it is so ineffective as he and his hon. friends have suggested, I am surprised he should take full credit for its re-introduction. But that is all by the way, and in the nature of a political argument; we can fight that issue on another occasion.
What I do want to emphasize-and some members of the N.D.P. do not appear to be aware of this-is that the present bill is only one part of the government's drug program. We as a government are determined to have a beneficial influence on the price of drugs in Canada. We regard drug prices in Canada as being unduly high, as stated by the Harley committee. We are determined to see they are reduced, and this bill is only part of the program which we have undertaken, and will undertake, to force prices down.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This particular bill is concerned with amending the Patent Act so as to increase competition within the drug industry and expose the pharmaceutical industry in Canada to the winds of international free competition. I hope it will be successful. All I can say is that it is a measure that has been recommended by three boards of inquiry-the Re-
Potent Act-Trade Marks Act strictive Trade Practices Commission inquiry, the Hall royal commission and the Harley committee. I accept the recommendations of those three inquiries, and also their opinion that this type of amendment to the Patent Act will have some effect upon the cost of drugs in Canada. I hope it will; it is the belief of the government that it will. I am sure that we can convince the members of the health and welfare committee that the amendment will have this effect.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with all the points raised by hon. members in this debate. May I thank them for their contributions. Some of the criticisms and suggestions can be dealt with in detail during the committee hearings, which I hope will start very shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


John (Jack) Davis: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-151, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Woolliams)- Sports; the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)-Finance.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.

January 21, 1969
Food and Drugs Act



PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo) moved: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (listing of ingredients).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was first introduced in 1966 at the urging of many people who had written to me, as they had written to other members of the house, indicating the difficulties they were having in terms of identifying ingredients in food and drugs to which they were allergic. The purpose of this bill, as stated in the explanatory note, is to amend the Food and Drugs Act to require producers of food and drugs placed on the Canadian market to accurately and completely list all ingredients on the labels of their products, as far as possible.
We in Canada are somewhat remiss in not insisting upon ingredient labelling, and as a result a number of anomalies have appeared. For instance, food manufactured in the United States and exported to Canada by the parent of a branch plant in this country bears accurate labelling because the U.S. government has passed legislation which is more progressive in this regard than ours. Therefore there is the curious situation that products that are similar to each other, almost identical in some cases, if made in Canada frequently have no labelling of ingredients whereas they do if made in the United States. On the other hand, there have been instances where Canadian manufacturers market their products in Canada without labelling the ingredients because the government does not require them to do so; yet when exporting the self-same product they have gone to considerable trouble to label the ingredients in order to comply with the regulations of the country to which they are exporting. Therefore I think it is time this state of affairs was cleared up.
I believe that Canadian consumers, particularly those who suffer from allergies, are entitled to information that is important to them, and it is for this reason that I present this bill to the house, hoping it will gain support from other hon. members. Some members have become aware of my intention to introduce Bill C-12 and they have indicated their support and written me to that effect.

Some of them have personal knowledge of the difficulties that are created by inadequate labelling for people who suffer from allergies.
Many people in this country suffer from allergies, and these allergies take many forms. It is not my intention this evening to detail the various kinds of allergies and the difficulties that they create; I think much of this is common knowledge to all of us. We all know from our own personal acquaintances that this problem exists. We all know people who have to be very careful about the kind of food they buy for their children because their children are allergic to certain things. We have gone to restaurants with friends who have had to question either the waiter or the cook about almost every item of food brought to the table. There is not a great deal we can do to remedy this situation, but of course people do not spend all their time eating in restaurants. However, there is considerable work that I think we can do for those who purchase food for use at home and who require to know what the food contains.
What makes the problem even more acute in this day and age is that the friendly corner grocer is no longer a ubiquitous figure. There was a time when one could go into a small store and ask the assistant: "What's in this, John?", and generally the assistant would know. Or one could go to the corner drugstore or to the fish market and get some idea of what was in the food being sold. However, today everything is sold off the shelf. We have silent merchandising. People simply walk into a supermarket and pick products off the shelves.
Unfortunately, manufacturers of food products today are not nearly as concerned about informing the public as to what they are selling as was the small merchant of yesterday. Their chief concern is to attract the public, to put some bright colouring on the labelling or packaging so that we can instantly grab what we want. Industrial psychologists have told manufacturers that their products must have more eye appeal than others. They say very little about providing the public with information on the ingredients. As one supermarket operator remarked to a committee of this house, "You wouldn't want to take all the romance out of life by getting too factual about things." I think we have had a little too much romancing in our supermarkets. We have had too much psychic benefit, too much puffery, as they politely describe what they are doing. It is about time our consumers were given the right tc information.
January 21, 1969

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As I said, this bill has been introduced because of urgent letters I received from my constituents and people outside my riding, many of them suffering from allergies. The provisions of the bill have some connection with allergies since they deal with a matter that has become of increasing public concern. People have the right to know what is going into their stomachs, onto their faces, as well what kind of products they are paying for. Very little has been done in this country to inform the public in this way. If anything, the attitude of many of our manufacturers and promotion-minded men is that the members of the public should be treated like children. The prevalent thinking is, "Do not tell them anything you do not have to. The less members of the public know the better it will be for them." I do not think that is so. I think members of the public want to be informed about the contents of products and will insist on knowing.
We have made some progress in this country by introducing legislation that calls for specific types of labelling for various products. Also, certain products must meet certain standards. Although the standards set by the Department of National Health and Welfare are valuable in that they protect us in general against injurious ingredients, they do not provide the protection that sufferers from allergies in particular need. For instance, the ingredients of certain products may be perfectly harmless for those who do not suffer from allergies but yet may be absolutely devastating for those who do. Setting standards that food products must meet is not enough. We must go farther.
The public has become aware of injurious substances in products other than food. The house has referred bills to do with tobacco and tobacco advertising to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. That committee will be asked to recommend that information about the effects of tobacco be printed on cigarette packages. We have begun publicizing the nicotine and tar contents of various brands of cigarettes on the principle that the public ought to know. After all, members of the public ought to be in a position to make decisions about health.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has indicated that legislation will be introduced in the house dealing with labelling of various products, among them being toys, glue and various other products which might be injurious to the health of any group in our 29180-290
Food and Drugs Act
society. We are moving in the right direction. For that reason I submit that the bill before the house is particularly apt, being aimed at the specific problems confronting sufferers from allergies, as well as the general principle that the public ought to have in its possession all relevant information about products it buys.
Some hon. members have suggested that the costs incurred in printing new labels giving product ingredients would outweigh the advantages of printing such labels. I submit that the extra costs are not that great. I am not advocating an overnight change-over of labels. I understand that companies have substantial investments in present set-ups and it is unfair to expect them to change their labels immediately. If passed the legislation will allow a reasonable period for manufacturers to bring out new labels. It makes little difference whether or not the ingredients of a product are included on a label. We are talking here about a few extra words which could be inserted when the label is printed, and I do not see how that would increase the cost of labels significantly. On the other hand, the suffering of many people will be alleviated as a result of new labels giving the ingredients of products, and these advantages will far outweigh any minor costs the manufacturers may incur.
Another advantage stemming from having labels indentifying ingredients of products will be that we shall get rid of some of the mysterious nonsense surrounding many of our products. I am referring to so-called secret ingredients, to tigers that pop out of boxes and esoteric mysteries of certain products that in fact may contain some fundamental and pedestrian chemicals. All such ingredients should be made known. If the highly advertised product that is selling simply because of its advertising build-up can be undersold by an equivalent product, it ought to be undersold. Surely the public has the right to compare products. At the moment it cannot because it has no way of comparing the various ingredients of similar products. Of course, there will always be distinctions that cannot be listed-distinctions of taste and of quality which cannot be defined as well as distinctions resulting from promotion.
I do not expect that a piece of legislation such as I am proposing here will solve all difficulties associated with consumer knowledge of products. Nevertheless, acceptance of the principle that consumers ought to know will be a big step forward in assisting the public to obtain the information vital to it.

January 21, 1969
Food and Drugs Act


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) for introducing this bill. I intend to support it fully, being one of those who for many years have suffered from allergies. Over the years I have had to avoid many foods, on pain of suffering severe reactions if I ate foods to which I was particularly sensitive. I am therefore sympathetic to the problems of those who suffer from allergies. I have also introduced a bill similar to the hon. member's Bill C-56, which is far down the list and has no chance of being discussed during the present session.
When I first came here a few years ago I was made aware that the hon. member proposed to put before the house a bill similar to the present one, and I wrote him to tell him I supported it. The hon. member and I served on a committee a few years ago that studied the complaints of consumers and consumer organizations. Many appearing before the committee complained that present laws governing labelling are inadequate. They hoped we would recommend further legislation in our reports. In our interim and final reports to the minister-at that time to the registrar general-we recommended that legislation be introduced to require labels on food products in Canada to specify the ingredients of those products.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Some manufacturers and citizens seem to think that is not necessary. They say that an informed consumer, a consumer who wants to take his time, can look at the different products and decide what is good for him and what is not good for him. They criticize modern-day housewives and other purchasers and consumers, saying they are lazy and do not do the job that grandmother used to do. But the principal point is that today our consumer products, especially food products, have become much more complex than they were in grandmother's day.
Today we have foods in cans and in packages. We have specially prepared convenience foods, frozen foods, as a matter of fact completely frozen dinners with gravies and all sorts of sauces included in them. We have specially prepared baby foods which only became prominent on the Canadian market after the Second World War. Before the war most people prepared their babies' food.
Today we have many types of foods in packages and in forms that did not exist even 30 years ago, and they are becoming more and more complex. It is almost impossible for

a consumer when he or she goes through a supermarket, picking up a package, a box or a tin, to know exactly what is in it. Usually the consumer knows the basic product. It might be a meat, a cereal or a vegetable, but because of the new types of processing there could be many other things added to it, different types of preservatives and other products to enhance the taste. It is most important that the Canadian consumer know clearly what he is buying.
This is particularly important for the allergy sufferer. I am familiar with several cases where people, particularly babies, nearly died, and there are even some cases of deaths. I have personal experience of one case. I know a family that gave their baby a particular baby food containing some egg. Of course they did not know the food contained an egg additive. The baby was extremely sensitive and allergic to the egg additive. It became violently ill and they got it to a hospital just in time to save its life. There is another example of a baby dying in Toronto. I have here a letter which says:
An extreme example along this line is a patient who was attending the allergy clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children. This child was known to be sensitive to walnut. He was given a candy which contained a walnut inside of it and was dead before he arrived at the hospital.
There are many other examples. People who have allergy problems want to know what the contents are of the packages and the foods they buy.
This is not the only reason for requiring more explicit labelling. As the hon. member for Waterloo has said, whether we have allergy problems or not it is still important to know what we are getting. Many European countries have much more explicit labelling laws than Canada.
When we buy a product, whether it is a frozen food, a TV dinner, or a can of stew, we want to know what we are buying in addition to the main item in the can in case it is something we may not like, something we are allergic to, or just for general information purposes. We would also like to know what we are getting for our money. This was referred to by the hon. member for Waterloo. Sometimes the price of a food may seem to be extremely high compared with other foods. If we knew what the product consisted of we might have a greater appreciation of the price, and we would be more satisfied in buying the product if we knew what it contained.
January 21. 1969

