1969-01-16

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with respect to the work of the external affairs committee and I think there is general agreement in the house that it would be desirable to have a further order of reference to the committee so that it may continue with the order of work that has already been planned. I believe there would be unanimous agreement to the acceptance of an order in the following terms:
That the standing committee on external affairs and national defence be instructed, and hereby is instructed, to hear evidence on and to consider the national defence policy of Canada.
If it is acceptable to the house that could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this so agreed?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) why the proposed order is limited to defence policy rather than to defence and foreign policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, I gather that has been the subject matter of discussion in various comers. The timetable that has been planned was related to defence policy rather than to the broader area.


David Lewis: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I take another moment to suggest to the President of the Privy Council as well as to the chairman of the committee that the information I received from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) before he immersed himself in French was not to this effect. However, whatever the agreement may have been, is it not better to have both questions considered? You cannot really separate defence from foreign policy and it does
not seem very sensible to limit the order in this way.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It appears, Mr. Speaker, that there is not unanimous consent to the form of the order I suggested. Perhaps, therefore, we could have further consultation later today to find what is acceptable.



RESEARCH


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house of a Canadian oceanographic project of significant impact, we believe not only to Canada but to the world. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources science ship, C.S.S. Hudson, will set out from Halifax in November, 1969, on an oceanographic expedition of 41,000 nautical miles and completely encircle North and South America in Canada's first oceanographic venture on a world wide scale. It is interesting to note that this is the first circumnavigation of the two continents by any ship and that the Hudson is the only fully equipped scientific vessel to have this capacity. This expedition will be known as "Hudson 70".
Hudson 70 will be a one year expedition through the Atlantic, Antarctic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans. Aboard will be scientists from the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, other federal departments, Canadian universities and American oceanographic institutes and universities. Investigations will range from ocean circulation studies to geological surveys of Canada's continental shelf on its east, west, and northern coasts, and include biological, geophysical, chemical and other oceanographic studies.
[DOT] (2:10 pjn.)
The scientific staff will be drawn largely from the Atlantic Oceanographic Laboratory of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Marine Ecology Laboratory of the Fisheries Research Board, both at the Bedford Institute. Scientists from other institutions, Dalhousie University, University of British Columbia, Defence Research Establishment Atlantic (Defence Research Board), and other branches of the Department of

January 16, 1969
Ocean Research
Energy, Mines and Resources. Also participating will be scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the Department of Oceanography of Oregon State University in the United States.
In this age of science, a country of Canada's size must deploy her scientific resources wisely. We cannot afford to be in the vanguard in all aspects of science, and must choose wisely the disciplines wherein we have the capacity and which will be of greatest benefit to Canadians. The field of oceanography is one where Canada does have capacity, and where research can be of great benefit in Canada's future. The Bedford Institute of Oceanography was opened but six years ago, and has already achieved considerable scientific stature. Canada has the longest coastline and thence the greatest potential for undersea resources of any country in the world. These resources, even though yet largely untapped, are the heritage of all of the people of Canada.
Apart from domestic interest, all mankind has a great interest in the development of undersea resources, if the challenge of meeting the needs for food and economic progress in a world whose population is to double in the next thirty five years is to be met. The president of the United States recently urged countries of the world to embark on expanded studies of the world's oceans during the period 1970-80 to be identified as the "International Decade of World Ocean Exploration". The United Nations subsequently endorsed, by formal resolution, this concept and the designated period of 1970-80. This research voyage will be Canada's contribution to the International Decade of World Ocean Exploration.
In accord with the government's intent to achieve closer ties with the countries of Latin America, those South American countries having an interest in these studies and who themselves have facilities in this area, will be asked to participate to the extent that is possible in keeping with the objectives of the mission. I had the opportunity to discuss this possibility with my counterparts in some of the South American countries during the recent Canadian mission. Scientists of my department have already been in communication with Chilean scientists regarding the possible program off the Chilean coast.
A study of the geological and geophysical features of Canada's continental shelves is the prime objective of the northern part of the

voyage. Surveys, which will use to full advantage the complex of advanced equipment assembled on board the Hudson are being planned in areas off the coast of British Columbia, the Mackenzie River delta, in passages through the Canadian Archipelago, and in Baffin Bay.
The planned geological and geophysical studies in the Arctic will help to assess the mineral and other resource potential of the area, extend understanding of the evolution of continents and of ocean basins, such as Baffin Bay, and test the theory of continental drift. The surveys will form part of the extensive program of geological and geophysical exploration in Canada by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; scientists from the observatories branch and the Geological Survey of Canada will be involved in the operations and planning.
In the South Atlantic, South Pacific and Antarctic Oceans, the program consists of closely interrelated studies in biological, chemical and physical oceanography and underwater acoustics, geodesy, geophysics and geology.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: I am sorry this is a little over the heads of some of my friends over there, Mr. Speaker.
During the transit of the ship down the Atlantic and up the Pacific, an experiment will be conducted by scientists from the United States in measuring the slope of the ocean surface to obtain information which is vital to the precise calculation of the volumes of water transported by ocean currents.
The ship will spend several weeks in the vicinity of Cape Horn investigating, by new techniques, the circumpolar current, the greatest in the world, which flows around Antarctica and passes between Cape Horn and the Antarctica continent.
The Hudson is scheduled to return to Halifax in October of 1970. It may be well known that underwater research in the realm of the oceans will be as important-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has exercised all possible patience in connection with the statement now being made by the minister. He knows of course the provisions of standing order 15. My understanding of this standing order is that statements should be reasonably brief. I have the impression that the minister's statement is unreasonable in
January 16, 1969

that respect, and I hope he will bring it to a conclusion as soon as possible.
The minister will recognize that it is embarrassing to the Chair to have to remind hon. members of the opposition that according to the standing order their comments on ministerial statements must be brief. It is more difficult for the Chair to do this when we have statements of the length now being made by the minister.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I wil conclude forthwith. I think this statement is extremely reasonable, if not brief.


An hon. Member:: It should also be
intelligible.


John James Greene: It is intelligible to those who understand this subject, Mr. Speaker.
It is our belief that Canada can play a full and worthy part in this realm of science. The exciting scientific adventure of Hudson 70 we believe will be an important step toward this end.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I think unknown to yourself, the minister had practically completed his trip around Cape Horn before you stopped him. He had almost completed his statement, which he kindly sent me earlier. I feel that any comment I could make on the statement would be somewhat anticlimatic because I understand the minister has already had a press conference today on this particular statement, during which he made this statement.
I am sure the minister must find it exhilarating that his first announcement in the house, after his illness, is a pleasant one, rather than one like the unpleasant announcements he had to make when he took over his department earlier this year. I hope this is a good start which will be continued, and that one program after another of this nature will be announced by his office.
The general outline of the expeditions given to the house by the minister can only meet with approval. Canada, with its extensive shoreline and tremendous untapped continental shelf, badly needs more complete knowledge of the ocean and its resources. At first glance one might question the advantage of proceeding into the southern seas and around Cape Horn, but the movement of waters and marine life around the whole continent does affect our own shores. Work
Ocean Research
around Canadian coastal waters is very important.
In concluding, may I say that the statement by the minister indicates the germ of an idea developing in the science policy of this country. This is an acknowledgement that Canada should select the areas in which we can best develop scientific research, without trying to cover the whole field of science, with the limited resources at our disposal.
I noticed in a newspaper that a similar proposal was made earlier this week by Dr. Hans Selye, a well-known medical researcher. We approve of the theory of this research and the approach which appears to be indicated by this statement, and we welcome the announcement.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on science, as is the minister; therefore I shall not say very much about the value of this project. I am certain it will have a great deal of value and much scientific information will be obtained from it. At the same time, it seems to me that while the minister has said that a country like Canada must deploy its scientific resources wisely and that we cannot do everything, it is rather difficult to square this project with other announcements the minister has made in recent months.
The HARP project sponsored by McGill University has been scrapped. The construction of the Queen Elizabeth Observatory in British Columbia was announced at the time of the visit of the Queen. That project too has been scrapped. The ING project, which was to give tremendous impetus to our research in the field of nuclear physics, has been scrapped. Medical research is being hindered by the cut-back in the construction of hospitals.
I think members of the house, especially those on the committee which will deal with the estimates, ought to look very carefully into the question of how much say the science secretariat and the science council had in the decision that this particular project was more important and would bring greater benefits to our country than those which on earlier occasions the minister announced, and which have subsequently been scrapped.
It seems to me that without this kind of information we are left with the feeling that the scientific projects which will be begun in Canada will depend upon which minister speaks the loudest in cabinet meetings, or which person in the treasury department
January 16, 1969
4358	COMMONS
Juvenile Delinquents Act Amendment decides what shall and what shall not be done. I believe we need to be told in detail at some point exactly how the government chooses what shall and what shall not be done.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for his statement; however I do not approve the remarks of some hon. members who said that the statement was a little too long. I think that the minister is not to blame but his officials.
First of all, I express to the minister my best wishes to the minister and I hope his health will get better still. I sat on the committee on Energy, Mines and Resources and I noticed that we did not see him very often because of his illness. I hope that he will now enjoy good health and that he will be able to come and visit us quite often.
I think that it would be in order first to congratulate the minister for taking the initiative in doing more research; however, in order that the research intended to find riches in the marine subsoil be profitable, I think it would be urgent for the government to provide for special credits. In fact, I understand that it is a lack of funds which prevents the department from proceeding with its work in the research field.
I would like also the government to think of voting enough money to ensure that the project is carried through and that the industries are prevented from polluting the inland waters.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT AMENDMENT