To do what the hon. member suggests in this bill will not completely solve the problem. I think we should also try to do something about foods which are imported and exported. Many foods are brought into Canada. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations is presently working on labelling proposals and I think the Canadian government should continue to support work in this field.
I said that I support this bill and I do. However, I have certain reservations. From my point of view the bill is too lenient. I would have the law be more obligatory with respect to labelling. The wording in the bill says:
-and in any case where it is possible to do so the regulations shall provide that all the ingredients contained in the food and drugs covered by this subsection shall be enumerated on the labels accompanying the said food and drugs.
I would have it a bit stronger than that because of my experience and my personal contacts with people who have had serious problems.
I would also think it important in this country, although this bill may not be the occasion to raise the matter, to oblige our manufacturers to have their labels in English and French so that all Canadian consumers may know what they are buying. I think there are other private bills on the order paper dealing with this aspect of the problem.
Another major criticism is that even if this bill were passed it would not cover many foods sold on the Canadian market. The Food and Drugs Act at present covers certain foods but there are others it does not cover and I svould hope that if amendments are to be made all foods, whether they are prepared or convenience foods, would be covered by this type of regulation. I understand that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs *s preparing legislation along this line. I urge lim to take notice of this bill and other simitar bills on the order paper. I urge him also :o take notice of the arguments which are aeing put forward this evening, those put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo, my irguments and others which I presume will ce made in support of the bill. The minister's parliamentary secretary is in the chamber md I hope he will convey the importance of iris measure to the minister.
Some people might suggest that this bill be referred to a parliamentary committee, perhaps the committee on health and welfare. I io not think that is necessary. As I stated earlier, last year the consumers' committee 29180-290J
Food and Drugs Act
studied this matter and it became fairly evident that this type of legislation is necessary. I cannot see the point of wasting time studying it once more. I think it is time for action and I would hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would introduce legislation very shortly.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be short but I would blame myself if I failed to express the appreciation of the Ralliement creditiste to the sponsor of bill C-12, aimed at having dealers and manufacturers use labels with more accurate wordings.
We fully endorse this measure, Mr. Speaker. We believe it is an important means of protecting the consumer, in enabling him to have a better awareness of the products he buys.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very simple and very precise. I believe the house could pass it without reference to the committee. In my opinion, the committee, which had the matter before it previously, will agree, as the previous speaker mentioned. It seems there will be no objection to a gradual change in the labels, taking into account the costs of such changes.
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the retailers, the dealers and the manufacturers would find it profitable to bring about such changes, which would be aimed at improving the quality of the products.
The manufacturers should tell the truth about their products. If they will not say a word about their disadvantages, they could at least state their content.
For example, in the case of cigarettes, the disadvantages of nicotine and tar should be mentioned-and the committee is presently examining this question. But for the moment the problem lies elsewhere.
Our measures should be aimed at solving the basic problem of consumption.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, now that we have a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it seems to me that similar measures should be adopted in order to protect the Canadian consumer.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are in favour of this bill on the control of labelling. Indeed, we know very well that it is impossible to get adequate information on the innumerable products that are put on the market. All we know is that every day, when we turn on the radio or the television set, or when we read

January 21, 1969
Food and Drugs Act
the newspaper, we are swamped with misleading advertisements. Moreover, that was very often said, during the meetings of the committee which presided over the creation of the present department.
Mr. Speaker, somebody already said it-it was a certain Mr. Sandback-during the study in committee. I quote:
The trade marks or the price are very seldom satisfying standards on which the consumer can rely to choose the best product that serves his purpose.
Because of the present situation which has lasted too long, the manufacturers show up the brand name, the trade mark and the price of their product, but not its contents. That is why housewives and consumers are often misled.
I wish to commend once again the mover of this bill and assure him of our full support, hoping that we will all decide that it is not necessary to put off this bill indefinitely or refer it to the committee, as the latter is already too busy. We should be able to dispose of it right away in the house. By so doing, we would make progress and we would indicate that we are ready to co-operate with the new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in passing measures likely to protect the Canadian consumer, an aim we should all strive to attain.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker from this side of the house, I should like to congratulate the proposer of this bill for bringing to our attention and to the attention of the Canadian people the extent of the problem, and the fact that inadequate labelling causes great difficulty to many Canadians, particularly sufferers from allergies. One thing he certainly has done is bring forth the allergy sufferers in this house. Like my friend, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), I also suffer from allergies. I have examples from my own experience which lead me to support the intent of this bill. I know that inadequate labelling is a serious problem for those who suffer from one allergy or another.
This question has already led to a fair amount of discussion in the house. We have heard of the discussion there was last year before the committee on consumer affairs. This led to the bill my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace proposed, which will

not be discussed this session because of the lack of time. It also led to a bill which I proposed late last year and which probably will also not be discussed at this session because of lack of time. That bill deals specifically with the labelling of drugs.
I understand that a member from the major opposition party will be following me in expressing the views of that party on this matter. Therefore I believe that on both sides of the house there is general agreement that there must be better labelling of the ingredients in drugs and foods in Canada.
If I may, I should like to take a moment or two to outline the seriousness of the problem that is now faced by the allergy sufferer. There is the case that was mentioned a short time ago by my friend the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, concerning an egg derivative being used in a baby food with no indication of this on the label. There have been other cases in the past, in particular with regard to nuts which can cause an immediate and very violent reaction and indeed lead to death. There was a case in Toronto not very long ago of a child being given a chocolate which contained a walnut. The child was dead before arrival at the poison control centre.
There are many cases which involve the use of peanut oil. Many people are allergic to this product. Some of these allergies can be particularly vicious. I should like to read from a letter which was received from a doctor in Toronto who took the trouble to write on this matter. He gives information from his experience, as he is a specialist on allergies. He said:
An extreme example along this line is a patient who was attending the allergy clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children. This child was known to be sensitive to walnut. He was given a candy which contained a walnut inside of it and was dead before he arrived at the hospital. Admittedly this was an extreme case and I would not suggest that labelling on all packaged foods would eliminate such errors. Nonetheless it could quite conceivably eliminate a tragic case such as this if the child had properly observant parents.
That is one example taken from his practice. There are many other cases, and if would not be possible to go into all of them in detail. I will mention, however, a case in respect of a member of my family who is allergic to seafood. Quite inadvertently he ate a dish which contained shrimp. About an hour later he passed out at the wheel of his car, and his car ended up in the ditch. H might well have been a fatal accident. The
January 21, 1969

particular case of this member of my family would not have been prevented by proper labelling, because when one is dining at a friend's house one does not, after all, necessarily receive a list of the ingredients of everything that is placed before him. It is, however, an example of the problem itself.
I should like to continue by mentioning another letter from a doctor. This also deals with the problem and I think will give a general indication of the need for adequate labelling regulations. Again, this man is a specialist in allergies. He states:
As allergists we are concerned with two major problems. The first is acute anaphylactic reactions which may occur following an unexpected exposure to something like nuts or nut oils. The other problem is likely considerably more common and it is a chronic reaction usually due to some major food such as wheat, milk, egg or corn. These chronic symptoms will likely take the form of bronchial asthma or allergic rhinitis and although they are not as dramatic as the acute reaction mentioned above they produce far more disability.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The only way in which a person who is food sensitive can be protected from reactions to that food is by complete avoidance and this, of course, involves adequate labelling of commercial products. Although I have felt in the past that adequate labelling should consist of the major ingredients, I feel if it is at all possible that complete labelling shoud be undertaken.
I quoted from these two doctors' letters to outline to the house the seriousness of the problem.
I should like to spend a short time now on this question of complete labelling. It will probably be impossible to get complete labelling, and I think we all understand that. A dash of pepper may be included in a can of soup, for instance, and may or may not be listed in the list of ingredients for that particular product. Complete listing presents serious problems for manufacturers. We cannot get around these problems by attempting to force them to list everything in their product because that would simply be impossible.
The first problem involved is the space required on the label to list all the ingredients. There may simply not be enough space. Also important is the fact that the manufacturer may change the constituents of a food, depending on the prices of different components. For example, depending on the market values, the manufacturer may choose to use peanut rather than corn oil in his product. The label mentioning the ingredients would probably continue to list vegetable fat or
Food and Drugs Act
vegetable oil. This would occur in spite of the fact that the manufacturer had changed the actual oil being used in his product. Such a change could lead an innocent purchaser to suffer a severe allergenic reaction.
A possible solution to the difficulty of complete listing of ingredients is the suggestion that a relatively limited number of products, which account for a high proportion of allergenic reactions, should be required to be identified on the label. These main allergens are milk, chocolate, corn, eggs, peas, tomatoes, wheat, nuts, certain flavourings, fruits and vegetables. If we insisted that manufacturers list these particular products which cause the difficulty and ignored others which do not, we would be taking a step in the right direction.
There is another problem involved, and that is the name of the actual ingredient itself. For instance, if casein salts were listed on the label I would not know what they were, nor would many other people, yet they might be a source of trouble for someone who was allergic to milk. It would not be evident to that person that this particular substance was a milk derivative. Monosodium glutamate, which is commonly used in many cooking preparations, particularly in Chinese food, is a wheat derivative, yet if you listed monosodium glutamate on the label the ordinary consumer would not know this. So, it is quite clear there is a special difficulty in identifying various products and using or choosing the correct name for the label. Perhaps I have spent enough time on that particular point, but it is something we cannot correct simply by legislation; it is something that must be considered.
Perhaps the best way of correcting this situation would be by officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare getting together with the industry to work out lists of ingredients which should appear on the label. The department should decide on the correct names for those particular ingredients in order to warn the public of the actual composition of a product.
I think this could best be done, not through the provisions of this bill, but by other legislation presently in existence. While this bill does focus attention on this problem, and is very useful for this purpose, it is unnecessary in fight of section 24(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. This section provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations to carry the purposes and provisions of the act into effect.