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-158, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to advise the hon. member that the bill has already received first reading. The hon. member can give his explanation on second reading.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR CONDITIONS UNEMPLOYMENT-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in accordance with the new rule 26, to move the adjournment of the house under the said standing order for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the extremely serious situation confronting the people of this country as a result of the mounting unemployment as reflected in the figures released today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. These reveal an increase in December, 1968, of 35,000 unemployed over November, namely 373,000, as compared with 338,000, a number which had already shown an increase of 49,000 over the month of October.
In view of the fact that, historically, unemployment in January and February is significantly worse than in the other months mentioned, urgent consideration of this matter by the house is required so that there may be an immediate opportunity for a discussion of policies to deal with this threatening situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has given the Chair written notice as required by standing order 26(2) of the new rules of procedure. This has produced a useful opportunity to give the most serious consideration to the hon. member's notice of motion that the house adjourn for the purpose of discussing the subject matter of this motion described as "mounting unemployment as reflected in the figures released today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.".
The right to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 is subject to a number of conditions. In particular the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration. This test, applicable to the new rules, was also one of the essential factors to be considered by the Chair under the previous corresponding standing order, namely that there must be a genuine emergency. The word "emergency" has been defined as "the sudden or unexpected occurrence of a state of affairs". This definition indicates that the element of suddenness which was essential under the old rule is also
January 16, 1969

a requirement under the new standing order 26.
A number of similar motions have been made in previous years. On March 23, 1959 Mr. Speaker Michener made the following ruling:
I have felt that the question of unemployment, which is a continuing one, can scarcely be brought forward under rule 26. The circumstance alleged by the hon. member for Essex East, namely a joint release by the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics, scarcely alters the situation, in my opinion, to a point where the house should be asked to interrupt its ordinary business.
A similar ruling was made by the Speaker on February 17, 1960 at page 1152 of Hansard of that day. The Speaker is reported as follows:
In dealing with this application to interrupt our ordinary proceedings of this day under standing order 26 in order to embark on a discussion of "the grave unemployment situation in the country as revealed in a government press announcement made today," I remind hon. members that this is not a new problem for the Chair. Unfortunately the problem of unemployment is a continuing one and has been a continuing, one. As I recall it, motions of this kind have been advanced or attempts have been made to deal with the general problem of unemployment under standing order 26, and I have taken the view in the past that that is not an appropriate procedure for a continuing general problem which this undoubtedly is.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
On another occasion, in a ruling made on January 14, 1958, Mr. Speaker stated:
There has been a great deal of talk about the unemployment situation during this session and I am sure there will be a great deal more without allowing this additional debate which would interfere with the planned routine of the business of the house. Hence, I do not consider it a debate which should be entered upon at this stage.
The Chair recognizes readily that the motion raises a matter which is of importance and urgency. I am sure it is of important concern to all hon. members of the house. However, a careful and objective interpretation of the relevant standing order cannot, in my view, justify the acceptance at this time of the hon. member's motion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising
Inquiries of the Ministry from the latest statistics on the labour force issued this morning. These show that both the labour force and employment figures registered larger than seasonal declines between November and December and that fully 4.7 per cent of the labour force is unemployed.
Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the government is now reconsidering the policy, as stated by the Prime Minister, to de-emphasize job producing policies in favour of reliance upon training programs, and whether in view of increasing unemployment which is not being offset by the training programs the government will now introduce additional useful programs to alleviate the obviously growing unemployment in the country?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, our programs are designed to produce the maximum of employment both in the short and in the longer range. Certainly, the investment in the manpower training program is designed to equip those being trained to re-enter the labour force in a manner which would be most beneficial to them and to the Canadian economy. I can assure the hon. gentleman that this is a matter of continuing concern to the government, as I am sure it is to all Canadians, and that every possible step within the power of the government will be taken to maximize employment opportunities for Canadians in all parts of the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I presume the answer to the questions I asked is, no. I should therefore like to direct a further question at this point to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
In view of the fact that unemployment in the Atlantic provinces now amounts to 7.1 per cent of the labour force, and that it amounts to 6.8 per cent in Quebec, would the minister inform us whether his department intends to introduce additional useful programs which might be implemented even on a regional basis to lessen the high unemployment rate in those parts of the country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have the pleasure of heading a department created by the house, I will gladly bring in legislation for that purpose.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, first, to the Minister of
4360	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Manpower and Immigration. He may recall that some time before the Christmas recess-
I do not remember the exact date-I asked him whether he would consider making a statement to the house shortly on policies designed to deal with increasing unemployment. My memory tells me that at that time he said he would certainly consider doing so, though he did not want my hopes to be raised too high.
May I repeat, now, the question I then asked? In view of the growing unemployment shown by the latest figures, would the minister be prepared to make a statement to the house within the next day or two, as to his policy for dealing with the unemployment situation to which reference has been made?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The policies which have been administered by the department of manpower, and which will continue to be administered by the department, have been explained extensively in the house. Yesterday, for instance, there was an extended answer to a question on the order paper indicating the large sums presently being spent to combat winter unemployment. At the present time there is nothing further that I have to say about the policies of my department, although as to the general question of unemployment I shall continue to give it consideration and discuss it with my colleagues.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, this time to the minister responsible for rural development. On several occasions the hon. gentleman has been asked about his policies for dealing with regional disparity, particularly in the employment field, and he has told us that when the bill setting up his new department comes before the house, those policies will be discussed. May I therefore ask the hon. gentleman to inform the house when the bill setting up his and other departments will be before parliament, so that we may discuss the whole question of unemployment and regional disparity in Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am probably one of the members of this house who is most anxious to have this bill brought in as soon as possible.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question.

DEBATES	January 16, 1969
In his previous answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the Acting Prime Minister seemed to consider the adult retraining program as greatly important to prepare those people to hold a position, to get employment in Canada, and I would like to ask him if he is aware of economic regions or Canadian industries short of qualified labour at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, would be, yes. Not more than a few weeks ago, travelling across this country, I visited a number of places where there were jobs available and no men available to take them.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thompson, Manitoba, is one of them. There are others, too. I should like to tell the hon. member that the action of the government late in the year in making mortgage loans available through its agent, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has resulted in tens of thousands of additional jobs for Canadian workers this winter, in addition to tens of thousands of jobs indirectly as a result of house building activity which, during the year just ended, was at the highest level in the history of Canada, even beyond the forecast requirement of the Economic Council.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: question to the minister of trade and industry. I wonder whether the minister, bearing in mind the questions which were asked before the recess, would do his best to accelerate the sittings of the special cabinet committee, which I understand he heads, so as to bring forth policies to deal with the heavy unemployment in shipyards across Canada.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I have written recently to the shipyards association calling attention to the advantages which they have, and have had in the past, and asking them to bring forward projects, plans and ideas for their own reorganization, perhaps with help from the government. They are preparing for a meeting now.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: My question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In the light of the worsening unemployment situation in the Atlantic region and the minister's remarks last fall on a couple of occasions about
January 16, 1969