January 21. 1969
Food and Drugs Act
If I read the act correctly, it would be quite possible for the Governor in Council to regulate the labelling of any food or drug. In other words, if the officials of the consumer and corporate affairs department or the Department of National Health and Welfare decided a certain product should be labelled with the ingredients of a product, legislation exists by which the Governor in Council could make regulations requiring such labelling. I think this would be a more sophisticated and better way of doing this, rather than by passing legislation which would require, regardless of the problems I have mentioned that all ingredients, of all foods be labelled. I think this would be the better way for the reasons I have outlined. Therefore, while I can appreciate and do approve of the intent of this bill, I do not feel this is the best way of achieving the objectives of its proposer.
Before I leave this subject I should like to say a few words about a related matter. It is my opinion that regulations should be forthcoming which require the manufacturers of patent drugs to list all the ingredients of such a drug. If a child takes a product from a medicine cabinet which is simply labelled as "Dr. 'X's' rheumatism remedy", drinks it and ends up at a hospital or a poison control centre, there is simply no way for the doctor or the pharmacist to discover what is in that product except by analysis. This is obviously a time-consuming process. Of course, an attempt could be made to phone the manufacturer, if it was known who the manufacturer was, but this would be a hit or miss proposition. If the manufacturer involved could be found some information might be obtained, but in the meantime the child may well die.
I feel that it is very important for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his officials to pay attention to this specific problem. I do not believe legislation is necessary, as regulations could be issued under section 24 of the Act which would require all manufacturers of patent drugs to clearly label their products with all the ingredients and the amounts of thpse ingredients. I urge the minister to consider this matter.
With these general observations on this subject I once more would like to reiterate that the objective of this bill is excellent, but the bill itself is not necessary. I think this matter could best be handled under the existing legislation, specifically section 24(1) of the Food and Drugs Act.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a moment of the

time of this house to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) for feeling the pulse of the people who are affected by the uncertainty about drugs and food. It is very significant at this time that we find members on both sides of the house referring to bills dealing with this subject. We have heard references to Bill C-56, C-12 and Bill C-119. This seems to indicate there is a problem which we must face. There appears to be a duty not only on parliamentarians but on manufacturers to instruct and inform the ultimate consumer. We have heard how important it is that those who are suffering from allergies be advised as to what they are purchasing and how they can become involved.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I need not reiterate the excellent examples that have been given. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we are now faced with problems that exist because of the lack of proper or informative labelling. This problem must be faced and resolved. The hon. member who preceded me said that although this bill is good in principle and is an excellent amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, it is not the right way to bring about this improvement. He referred to section 24 (1) of the act and pointed out that under its provisions the Governor in Council is empowered to look into any matter that requires a change in the regulations. It seems to me that we are moving into an area in which all one hears is "Governor in Council."
I do not have an allergy but it appears to me that we have had several splendid examples of members who have said that this type of legislation is momentous and necessary at this time. Therefore, I believe the question is, are we prepared to face reality in this regard? There is a great complexity in the make-up of food and drugs, which calls for honest labelling. For this reason I fully support the hon. member's bill. I believe Canadians desire information in respect of the labelling of food and drugs. This information is extremely necessary today in order that full protection be given to the consumer.
One has only to look at the many patent medicines which are on sale to realize how much difficulty is caused because of the lack of proper labelling. People must have a choice when purchasing these goods. Through proper labelling they have the right of choice for their protection. There is a great deal of interest in the matter and this has been
January 21, 1969

demonstrated by the fact that several members of the house have introduced similar bills. Therefore I have no hesitation whatsoever in fully supporting this bill. Having heard the hon. members who have spoken, I believe we need this type of protection. Hon. members have spoken about the allergies from which they suffer, and if these examples are multiplied by the thousand one realizes that there is in this area a great problem which requires our immediate attention.
We, as parliamentarians, must keep our ear to the ground and be concerned about the cry that comes from those who ultimately give us direction. I believe legislation such as this is required. Therefore I have no hesitation and no reservation whatsoever in supporting the hon. member's bill. I hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford), having read the bill introduced by the hon. member and the arguments put forward with respect to this question, will not think it necessary to submit the bill to the standing committee for further consideration. We can deal with this matter now. I believe it is in accordance with the intent of the new rules, which have been adopted to reduce the time spent on legislation in the house, that we deal with a matter such as this. This is the proper forum in which to deal with the question because the amendment is simple and its intent is obvious. Therefore I hope the minister will consider all the arguments that have been raised this evening and will follow the suggestions that have been put forward.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by previous speakers in connection with Bill C-12 are certainly valid. I am sure they will prove very useful to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who is directly responsible for the operations of the Food and Drug Directorate. I am sure hon. members have already learned from the press and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that there is to be introduced in the other place a bill called the Hazardous Products Act, which may deal with some of the problems raised in this debate.
I believe this government can be described as being consumer conscious. It accepts the right of the consumer to know, the right of the consumer to feel safe. The right to safety, to be protected against the marketing of goods which are hazardous to health or life, is
Food and Drugs Act
one which I am sure is accepted not only by members of this house but by the Canadian people.
With regard to the specific amendment to the Food and Drugs Act which is contained in Bill C-12 and was explained by the hon. member who introduced the bill, I would like to bring his attention to the fact that section 24 (1) of the act provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of the act into effect. Paragraph (b) of section 24 (1) specifies that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the labelling and packaging and the offering, exposing and advertising for sale of food, drugs, cosmetics and devices. This regulation deals with the size, dimensions, fill and other specifications of packages of food, drugs, cosmetics and devices.
It would therefore appear that section 24 as it now stands provides the necessary authority for the minister, the Governor in Council, to require a complete listing of ingredients of any food or drug. With respect to food, the current policy in the Food and Drug Directorate appears to be that ingredient statements are required only on labels of unstandardized food. Standardized foods include alcoholic beverages, baking powder, cocoa products, coffee, food colours, spices, dressings and seasonings, dairy products, cheeses, ice cream, fats and other substances.
In the food and drugs regulations foods are categorized as standardized and unstandardized. Generally speaking, the so-called standardized foods are not required to carry on their labels a list of ingredients. Other foods falling into the category of unstandardized foods, generally speaking are required to carry on their labels a list of ingredients. There are exceptions, however, to this general rule regarding the listing of ingredients on unstandardized foods and the following 14 groups of unstandardized foods are not required to carry on their labels a list of ingredients. They are bakery products, black pudding, white pudding, blood pudding, confectionery, flavouring preparations, gelatine desserts, non-nutritive seasoning sauces, pastry spice, pickling spice, poultry seasoning, preparations of synthetic colours, soft drinks, and soups.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I should also like to state today that as a general principle the Food and Drug Directorate considers that the consumer is definitely entitled to know what ingredients have

January 21, 1969
Food and Drugs Act
been used in the preparation of food, and that so far as possible all foods should eventually carry a list of ingredients. Discussions have been held with government departments and groups interested in food labelling. A tentative agreement was reached whereby it will be the long term objective of all departments involved to require, so far as possible, a listing of ingredients on all foods.
At the present time the Food and Drug Directorate is examining the 14 groups of unstandardized foods which are not at present required to carry a list of ingredients, with a view to removing them from this exemption. Plans are under way to hold meetings with the processors of these foods to discuss the implementation of this proposal. Approximately 50 per cent of bakery products now carry a list of ingredients. These changes have been brought about on a voluntary basis by the industry with some stimulation from the Food and Drug Directorate. Already a trade information letter to all food manufacturers has been prepared requesting that the industry develop labels for soups which will carry a complete list of ingredients, and it is hoped that the standardized foods will be considered as soon as possible so far as this policy of labelling or listing of ingredients on labels on food products is concerned.
The Consumer's Association of Canada has made representations to the Food and Drug Directorate for a revision of the food and drug regulations to require that a list of ingredients be printed on the containers of all packaged food products. A special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit stated in its interim report with regard to the listing of ingredients that, where applicable, ingredients should be revealed both by name and percentage of composition. Since its inception, a group of Canadians who formed an association called Allergy Information has been pressing for a listing of ingredients on all foods. The members of this association being allergic to one or more food constituents, have more than a passing interest in a knowledge of the ingredients of a food. To them, a lack of knowledge of the ingredients of a food may be a very serious health hazard when that food is consumed, and I as a physician understand that well. The lack of knowledge of the ingredients of a food may cause a serious allergic reaction, and perhaps even an anaphylactic reaction.

Members of the medical profession have also made representations to the Food and Drug Directorate. These doctors, especially allergists, have given examples of cases of tragedies that have occurred when a food was consumed which contained an allergen. I believe that all of these representations are important, and I am assured that the Food and Drug Directorate and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are giving this matter their serious attention.
I have mentioned the trade letter that has gone out to the manufacturers of soups. Hon. members have probably also read in the press during the summer about the announcement of the Food and Drug Directorate concerning drugs. It issued special regulations for the listing of information on labels. I am sure that the public, and physicians in particular, have benefited from the regulations that are being introduced by the Food and Drug Directorate in the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The problem of labelling is a very complicated one, as mentioned by one or two previous speakers. Many problems arise in the listing of foods. At the present time it is estimated that approximately 200,000 labels will have to be examined. This, therefore, will be a long term project. However, the officers of the Food and Drug Directorate are working closely with officials of other government departments, especially the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which has a direct interest in food labelling. They are exploring the best means of achieving this objective.
Some hon. members have also stated that they have allergies and know from first hand experience how important it is for the consumer to know what is in a particular food. They have appealed for a complete listing of all ingredients on labels on all foods.
I support all the arguments that were brought forth this afternoon and I would like to assure all hon. members that I will bring them to the attention of the Food and Drug Directorate as well as to my minister, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the hope that further action will be taken to protect the Canadian public.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
January 21, 1969



GOVERNMENT ORDERS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Davis for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-151, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
John (Jack) Davis: With regard to the bill before us, Bill C-151, I should like to say at the outset that I can think of no sector of the Canadian economy which merits the support and the credit of the Canadian nation more than our fisheries. This bill, which will have the effect of modifying the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in various ways, will be lending the credit of the nation to make it easier for fishermen to build new boats, equip their boats better and improve the tools of their trade so as to prosecute the fisheries in a more effective way.
The net result should be higher incomes for fishermen. Again, the basic purpose of this legislation is to make credit more readily available to fishermen as individuals and to ease the problem of high interest rates which they, in common with many other Canadians, are facing at the present time.
The amendments in Bill C-151 which bear on the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, an act which dates back to 1955, relate first of all to the character of the lenders. The number of lending institutions is increased. The interest rate at which these institutions can make money available to fishermen is made more flexible and more realistic in present circumstances. Finally, the liability of the minister of finance (Mr. Benson), the liability on the nation's treasury, is increased so as to carry the extra burden which increased loans will place on the credit of the federal government.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which, as I have said, was passed in 1955, was designed to provide term credit to fishermen for a variety of fisheries improvement projects. Loans under this act are guaranteed
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act by the government but in order to qualify for such loans applications must be made in accordance with the act and the regulations made under it. Fisheries improvement loans are made by the chartered banks and by certain credit unions or caisses populaires designated by the Minister of Finance. To these will now be added insurance companies and trust and loan companies. The managers of these lending institutions can advise fishermen whether or not they qualify for these loans.
Only individual fishermen can obtain loans. Companies, or large aggregations of fishermen cannot obtain loans under this legislation. A fisherman is defined as a person who owns or plans to obtain a fishing vessel, or fish catching and related equipment, and who makes his living by fishing.
Loans may be made for the purchase of fishing equipment, the construction of new fishing boats, the purchase of new or used fishing boats, the major repair and overhaul of such boats, shore installations and building used by a fisherman to carry on his business and other fisheries improvements. A loan may be used to finance the purchase of accessories to the boat, such as engines, winches or electronic equipment, nets, lines and traps, equipment used for preserving or preparing fish for sale, trucks, snowmobiles and other vehicles for transporting fish, and a variety of shore installations. These are only a few of the items in a long list of the uses fishermen can make of this assistance under the Fisheries Loans Act.
Details of each loan are worked out between the fishermen and the lending institutions. In establishing the terms of the loan the lender may take into account the type of fishing in which the borrower is engaged, the pattern of his income and his probable ability to repay the loan. In all cases, certain conditions must be met. In recent years legislation has set a limit of $10,000 on the total amount of the loan.
Back in 1955 when the act was introduced, the maximum figure was $4,000. This was increased to $10,000 in 1965. We ought, I believe, to consider whether the present level of $10,000 is appropriate, and in the committee's deliberations I hope we will hear submissions as to whether a figure, say, in the order of $25,000 would be appropriate for the future. A ceiling of $25,000 was part of the legislation passed a few months ago in this house in connection with the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
January 21, 1969

January 21, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Act to farmers. That fact may influence our final decision about the maximum loan to be made to an individual fisherman under this legislation.
After this bill is read a second time I hope it will be sent to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. We are looking for suggestions from hon. members and we will implement the suggestion to send the bill to that committee because we want to improve the credit of our fishermen. We believe the credit of the nation must be available to the fishermen of Canada. If the legislation is properly drafted it will help to support the fishing industry and make it more prosperous in the years to come.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-151 be amended by deleting the words "Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs" and substituting therefor the words "Fisheries and Forestry".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on second reading of Bill C-151 I wish first to express my appreciation to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) for the informative statement he made on this important matter. I also commend him for having his colleague move a motion to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry instead of to the finance committee. In my opinion the bill belongs in the Fisheries and Forestry Committee. I hope the co-operative attitude the minister has displayed will prevail in future on other suggestions that we on this side will make about other bills before the house.
As the minister said, the act this bill will amend was first introduced and passed by parliament in 1955. It was extended in 1959 for another three years and amended at that time to expand the definition of those who could borrow under it. It was again amended in 1962, and in 1965 the lending period was extended from July 1 to June 3, 1970.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, we are not being asked to extend the period under which loans will be granted. Instead, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque governing the rate of interest to be paid by fishermen on any loans approved in future. This, I might add, is a