immediate projects of some magnitude to alleviate that situation, would the hon. gentleman be prepared to make a statement within the next week or so about those programs specifically, even before the introduction of any measure which would establish a new department of regional development?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware that we are now negotiating an agreement with the Mari-times. I hope that within a few weeks I will be in a position to confirm that such an agreement has been signed.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. It arises from the example he used a few minutes ago, one which brings the problem back to his own doorstep. Does he not realize that the reason prospective employees will not go into Thompson, Manitoba, is that there is absolutely no housing available in the town?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can he assure the house that pilots operating Air Canada jet passenger aircraft are never required to be on duty for more than eight hours at a time? I ask this question in view of the report of the Department of Transport made public yesterday concerning the crash of a Boeing 707 airliner last February.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the sensitivity of this question I should like to check into it before giving a definitive answer to see whether or not there are exceptions to the rule.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question.
Since the minister is making inquiries in this regard may I ask him whether it is a fact that Air Canada jet pilots are usually required to be on continuous duty for 17 hours at a time on the Montreal-Moscow flight, and also are sometimes required-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not in proper form. The hon. member is asking the minister to confirm or deny a statement.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether it is a fact that these-


Mr. Speaker:: That is precisely the form in which questions cannot be asked.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. In view of the amazing disclosures in the press release concerning the crash of a Boeing 707 aircraft at Vancouver, will the minister also take under consideration and inform the house whether there will be or is contemplated a tightening of commercial air rules, or possible action against C.P.A. in view of the disclosure to the board of inquiry that errors were made?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be best to deal with all of these questions at the same time. I should like to have the opportunity of getting all the relevant facts before replying.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax
East): A further supplementary question. When the minister is making his inquiries I wonder whether he would determine if the Department of Transport is satisfied that the non-embarrassment clause in contracts between pilots and our two major airlines is not the cause of the situation that has been referred to in earlier questions.



GLUT AT VANCOUVER-REQUEST THAT BOARD APPEAR BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious situation developing at the port of Vancouver with respect to wheat shipments, will the minister refer the report of the Canadian Wheat Board to the standing committee on agriculture so that witnesses can be called and the whole matter of grain shipments and exports thoroughly examined?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, a request was made of me to ask the Wheat Board officials to come before the agriculture committee of the House of Commons to answer questions. The officials of the Wheat Board would prefer to do so in March when their annual report will be out and on which questions could be posed by hon. members.

January 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I can understand the preference of the Wheat Board. However in view of the urgency of the situation which has arisen over the last several months, would the minister be good enough to reconsider this decision in the light of these circumstances?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of the situation it might be wiser to let the Wheat Board do their job in the west.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What I am trying to say in the most polite way I can is that there are two ways of looking at the possibility of the Wheat Board officials coming to testify before a committee of the house. At the present time the Wheat Board is very busy trying to solve the glut situation which exists in Vancouver. It is also trying to maximize Canadian exports. Therefore, on balance I thought it might be wiser to ask the committee to hear the Wheat Board officials in March.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement with reference to the Wheat Board not appearing before the committee at this time, and in view of the fact that some eight or nine ships, on which the Wheat Board will be paying demurrage, are waiting to be loaded, will the minister take administrative action at his level to see that dry grain gets into these ships and to export markets before the farmers of this country starve to death?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the advantage of possessing a clear, simple mind. When one looks at this situation in depth and with objectivity one realizes that it is unfortunately more complicated than the hon. member would like it to be. The complication, in very simple words, is that we have here a conflict between two advantages. I can remember the hon. member asking me to see to it that damp grain would be shipped to terminal elevators as rapidly as possible. That was done, and the result is that we now have a glut. We are at the same time faced with a situation where dry grain is required for exports that could not be anticipated, such as added exports to Japan. These could not be anticipated to be at their present level. So priority is being given now to shipment of dry grain to Vancouver in order to remedy the present situation of waiting ships.



BEQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the tight money situation prevailing on the prairies, due to the lack of grain sales, would he consider discussing with the Wheat Board the desirability of making the final payment on the previous crop year's grain pool at the earliest possible opportunity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I try to speak to the Wheat Board as often as I can and I will bring this additional subject into my conversations with them.


George Robson Muir: A further supplementary question. Would the minister report to the house as soon as possible on his discussion with the Wheat Board?



REQUEST FOR GREATER DELIVERY OF DAMP GRAIN

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but I should like to inform him that there are boxcars sitting on the sidings at the moment filled with dry grain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask a question.