radical departure from the provisions of the original act which stated simply that the rate of interest to be charged by a lender on a loan was not to exceed 5 per cent per annum, simply interest. Now, we are told that on future loans under this act fishermen will pay a rate of interest to be prescribed by the Governor in Council. We are also told that the bill will authorize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to designate certain trust, loan and insurance companies as authorized lenders under this act. Also, there will be an increase in the present limit of liability of the Minister of Finance in respect of individual lenders to encourage lending by small volume lenders.
In my judgment these changes will not bring about an increased use of this legislation. Nevertheless, the authorized use of trust, loan and insurance companies is a step in the right direction and may enable fishermen in some parts of the Atlantic provinces to secure loans from these organizations, specially if they reside a great distance from a bank or credit union.
I want to say at once that we in this party support this amendment. Though we have reservations about the increase in interest rates, we will support this bill because we believe that capital investment in modem equipment and technical know-how combined with skilled labour to a given resource will increase productivity and, thereby, total wealth.
For some reason the existing act has not been used by our fishermen to the extent planned by the government. A summary of operations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, shows that a total of only 2,586 loans have been made by all lending institutions throughout Canada's ten provinces during the 13 years this act was in force. These loans amounted to $6,168,800. A study of these figures also demonstrates the character and integrity of Canada's fishermen. During the 13 years this act has been in force the government has been required to settle nine claims only for a total amount of $3,543. The minister said the record of our fishermen is reassuring, and well he might give them this accolade. Their record is outstanding and ought to be given greater prominence by the government. It indicates the strong moral fibre of our fishermen in meeting their financial obligations, even when the making of those payments at times required from them great personal effort and sacrifice. It is evident our lending institutions have little to worry about when granting a loan to a
January 21, 1969	COMMONS
Canadian fisherman. This may account for the wording in the bill. Clause 3(ii) reads:
-as a result of guaranteed loans made by it after September 12, 1968, a total amount in excess of
(A)	ninety per cent of that part of the aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed loans made by the lender that does not exceed one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars,
(B)	fifty per cent of that part of the aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed loans made by the lender that exceeds one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars but does not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars,-
Considering the amounts which have been lent to fishermen over the years I firmly believe this change will not impose any great liability on the Minister of Finance.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I note that the minister read from the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act bulletin, which is provided for the information of the fishermen, containing the changes he has outlined.
I assume that all the other six terms and conditions respecting loans as listed in the original act still apply.
However, in his statement the minister has not provided us with any explanation of the lack of use of this act by our fishermen. In Nova Scotia it is evident that the fishermen are aware of the act but only 575 loans, amounting to $1,173,147, have been made since the inception of this legislation. In neighbouring New Brunswick only one loan was granted last year in the amount of $1,200, and since the act's inception only 170 loans were made in that province for a total amount of $131,378. In other provinces the story is much the same, and no doubt members from those areas will place on the record their views regarding this aspect of the legislation.
It is evident that this act in the past has not fulfilled the role for which it was designed, and I believe that the proposed increase in interest rates will make it even less effective in future. The increase in interest rates will certainly meet with the approval of our lending institutions but I cannot envision many fishermen jumping up and down on the wharves in the Atlantic provinces in praise of this change.
Since the facts would indicate that the fishermen generally are not aware of the act, I would suggest that the government give greater publicity to the measure by issuing better, perhaps more descriptive pamphlets, about it than the one which I now hold in my hand entitled, "Fishery Improvements Loan."
DEBATES	4585
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act From the facts that I have placed on the record it is evident that the fishermen are not aware of this particular program. If a better, more descriptive pamphlet were prepared by the minister and his department, and distributed by his many officials who operate in the Atlantic provinces as well as in his own area in British Columbia, this would be helpful in making fishermen aware of this particular aid.
There seems to be an attitude prevalent among Liberal government supporters and their advisers in Ottawa that the sky is the limit when it comes to spending. They seem to think when money gets tight all you have to do is increase the interest rates and more money will automatically become available from Canadians. From time to time we have heard pious protestations that spending would be curtailed, that the budget would be balanced, that we would get back to a sound economic policy, but the facts would indicate that this type of talk was only for the hustings. In truth, as we say in Nova Scotia, it was only the wind whistling in the rigging, and it is now evident that the government has lost complete control of Canada's finances.
It is this lack of control of expenditures by the government which makes it necessary to state in this bill that future loans made under the act will only be at rates of interest prescribed by the Governor in Council. With the fisherman's costs of ships and equipment constantly rising, and with prices generally for most of his products, particularly frozen fisheries products in the important United States market declining, I ask the minister and his colleagues where do they think the fisherman will get the money to pay higher interest rates? For that matter, what does the minister think will encourage the fisherman to secure a loan and plunge himself deeper and deeper into debt? A fisherman cannot operate his business in a manner comparable with the way in which the government is trying to run Canada. For example, last February the government estimated its spending at $10.2 billion while the latest estimate is some $400 million higher than that figure. If fishermen are to be classified as a good credit risk they must show good common sense and, above all, act in a responsible manner, which is a trait I would recommend for the consideration of the government.
It is impossible to think of a capital assistance program for the fisheries of Canada without realizing the tremendous importance
4586	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act of the fishing industry to the Atlantic provinces. The primary and processing branches together contribute over 8 per cent of the total net value of commodity production in the area, employ more than 6 per cent of the regional labour force, and fish products make up approximately one fifth of the total regional exports. However, in recent years the fishing industry has been going through a period of radical adjustment and there is really no quick solution-I am the first to recognize this fact-to some of its problems.
For example, on the Atlantic coast we have a highly productive, heavily capitalized offshore fishery, and also a low productive, highly seasonal, labour intensive in-shore fishery yielding low incomes to those who rely on it for a livelihood. In addition, in the last 20 years there has been a tremendous shift from the traditional salt cod industry to the more diversified fresh and frozen fish products industry. Increasing pressure on fish stocks, not only by Canada but by other large fishing nations, has led to diminishing rewards for our fishermen and lower returns on their investment. Looking at the over-all industry there has been a downward trend in fisheries employment because the expansion in the offshore industry has been more than offset by a decline in inshore fishing activity.
In my opinion, this situation will continue and in fact will intensify in the years ahead, for it seems to me that in all industries the day of the independent, small scale primary producer is fast drawing to a close. The larger ships, the new and different fishing methods and equipment, plus an ever increasing use of electronic equipment have put all but a few of the small operators out of step with the present.
I believe future developments in the fishing industry must be viewed within the context of the development of the economy as a whole. I know the minister is working towards that end and he has given us some idea of what we can hope for in the future, but we in the Atlantic provinces hope it is not too long in coming. We look with much longing for his program, which from time to time he has hinted is coming.
Since it is evident that the off-shore fishery is more productive, and provides steadier employment and higher incomes, I believe we must give more thought to programs which will assist our fishermen to take advantage of this resource. In fact, with the expansion taking place in the fishing fleets of other nations we have no choice but to expand further our 
DEBATES	January 21. 1969
off-shore fleet if we wish to capitalize on this industry and provide further employment for our people. When you realize that we as Canadians are sending only one ton of fishing equipment to sea for every 80 tons sent by other countries you begin to realize that we must wake up, that we must look around and seize the opportunities that are open to us before they are taken away and developed by others.
Another interesting fact is that the ratio of Canadian fishing ships to those of other countries off to our shores is approximately 1 to 22. Now, this offshore expansion cannot take place over night. Some of our inshore fishermen are not young enough or physically capable of engaging in the offshore fishing industry. Therefore, some of this change can only come about as other jobs become available in other fields.
This is one of the reasons that we also look forward with interest to the regional development program of which we heard so much during the June election-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And seen so little of since.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -and have seen so little of since that time. Any development program must be beamed toward our younger people, letting the eventual retirement of older fishermen gradually reduce their numbers to more acceptable levels, even though this may take a slightly longer period than would otherwise be desirable.
By encouraging programs which will expand the off-shore fishery it is hoped that the number of in-shore fishermen will be reduced, thus providing the inshore fishermen with a better chance of catching more fish and earning a better standard of living.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In summing up, I would suggest to the minister that if we are to have an orderly development of a modem fishing industry we must give encouragement to the trend from small inshore fishing operations to larger offshore fishing vessels and even more modern fishing techniques. In order to bring this about the minister and his officials must give further consideration to the present shipbuilding subsidy program and reactivate the fishing vessel assistance program. Obviously this legislation which we now have under consideration is not adequate for this purpose. It alone will not enable our inshore fishermen, who are desirous of building 65 foot or 75 foot longliners, to achieve their goal. A
January 21, 1969	COMMONS
fisherman or even a group of fishermen would find it extremely difficult to raise the necessary down payment in order to acquire a 65 foot or 75 foot longliner. Yet in the context in which I have presently explained the industry, this is an absolute necessity because the numbers of fish found on our inshore banks are declining. In order to go further afield, say, to Brown's or George's Bank where fishing is more profitable, the fishermen do require a larger ship.
Many of the fishermen have expressed their opinion to me that they require a ship of a minimum of 65 or 75 feet and of course they are unable to raise sufficient capital to construct this type of ship. The entire industry in some sections of Nova Scotia has come to a standstill, especially in areas where these so-called small boat fishermen are operating in considerable numbers. There was a time when none of us who are interested in the industry would look upon a 65 foot or a 75 foot ship as a small boat, but times change. I find now that our inshore fishermen are looking with interest to this type of ship and hope for the day when they will be able to build one and operate it along with their sons or immediate relatives. It is for this reason I hope the Minister of Fisheries will look carefully at the over-all program of assistance to the fishing industry. Of course one by-product of this type of assistance will be aid to our shipbuilding industry which is facing very serious economic difficulties at the present time. All of these problems will not be eliminated by this one particular move by the fisheries minister to reinstitute a subsidy program, but I can assure him it will be a considerable help to the people whom I have mentioned.
The traditional concept of the fishery as being an industry offering hard work, long working hours and little pay must change if it is to attract more young and energetic people. In my opinion, the fishery of the future will have to compete in every way with other industries. I believe this will involve the use of still larger ships with alternate crews to reduce the time each man spends at sea. Such a practice will also reduce the turn around time in port thus ensuring maximum use of this highly capitalized industry. In my opinion, the future development of the Atlantic fishery should be more planned and orderly than has been the case to date. Since most production in the industry is geared to the same market, the expansion in one province or area should be considered in relation to the expansion in other provinces or areas and
DEBATES	4587
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in the light of existing or potential market conditions. This is one area in which I believe the Minister of Fisheries can be most helpful.
I would suggest that both he and his officials could act as co-ordinator and a clearing house on development plans in the provinces. This type of co-operation is absolutely essential if marketing problems such as those which exist at present are to be avoided.
It is only through well planned, well coordinated programs of development that the fishing industry can reach its full potential and play its full part in the future development of the Atlantic provinces. Much has been done but the surface has only been scratched and much more remains to be done. We look to the minister for some proposal which will be helpful. I hope some of the suggestions I have made will be helpful to the minister. I can assure him it is the intention of members on this side of the house to cooperate with him in the implementation of any legislation that will be beneficial to the over-all industry.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member sits down I wonder whether I might ask him what, in his opinion, would be the average size of a loan which would be sufficient to help an individual fisherman finance a good, efficient, modern vessel for fishing in, say, Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question of the Minister of Fisheries is an interesting one. It is almost impossible to reply until one knows the type of ship which would be required by the fisherman. For example, it might be a 65 foot or 75 foot ship which could be used in Danish seining. It could be a ship which would be used for the scallop dragging industry on George's Bank and/or conversely which could be used as a longliner or for ground fishing. It would depend entirely on the area in which the ship was to be operated. For instance, if it were to be operated in the Bay of Fundy it would require heavy power since the strong tides and currents in that area require that a ship have more power than one which would be operating in some other area. One would need to know the type of equipment involved, whether it would be for scallop dragging, Danish seining, ground fishing or longlining. If it is to be a longliner with 20 miles of nylon line, 1,000 floats and over 1,000 hooks it will require considerable capital investment. Conversely, if it is to be utilized only in the lobster industry some of this more expensive equipment would not be required.
January 21, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
Therefore, I would not be in a position to hazard a guess which would be useful to the minister, but I am sure this information is available from the fishermen's loan boards in the four Atlantic provinces. The minister could readily glean that fact from any of the officials. I am sorry, but I cannot give a more constructive reply to his question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the government brings in a bill amending a good piece of legislation and tells us that the purpose of the amendment is to improve the existing legislation it is standard practice from the opposition side of the house to say, "We welcome the amending bill." I wonder whether we really should welcome this piece of legislation. Indeed, I think not. I took note of the words of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). He said his party welcomes it but has misgivings about the part of it that raises the interest rate. Well, I submit there is not much else in the bill. I know there are two other things but I doubt whether the bill would have been brought in at all were it not for the purpose of taking off this 5 per cent ceiling on the rate of interest.
I suggest this long fine of government bills to raise interest rates is becoming pretty dreary, pretty monotonous. It started a couple of years ago when the ceiling was taken off the rate of interest which banks may charge, which for many years was fixed at six per cent.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Members who were here and members who were not here will remember that the aim was to assist the little man. Well, we have now heard a statement from the governor of the Bank of Canada which confirms our view of that proposal, namely that it has turned out to be more beneficial to the banks than it has to the little man.
We have a government that has brought in a formula under which the interest rates on housing have gone up and up and up. Members will also remember the many days we spent on farm legislation. What was it that was central to each of those bills? Each of them raised the interest rate. In fact, I quite expect that before this debate is over some of my farm colleagues will get up and make speeches on this fisheries legislation, and they will make them very easily. All they will have to do is pick up the speeches they made on the Farm Improvement Loans Act and
[Mr. Crouse.)
make the same speeches but substitute dried fish for damp grain.


Mr. Lang (Saskaioon-Humboldt):: They
could just repeat them from memory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They could make them without reading them; that is correct. I am glad that the Minister without Portfolio recognizes the parallel between what is being done for the fishermen and what was done for the farmers. What is the government saying that is being done for the farmers, the fishermen and the little man? It is saying nothing except that we will have these higher interest rates. If we get through this debate, the next item on the order paper for the attention of the house is an amendment to the Veteran's Land Act. Can't you just hear the same screech coming from the government that it is doing this because it is good legislation and it wants to improve the situation for veterans? What does it do? It removes the 5 per cent interest ceiling.
I do not think we can take ourselves into affluence and prosperity and into a just society by raising the interest rates all around. I suggest that what the government should be doing in this area, instead of giving in to the trend and instead of going along with higher interest rates, is taking steps to roll back interest rates.


Gerald William Baldwin: Be careful of that word "trend".


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Fisheries Improvement Loans Act boats and put out nets and lines by hand. They are competing with foreign fishing fleets complete with modern vessels, advanced fish catching and processing techniques, factory ships and the latest electronic and mechanical aids.
What we need most is assistance to bring the east coast fishing industry, and in particular the Newfoundland fishing industry into the twentieth century. We need a program of co-ordinated government assistance that will help the east coast fishermen, the Newfoundland fishermen, to achieve an equal competitive footing with the modern fishing fleets of other nations. Then, and only then, can we expect the Newfoundland fishermen to take advantage of legislation such as we are debating tonight.
As I understand it, this legislation simply provides that fishermen may obtain a bank loan at the going rate of interest. In order to persuade the chartered banks to make funds available, the government will guarantee these loans. I ask the Minister of Fisheries this question: How can the ordinary fisherman in my province even think of borrowing money which must be repaid in ordinary ways? How can a fisherman in my province think of borrowing money when his income is completely inadequate to handle such a financial burden and when the industry from which he makes that income is in such a sorry state?
The other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) complained in this house about the advertisements currently appearing in various newspapers and magazines. These advertisements are placed in the newspapers and magazines by the chartered banks in order to encourage people to spend beyond their means on frills and luxuries. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this policy defeats the aim of the government to cut back spending and extravagance in order to control inflation. Surely, legislation such as this, carrying as it does the authority and prestige of the federal government, is nothing but an open invitation to the Newfoundland fisherman to plunge into debt away over his head.
I suggest that if by obtaining a loan provided by this legislation the fisherman could hope to better either his income, or his standard of living or his ability to catch more fish, it might be a worth while gamble. But all he would do would be to spend money in a hopeless attempt to catch up with his competition. He would find himself no further ahead, and certainly further in debt.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, what the Newfoundland fisherman needs is not legislation such as this but legislation that will help him tackle the root problems that beset his industry. He needs legislation that will help him overcome the social problems which he faces. Before we extend loan facilities to the people of my province we must bring them up to a position where they can usefully employ such loans. We must devote our attention to assisting fishermen on the east coast, and those in Newfoundland in particular, to improve their method of operation, their fishing techniques and means of marketing.
I am interested in an answer given in the house by the Minister of Fisheries to a question which I put to him concerning the establishment of a salt fish marketing board in Canada. I am looking forward with great interest to an announcement by the minister to the effect that this board will be established. I am sure I speak for all the fishermen in my province when I say we are keenly interested in this proposition. Such a marketing board should be established and, as I have said before, we are eagerly looking forward to an announcement by the minister in this respect.
I understand that before the end of January or some time soon a statement will be made by the government outlining the assistance that will be given to the fresh frozen fish industry on the east coast. I am very much interested in this question. I think I speak for all the fishermen in Newfoundland, and indeed all the fishermen in eastern Canada, when I say that we are anxiously awaiting the minister's statement in this regard.
There is a great need for drastic, immediate action by the government to improve the lot of the average fisherman on the east coast of Canada, especially those in the province of Newfoundland. I am sure members of this house and the minister are aware of the situation that now exists in my province. The fresh fish industry is in a state of chaos. Plants are threatening to close, and indeed in many instances have closed. They have been unable to make a "go" of it.
As I have said before in the house, unless the government accepts its responsibility in this respect and brings forward a plan of assistance, the fishing industry in Newfoundland and, I suspect in eastern Canada, will not survive. I do not wish to appear pessimistic but I think we have to be realistic. The
January 21, 1969

fishing industry must have immediate assistance from the government. This assistance is all the more important to the province that I have the honour to represent. In my province, as I have said before, almost 25 per cent of the people derive their living directly or indirectly from the fishing industry. I urge the minister and his colleagues to come up with a plan to save the fishing industry of Newfoundland. The situation now is such that unless a plan of assistance is forthcoming the fishing industry is in grave danger of collapsing.
The legislation which we are now debating is of little or no use to Newfoundland in that the fishermen have not obtained loans under this program. Since the inception of the legislation only 18 loans out of a total of 2,586 have been made to fishermen in my province. I suggest this is because the Department of Fisheries has not publicized the program. I do not know to what extent the program has been publicized, but I suggest there must be some way in which it could be publicized more effectively in provinces such as Newfoundland to enable the fishermen to understand the program and avail themselves of loans under it. Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries could explain why in Newfoundland only 18 people out of a total of 2,586 have made use of the money available under this act.
I ask the minister to take steps to give this program wide publicity and try to find a way whereby fishermen who qualify for a loan under the act may be spared the time and trouble of having to travel long distances to the chartered banks or trust companies in order to obtain a loan. I ask him to try to find means whereby loans may be approved by perhaps fishery officers or officials of his department, thereby saving the fisherman the trouble, time and money involved in travelling to the larger centres in Newfoundland in order to make application for a loan.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Like many members of this house who concern themselves with the welfare of the fishing community, I welcome the introduction of these proposals at this early time. I congratulate the minister upon introducing the legislation, and indeed since the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Davis) has been Minister of Fisheries the fishermen of Canada, and particularly of British Columbia, are
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act becoming accustomed to receiving constructive measures to deal with their numerous difficult problems.
The fisherman is, in essence, a small business man who requires medium range, low cost credit to improve and extend his operations, just as farmers and industry require low interest credit to conduct their operations.
This act has become archaic in the last 12 months and of little or no use to the industry because the present interest rate of 5 per cent has become unrealistic and certainly unobtainable. Financial institutions such as banks and credit unions are finding they must pay their depositors more than 5 per cent for the use of their funds. The credit unions, which have always enthusiastically supported the small fishermen, have reluctantly turned their lending support elsewhere in order to justify investments to the depositors.
Further, the government's guarantee of 15 per cent of the capital lent by the institutions is unrealistic and not in line with government policy in other fields such as agriculture and housing. The fisherman has found himself in an unsolvable dilemma. He has a government which would guarantee his loan, but he cannot find an institution which would accept the terms. Therefore, he has turned elsewhere and been forced to enter an unfavourable money market where rumours of bad catches and poor fishing returns have followed him.
Fishermen are told they must pay 10, 12 and 16 per cent for their funds; a price they can ill afford. Owners of fishing boats have turned to the fish buyers, the suppliers and the packing houses for their needed funds, a situation which is completely unsatisfactory to both the fishermen and the companies. The companies, in turn, must now borrow moneys to meet the boat owners' needs and are unable to use their credit facilities to modernize or build new plants, forcing down the manufacturer's productivity. The fishermen who obtain loans from these companies naturally feel bound to them, as far as the sale of their fish is concerned, and feel unable to take advantage of a competitive market.
It would indeed be attractive to retain the 5 per cent interest rate for fishing vessel improvement and purchase but completely unrealistic for it is much better to have 7 or 8 per cent money available than no money whatsoever at 5 percent. Indeed, this interest amendment is a realistic one which will be welcomed by fishermen and fish packing companies on both coasts.
January 21, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
The amendments regarding a 90 per cent guarantee of the first $125,000 will be accepted by small credit unions across our nation with open arms for once more these institutions will be allowed to assist the small fisherman, a position the community minded credit union wishes to enjoy.
But I suggest there is one section of this act which must be criticized to the fullest extent and there is an omission in the legislation which must be pointed out to this house. The fact that the amount to be borrowed remains at $10,000 is completely unacceptable. If we expect the fishing industry to benefit from our efforts, we must increase this amount to at least $30,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Henry Goode: Let us look at government policy in similar situations during the last few months. Indeed, we recently increased the amount an individual could borrow under the farm improvement act from $15,000 to $25,000. The average farm loan is only $2,600, whereas the average fisheries improvement loan is $4,500. Therefore, in this situation, $30,000 is far more realistic.
The house must keep in mind that current shipbuilding costs, boat engines replacement costs and the cost of equipment have risen above those of 1965 when this figure of $10,000 was considered adequate. It is my hope that after this bill is completely reviewed by the house, the government will relent on this outdated and confining limit and let us have a realistic ceiling of $30,000 for our fishing industry.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the proposed amendments are simple ones. They will encourage more participation by financial institutions, and as a result fishermen will have greater opportunity to borrow on reasonable terms and conditions to meet their growing capital needs. These amendments will contribute to greater efficiency, to reducing the cost of financing and to assisting in the productivity of a very important primary industry.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) because my reasoning is along the same lines. Bill C-151 to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act certainly has some sections which are welcome. For example, clause 1 permits an insurance company, trust company and loan company to become a lender under the act, in addition to

those lenders already approved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) such as banks, credit unions or other co-operative credit societies. I certainly support that provision because it creates better opportunities for our fishermen to obtain loans under the act.
Clause 2 of the proposed act is amended so that the maximum rate of interest of 5 per cent which now exists is replaced by such rate or rates of interest as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council. I assume that the same rate will apply here as will apply to loans to farmers which we discussed before Christmas. This, too, can be considered favourably.
If banks and other lending institutions are not interested in making loans because the interest rate is too low, then this is all to the good because other lenders will be more interested in making loans. If this is the case, it might enable more fishermen to obtain loans but an additional burden is added to some fishermen because the amount of their monthly or yearly payments is increased. So, I am sure the fishermen will not jump with joy on the wharves or elsewhere on hearing of this amendment. However, we must be constructive and we must ask ourselves who else can obtain loans at 5 per cent? Why should fishermen be set apart from the rest of the borrowers? I am sure this was the thought which the minister had when he proposed this amendment. But I am sure that if other interest rates had not gone up such as those relating to housing and other industries, and if this were not the trend as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the minister would not have followed this course. His reasoning would be correct if the fishing industry were operating on a similar basis to that of any other industry.
Until the government introduces legislation or policies to ensure that all segments of the economy operate on the same profitable basis, we will have arguments.
o (9:20 p.m.)
I am not saying that all fishing operations are unprofitable. The groundfish industry in the Atlantic area is having its problems but in my own area the industry has become more diversified which enables more solid operations to be carried out, for example, fishing for lobster, scallop and herring. I am convinced there is a future for fishermen engaged in this type of fishing.
January 21. 1963

Clause 3 ol the bill is also welcome. It encourages lending and it protects small volume lenders.
Up to now, I have not been too critical of this bill. But I do say to the minister that if he wishes to improve the fisheries loans legislation he should do a more thorough job. Why doesn't he go all out? This bill is essentially one to protect the banks and loan companies by increasing interest rates and by guaranteeing to the extent of 90 per cent, in one case, loans which do not exceed a total of $125,000.
This is all well and good. But what improvements have been made to help the fishermen themselves? This is what the act should be chiefly concerned with doing. The main reason for the ineffectiveness of the federal legislation is that the ceiling on loans is still too low, despite the increase from $4,000 to $10,000. The purchase of a purse seine, or a midwater trawl, or equipment for crab fishing for a modern fishery, to name just a few items, represents an investment substantially greater than $10,000. As I say, if the minister wants to improve the act, why doesn't he go all out?
I am talking, now, about loans to the profitable segment of the industry. I am not talking about a subsidy. I am talking about loans to make the industry modern and efficient in accordance with the wish the minister himself has often expressed in his speeches.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are always protecting the big men, the big companies, the big corporations. And we always seem to forget the small man who has ambition and who would like to do something but is unable to get ahead because his family is not rich or because he doesn't know the right people. It is a disgrace, but most of our legislation protects the big man.
Granted, as the minister has said, that more than $6 million has been lent to fishermen since the inception of the act six years ago. In the ten year period from December, 1955 to March, 1966, a total of approximately $3 million was lent to the fishermen of Canada. But here is a comparison. In a one year period from April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968, the fishermen's loan board of Nova Scotia lent fishermen no less than $6 million, or a little over. These new amendments will help, but they are not the real cure for the problems which the fishermen or the industry as a whole are facing.
The government has virtually put an end to the subsidy program in connection with

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act wooden fishing vessels. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) says we cannot afford it. Very well, I will go along with that. If we cannot afford it, fine. Here is one way in which we could help. Why not assist fishermen by means of improvement loans which could be protected by the fisheries indemnity plan, one which provides the useful and attractive insurance scheme for fishing boats? This plan makes provision for maximum coverage of $25,000 and is self-supporting. Again, the maximum here could be increased so as to fully protect all loans. The government would be protected and fishermen would be equipped with better facilities to make the industry more profitable. The reason insurance coverage on boats is not increased is, once again, that to do so would affect the insurance companies. Once more we are protecting the big men. Let us stop playing politics, stop protecting the big guys, and help those who need help and who want to help themselves. I ask the committee to consider these suggestions carefully in due course.