Stanley James Korchinski: I should like to ask the minister whether he would undertake to get some sort of indication from the Wheat Board, and report to the house, whether the farmers can expect to deliver at least the three bushel quota of damp grain that was authorized by the Wheat Board; and whether the Wheat Board expects a further movement of damp grain might be made, possibly before the spring weather.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the answer was given by the chairman of the Wheat Board yesterday in his press conference, as follows: We have also had a policy in effect which allows producers advance delivery privileges on damp grain to the three bushel quota level. It is still our objective to try to equalize at a six bushel level but in view of the large quantity of damp grain now in the marketing pipeline, it will be impossible to give any further advance delivery privileges beyond the three bushel quota level for damp grain.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he
January IS, 1969

expects that any farmer who has not delivered his full three bushel quota of damp grain will be able to make delivery before spring?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the hon. member. I will read his question and try to answer it later.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the minister. In the event that the Canadian Wheat Board is assessed demurrage charges owing to vessels waiting to load grain, will the government absorb those charges so that the cost will not be borne by the farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is hypothetical.



LATIN AMERICA-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF MISSION

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question concerning another subject matter.
Would he tell the house if a full report on the ministerial mission to Latin America will soon be tabled and if a house committee will be invited to consider it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs headed the delegation. He is therefore to table a preliminary report within a few days, and I am under the impression that he will submit it to the committee on external affairs and national defence.



HARBOURS


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Transport. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the last few days have been called in to force Charlotte county fishing vessels to discontinue using public wharves in the port of Saint John and to put to sea, thus placing them in grave danger? If so will the minister explain the cancellation of a privilege which has

Inquiries of the Ministry existed for a good many years. Also, does the minister approve of such drastic action?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question was brought to my attention just at the moment I came down to the house. The National Harbours Board advises me that this matter is a local one and has been solved at the local level. Port management in Saint John has made arrangements for fishermen to radio berthing requirements into the port prior to arriving, and the harbourmaster will continue to assign berthing to such vessels. I understand that this is satisfactory to the fishermen.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. Either may volunteer to answer. As a result of the implied threat contained in the Prime Minister's statement made in a press conference in London yesterday, may we receive a categorical assurance that the government does not require the R.C.M.P. to inquire into the private lives of journalists and assemble files on them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there was no implied threat. I should like to say that in saying to the members of the press exactly what his feelings were the Prime Minister displayed that kind of courage which makes us on this side of the house proud to serve under his leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: You said that with tongue in cheek.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the long lead time required in order to take full advantage of the summer construction period, is the minister in a position to say when the government will announce that it is proceeding with the construction of the Northumberland causeway?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we are not so prepared today.

January 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



OTTAWA-HULL-QUALITY OF ABORTION PILLS IN DISTRIBUTION

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his parliamentary secretary may I direct my question, to the Acting Prime Minister. Will he investigate whether abortion pills being dispensed in the Ottawa-Hull area have been given a certificate of quality by the Food and Drug Directorate?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: While not familiar with these pills, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -I wish to say that I want to direct the question and its related allegation to the attention of the appropriate authorities.



USE OF COMMERCIAL DRYERS AT ELEVATOR POINTS

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing me just now. I was going to reply to a question different from the one just asked.


An hon. Member:: Coward.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to answer some questions that were asked yesterday and, indeed, the day before yesterday concerning grain dryers in certain elevators. The questions were asked by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). But by way of answer I wish to say that my information is that there is nothing in the board regulations to impede, restrict or in any way prevent the installation of grain dryers in country elevators. In most instances such installations are prevented by fire and insurance regulations which the companies do not choose to violate. Some companies have hired commercial dryers and some own their own dryers. In most instances these dryers are set up next to the elevator, with adjoining spouts. The Board of Grain Commissioners has no objection to these arrangements.