James Aloysius McGrath: was interested in the minister's statement in introducing this bill for second reading. I was interested and surprised because he confined his remarks to the narrow confines of the bill before us, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
In the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman failed to make any reference to the very serious problems facing the ground fish industry in Canada today. He failed to make any reference to the fact that this legislation is of no value whatever to the ground fish industry. One can only conclude he omitted to refer to it because he does not fully understand the situation.
In the course of the oral question period today the minister said in reply to a question I put to him that within the month he would be announcing government policy regarding- and I am paraphrasing-interim assistance to the ground fish industry. That is an improvement.
It is an improvement of 100 per cent, because we know that before the Christmas recess the minister was adamant in his refusal to give any indication that the government would provide assistance to the harrassed ground fish industry in Canada before the beginning of the next fiscal year in March of 1969. He was adamant in this regard even though the industry in eastern Canada had indicated to him that the whole of the ground
4594	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act fish industry was on the verge of total collapse because the government had cancelled the program of deficiency payments in October of last year. This course had been taken even though the factors contributing to the crisis requiring the deficiency payments were continuing and had in fact been accentuated. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is an improvement. The minister has indicated, at least, that the government now recognizes the emergency nature of the situation, the existence of a crisis within the industry. He now recognizes that the industry must have interim assistance until the government gets around to long term policy planning in this regard.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This situation was brought about by factors over which the industry has no control. The minister well knows that it was brought about by conditions that are totally within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It has resulted from increased competition from countries who have devalued their currency, countries of the sterling bloc that have increased the subsidies paid to their fleets and in the process have flooded the United States market to the detriment of the industry in Canada. These are factors over which the Canadian industry has no control but which do fall 100 per cent within the jurisdiction of this government.
In introducing second reading of the bill this evening, the minister failed to make any reference to the critical situation facing the industry today. Only a few hours previously, on the oral question period today the minister said that within the month, presumably before January is out, the government will be announcing interim and long term planning to assist the ground fish industry of Canada.
As I say, in introducing the bill this evening the minister made no reference to the crisis facing the industry, knowing in his own heart that the industry is on the verge of total collapse because of government inaction. The minister knows that seven fish plants in the province of Newfoundland in the last two years have had to close down. At least, three have closed and four are going to close at the end of this month. These closures are due to the crisis in the United States market.
The minister also knows that the same acute situation is facing the Nova Scotian industry, which also is on the verge of collapse as a result of the same factors. Yet the minister stands in his place tonight and talks of an amendment to the act which, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. 
DEBATES	January 21, 1969
Knowles) said, merely gives the government the power to increase the rate of interest charged on fisheries improvement loans.
In actual fact this legislation is of no use to the Canadian ground fish industry; it is valueless to them. It is of great interest to the British Columbian industry, and I would be the first to support the legislation in view of that fact. But the Atlantic ground fish industry is facing a serious crisis, and in this regard I should like to put some facts on record.
I should like to make reference to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act annual report for 1967-68. According to this report, since the inception of the act the province of British Columbia has taken advantage of the provisions of the act and borrowed $3,591,662. This act came into effect in 1955. The province of Alberta has, of course, borrowed nothing. The province of Saskatchewan has borrowed $1,440. The province of Manitoba has borrowed $28,505. The province of Ontario has borrowed $98,681. The province of Quebec has borrowed $112,796. The province of New Brunswick has borrowed $131,378. The province of Nova Scotia has borrowed $1,173,147. The province of Prince Edward Island has borrowed $1,008,188. And lastly, the province of Newfoundland has borrowed $23,003. Since the inception of the act the province of Newfoundland has been extended 18 loans to the amount of $23,000, compared with the province of Prince Edward Island with 850 loans to the amount of $1 million.
There is my proof that this legislation is of no use whatever to the ground fish industry in Canada. As the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) has indicated, 25 per cent of the population of the province of Newfoundland is dependent for their livelihood upon the ground fish industry. Yet the province of Prince Edward Island, with a population of 100,000, has been able to take tremendous advantage of this legislation.
As I say, in his introduction to the second reading of this bill the minister failed to make any reference whatever to the very serious situation facing the ground fish industry in eastern Canada, even though the bill provided him with the vehicle for so doing. I might say this is the first opportunity he has had to do so since his estimates were presented to the house before the Christmas recess. All this legislation does is to give the government the necessary authority to increase the rates of interest charged under the legislation.
January 21, 1969

It will make no difference to the ground fisherman or the cod fisherman whether the chartered banks, the insurance companies, the mortgage companies or any of these lending institutions are empowered to make loans under the act. He will still not be able to take advantage of the act's provisions for the simple reason that the lending institutions within the ambit of the act do not lend money to small economies of the sort with which the ground fisherman has to contend with his annual income of $1,000 a year. What lending institution or loan company would look at our inshore fisherman?
Statistics speak for themselves; they cannot be denied. The statistics that are on the record indicate that the inshore fisherman in eastern Canada earns, on average, $1,000 a year. This puts him outside the legislation and makes it of no value to him. As I said, I am at least grateful that the fishermen of British Columbia can take advantage of it, but what assistance, apart from the lobster fishermen or the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, do the fishermen in other parts of eastern Canada receive? What assistance do these 150,000 people in Atlantic Canada who are engaged in the ground fish industry receive?
What legislation does the government of Canada have to enable the 20,000 inshore fishermen in eastern Canada to secure loans to buy equipment? They have to pay the same inflated prices that prevail in British Columbia and Ontario, yet they have no legislation to assist them. Not only do we not have legislation to protect them, but we have a government that looks at them callously, without humanity and without feeling. The attitude of the government to the ground fish industry is, "They are all gold brickers down there; let them eat cake. They are bluffing. Let the industry collapse."
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Oh, the Minister of Fisheries will get on national television and say, "There are plants in the Atlantic provinces that are inefficient and they must close down. Only efficient plants can continue to operate." That is like Joseph Stalin saying in the 1930's, "We must wipe out 1 million peasants in order to make the agricultural industry in the Soviet Union more efficient." That is the analogy, Mr. Speaker. When the minister says that only efficient plants may continue to operate he is saying in effect that there is room only for the elite in the Atlantic groundfish industry
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and, "The rest of you will have to go on relief. The fish are there but you cannot catch them because you are not efficient enough and because we, as a government, cannot cope with conditions in the United States market. We cannot fulfil our obligations to you as other countries do for their fishermen in order to ensure you earn a fair return for your catch and in order that you may be protected against the fluctuations in the international money market."
This legislation is very helpful and useful to the fishermen of British Columbia. They obtained the lion's share of the 780 loans granted since the fund was inaugurated in 1955. On national television the minister said the British Columbia fishermen are by far the best equipped of all the fishermen in Canada, and he used extravagant statistics to support his statement. He said the Newfoundland fishing industry is receiving 40 cents in federal subsidies for every dollar spent on our fisheries, whereas the British Columbia industry is receiving only 5 cents. He failed to mention that included in the figure of 40 cents is unemployment insurance for fishermen, which applies universally. He failed to include subsidies for shipbuilding; he failed to include the centralization program which is causing so much heartache in Newfoundland. He failed to include all those things in his misrepresentation of the facts, because that is the only way one can describe his statement. It was a total misrepresentation of facts.


Mr. Perrauli:: That is an irresponsible
charge.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is a responsible charge, and the minister knows it. The minister made a statement on national television which he cannot support. Although the ground fish industry of Atlantic Canada today is on the verge of total collapse the minister knows that not one single dollar is going directly to its support. Oh, yes, the minister is well qualified to talk about the fishing industry. He caught trout in British Columbia. He fished for trout.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Raymond J. Perrault: You are fishing for votes. That's what you are doing.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member can sit there complacently and interject because the knows how well off the fishing industry of his province is. He has not been to Atlantic
January 21, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Canada. He has no idea of the dire circumstances facing the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. He represents the fat cats of the fishing industry.


An hon. Member:: Make responsible
charges.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of Fisheries is a member of a government that treats the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada callously, without heart and without feeling. Only a minister from British Columbia could say what the present minister said. We had a minister from British Columbia before-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: -and the same thing happened. A previous minister from British Columbia displayed a similar attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tolmie):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


James Aloysius McGrath: The attitude of this government is epitomized by the attitude of this minister who, in the midst of the gravest crisis ever to face the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada, says, "Let them eat cake." That is his attitude.
He said on national television that many more fish processing plants will have to close down and that mistakes have been made in the centralization program. Oh, yes, he talked about mistakes in the centralization program as if he were talking about bookkeeping entries. His attitude was, "We moved people to the wrong place."


An hon. Member:: That's the computer's fault.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister's attitude is, "The computer made the mistake". We just happened to move people to the wrong place. We moved them out of their homes and happened to move them to the wrong place. We made mistakes. What is an individual? What are 100 individuals. What are one or two settlements?" That is his callous attitude and the attitude of a government that could not care less. This is the leadership our Minister of Fisheries gives to the fishing industry of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the sort of leadership we have from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As a member of parliament from Newfoundland, I am shocked that the Minister of Fisheries could introduce this legislation affecting the fisheries of Canada without making a single reference to the severe crisis facing the industry in eastern Canada. He did not mention the crisis once. He acted as if it did not exist or as if there were no fisheries. The crisis will not be resolved if the government persists in its do nothing attitude. But there is a ray of hope, Mr. Speaker. There is a glimmer of silver lining on the horizon. Replying to a question this afternoon, the minister said that within a month, meaning presumably before the end of January, he, on behalf of the government, would announce interim and long term planning programs affecting the Atlantic groundfish industry. Before this debate finishes I hope the minister will amplify those remarks, because the entire industry, in a manner of speaking, is holding its breath in anticipation. I hope the minister will say the government is sincere and means what it says.
To paraphrase the minister's reply early this afternoon, he said one of the main objectives of the government's program will be to insure that prices paid to fishermen in 1968 will prevail. The fishermen of Newfoundland would like to have that statement amplified so that they may know precisely what it means. The prices paid to Newfoundland fishermen in 1968 ran the full gamut from 1.5 cents a pound to 4 cents a pound.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The minister well knows that. Are we to conclude the fishermen will be paid the maximum of four cents a pound, not the minimum of one and a half cents a pound? These are questions to which an answer is awaited not by those members on this side of the house who are directly interested or involved in this question but by thousands and thousands of Canadians in the Atlantic provinces of Canada who are barely eking out a subsistence on the neglected ground fishing industry.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege and the opportunity to express my views on Bill No. C-151 called an Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
January 21, 1969	COMMONS
The main purposes of this amendment could be summed up as follows:
First, to empower the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to designate certain trust and loan companies as well as insurance companies as authorized lenders; second, to grant the Minister of Finance more responsibilities concerning individual lenders, which means that the government will guarantee in the future more important loans; third, to substitute for the present interest rate of 5 per cent the rate or rates that may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.
It is quite normal and in accordance with the practices of trade and industry for the fishermen or the fishing concerns to have access to the sources of financing in the same capacity as other concerns. Indeed, they need the credit that will enable them to finance their operations in a normal way, to invest in order to extend their trade or to renew obsolete equipment which can no longer be used.
This legislation enables also an individual to start a fishing concern thanks to loans granted by authorized companies.
The present bill is nothing but a change to the act which was sanctioned on July 11, 1955 and amended in 1959, 1962 and 1965.
Many similar acts deal with the farm industry and have the same purposes.
It is a good thing that there should be a greater number of authorized lending companies. We should hope for more competition between lending companies, in order to make sure that more considerable amounts are put at the disposal of fishermen and farmers, but I strongly doubt that this objective will be reached.
On the one hand, we want to accredit a greater number of lending companies thus causing available capital to become scarce since it is almost entirely built up from the savings of the Canadian people. Capital to finance private developments is scarce because the Canadian government, the provinces, the municipalities and the school boards secure the main bulk of the public savings to finance their own commitments.
Recent statistics issued by Wood Gundy Securities Ltd., a brokerage firm, and made available by the Canadian Press to our different information media, show that the various governments control the savings which, after all, are the main source of funds for financing private enterprise.
DEBATES	4597
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
I quote an excerpt from the January 7 issue of La Presse which shows the government hold on public savings.
Statistics issued by Wood Gundy Securities Ltd., a brokerage agency, about bond financing by governments and private companies, show that the federal government loans amounted to $5,263,955,000 in 1968.
This figure compares with that of $3,283,909,500 for the year 1967 and it is the highest for the last five years.
In 1968, the provincial governments borrowed, for their part, $1,384,700,000 as compared to $1,603,006,000 in 1967.
Loans through bonds floated by the Canadian municipalities in 1968-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. I wonder if I should not interrupt the hon. member, for I am afraid he is getting somehow away from the bill the house is considering at the moment, I mean the act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


Romuald Rodrigue: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, a solution must be found to this problem. The time has come to make a distinction between public developments, to give fishermen and farmers a greater proportion of investments and savings. Those changes could result in lower interest rates, and if more funds were available, certain private sectors could be financed. Savings constitute a huge financing "pool", but they are not limitless. They do not constitute an inexhaustible well. When governments take over indirectly private sources of capital, there is a danger of increasing interest rates, and that is what happens in the case of this bill, when industry and business have run out of funds.
In itself, this bill is commendable, but the present economic situation is not favorable; it could impede considerably what effects this legislation could have as far as our fishermen are concerned.
It is not by passing an act which will make more capital available to the fishermen that we will solve the problem. Interest rates constitute an even less commendable step. On the contrary, they will contribute even more to increasing the cost of production and operations and, in a few years, we will be called upon to amend the act in an attempt to solve the problem of the fishermen, which is created by a government that tolerates and encourages this shortage of capital and those high interest rates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being ten o'clock it is my duty to proceed to the questions to be debated on the adjournment motion.
January 21, 1969
4598	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I just get one of the bright young ministers to confirm that we are going on with this bill tomorrow and the other set legislation? I would even be prepared to take the word of the very honourable government whip on this matter.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to announce the business of the house for tomorrow. We will continue with the bill under discussion today, C-151, and when it is concluded the house will deal with item No. 12 on the order paper, an act to amend the Veterans Land Act. If it is concluded the house will deal with item No. 33, Bill S-14, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, and if this is concluded we would go on to item 41, an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under standing order No. 40 deemed to have been moved.
FINANCE-LOAN TO BRAZIL Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):	Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as to the $850,000 interest-free loan made to Brazil but I did not get any answer.
We noticed some time ago, for instance, that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has increased its rates of interest to a level that contributes to the inflation prevailing in this country.
Since the beginning of 1969, we have that, from now on, those who wish to buy a house will have to pay interest at 9§ per cent, as this is now the usurious rate adopted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We could call that an act of piracy on the part of those who brought about that situation by depriving, so to speak, certain Canadian families of the right to build a home. At the present time, if a family head does not earn $10,000 per year, he cannot afford getting a new house.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) was appointed to a royal commission on housing and he travelled over 26,000 miles, going from one city to another, in order to find out 
[Stage Direction]
what was wrong in the housing field. Now if such an expensive inquiry did nothing but contribute to an increase in interest rates, while we lend money without interest to foreigners, I think this is shameless swindling. In the face of such glaring injustice, the Canadian people cannot agree with the government and they are sorry to see a majority government indulging in such high-scale bigotry.
While the government is borrowing money, it is lending Brazil $850,000 for the construction of an airport and no doubt on an interest free basis as we are not given an answer.
As the Minister of Finance has failed to find a solution to this problem, especially when we are asking him to use the Bank of Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people, I say this is an unjustified loan while the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is increasing the interest rate to 9g per cent. There is a limit to being patient and we have reached it. If there is no one in Canada in a position to awaken public opinion, our future position will become very difficult.
Besides, on looking back to the French revolution of 1793, when the king of France lost his throne and was beheaded by the guillotine, it so happened that the little people were tired and disgusted because of the indifference of their government. In fact, the government had not heeded the murmurs of discontent that preceded this terrible catastrophe.
It is often said that activity in the building trade is a sign of prosperity. Consequently, if we are in a position to make interest-free loans to Brazil, why instead of increasing the interest rates, could we not grant subsidies of 4 or 5 per cent on the purchase price of a house so that everybody could own his house?
It is felt that, under duress, the Canadian people must continue to pay interest on $5,300,000,000 for 1968 as compared to $3,300,000,000 for the year before.
Is this logical? Is this the price we have to pay for "Trudeaumania" which allowed elections to be held thanks to an electoral fund, which having been financed by out-and-out exploiters still makes it possible today to smother all human life as would an octopus?
Those financiers control the blood of our national economy. We are aware of it every day, since nobody can even breathe without their permission. But to-morrow, Mr. Speaker, the whole population of Canada will rise to clamour for justice, because it is inconceivable that one could live in such a wealthy
January 21, 19B9
country as ours while at the same time remain the slave of an economic system which is exploiting the people hideously, as it is now the case. This shows that in the future we must not fear that huge power which the financiers seem to wish to use to scare Canadians. On the contrary, we want people to be enlightened, since we want to make financially realizeable what is physically possible. If the government wants us to lend money to Brazil, we will have, in order to pursue the development of Canada to lend money also to the Canadian people, without interest, for 25 to 30 years, in order to enable those who would like to own a property, to get it without paying three times its price.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, rise against such scandalous exploitation and when loans are made to foreign countries, we cannot admit that the same cannot be done for the Canadian people the municipalities, the school boards, the provinces, in order to find, through the Bank of Canada which is the servant of the Canadian people, the final solution to the economic problem which is an obsession for everyone at the present time.
Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not set the interest rate, but rather a ceiling for interest rates on mortgages which will be guaranteed by the Corporation. The purpose of this is to encourage the private sector to make more funds available for housing mortgages.
The loan to which the hon. member referred was made to Brazil under the agreement signed by Canada with the Interamerican Development Bank. The Canadian external aid program to Latin America was initiated in 1964 with an appropriation to that area of a certain amount of money, charged to the Development Loan Fund which had just been set up. The agreement then concluded
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion with the Interamerican Development Bank contained arrangements whereby contributions to Latin America would be administered through that institution. According to the agreement, loans may be granted interest free, reimbursable after fifty-year periods with provisions for 10-year delays.
This loan will enable Brazil to undertake a technical and economic feasibility study with regard to building an airport for supersonic and giant airplane. A consortium comprising two Canadian firms, Parkin Associates Ltd. and Acres International Limited, in addition to a Brazilian firm, has been awarded the contract for the study.
In my opinion, this assistance helps create work for Canadian firms. These special consultant Canadian firms were granted contracts in spite of tight competition from important firms in other countries. The Canadian group will create a master plan which will consider the possibility of expanding the present airport instead of building a new one and they will determine the most appropriate site for a new airport, etc.
In granting development loans, Canada is endeavouring to establish assistance conditional on the nature of the project being financed and the capacity of the beneficiary to reimburse his debt.
This $847,000 loan has been granted under these conditions which are in agreement with Canadian policy in the matter of external aid programs to the underdeveloped countries and they are normal conditions for projects of this nature.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.



Wednesday, January 22, 1969