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to

direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister which has nothing to do with the matter we discussed previously. It arises from the fact that three government documents which parliament has been awaiting to receive have now been leaked to the press. I refer to the report of the task force on housing, the working papers for the constitutional conference, and information respecting the hazardous products bill. Will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to have these documents placed before the house immediately, so that parliament and the country will have the benefit of the full and official report instead of those selected portions leaked to the news media?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the hazardous products bill has been approved for introduction in the Senate. I can say that that will happen almost immediately. With respect to the report of the task force on housing, this will be presented to parliament just as soon as it is translated and printed. With respect to the other document the hon. gentleman mentioned, I do not know what in fact happened in that case. However I can assure my hon. friend that it is the position of the government and remains its position that it will produce those documents at the time of the dominion-provincial conference which, I think, would be under the appropriate circumstances. I am as anxious, naturally, as is my hon. friend to know where the information leak came from. Nevertheless it is the government's position that those papers will be produced at the time of the conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the report of the task force on housing-and my remarks apply equally to other reports and documents-may I ask whether it would not be appropriate for the government or the ministry concerned to withhold statements as to what would be in such report until it is placed before the house. Has the minister any comment to make about the obvious leak with regard to the report he proposes to lay before the house shortly?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will find when he reads the report that some of the matters of greatest substance have not yet been disclosed.


Mr. Bell:: They have not yet been leaked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In a matter as complex and diverse as this there is bound to be a certain
January 16, 1969	COMMONS
amount of inspired speculation. I think perhaps my hon. friends will appreciate this when they see the total magnitude and complexity of the problem with which we will be faced in a few weeks.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I ask as a result of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the answer of the minister. Will the minister assure the house that these daily leaks-and there have already been quite a number of them-of the report he is to present to the house have been made with his authority. If not, is he prepared to investigate as to who exactly is responsible for giving to the press material that ought to come to parliament first?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that these leaks appeared almost daily has been merely coincidental.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While on the subject of leaks, which was brought up by the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it will be the Prime Minister's policy in future to have a public relations staff leak to the news media of this country anything pertaining to his personal life, as has been happening in the past?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does the minister or his department intend to make representations to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with the view of lowering the present interest rate of 9| per cent before the 1st of April, in order to give new impetus to the construction industry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which will have to be considered in the larger context and I am not in a position to give any direct information about it at the moment. But I can tell my hon. friend that the level of interest rates is a matter of concern to the government and, certainly, to all those who are interested in seeing that the very commendable record of lending in the housing field is exceeded in 1969.
DEBATES	4365
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



REQUEST THAT STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since we shall soon be debating the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code would the minister be prepared to recommend that the standing committee that will study this bill bring in three or four distinct reports having to do with matters such as abortion, homosexuality, lotteries and the other general terms of the bill, so that the committee could break down the bill into four distinct parts and bring in four reports. Would the minister give some consideration to that and make a recommendation along those lines?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the standing committee in its good judgment will deal with the bill as it finds it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I take it then that the minister is standing firm in every regard and that the bill will be presented as it is to the house and debated as one complete document?


John Napier Turner: Yes, sir.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The Prime Minister has ordered him to do that.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General. Have the discussions between the representatives of the postal workers unions and the department been concluded and, if so, can he report that we are not going to face another work stoppage in the very near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the minister is ill to day and I shall have to take the hon. member's question as notice.



DECISION BY RUSSIAN HOCKEY TEAM TO PLAY CANADIAN SERIES

Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pass along

January 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry information I have just received and that should normally be released by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mun-ro) who is absent at this time. In my capacity as Secretary of State, I should like to break the news by quoting the title of a film: "The Russians are coming... All games but the first will be played on schedule".


An hon. Member:: If you stay in power the Russians will come.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very frank and illuminating answers given to my questions yesterday by the Secretary of State, I would like to ask him whether it is the intention to verify the accuracy of the allegation that Mr. Alphonse Ouimet advised the former prime minister that Radio Canada was under the control of separatists, and that there was nothing the management of the corporation could do about it? Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to investigate the accuracy of this allegation?


Gérard Pelletier: am now in a position to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I have read the chapter dealing with the history of the C.B.C. but that I have not personally taken any decision as to whether or not an investigation should be conducted with respect to that allegation.



NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Now that the Exchequer Court has reaffirmed the legality of the leaseholds originally granted in western Canada national parks, what action does the minister contemplate to bring the recent administrative decrees on this matter into conformity with this ruling?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. 
Speaker, it being a ruling of a court of first instance, the government has decided to appeal in order to have that ruling upheld or quashed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a supplementary question, will the minister assure the house that the civil rights of people in the western parks, whose leases were changed by duress and other means before the decision of the Exchequer Court was given, will be reinstated as they existed prior to that decision?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government will reach a decision in connection with all the aspects of the problem once the Court of Appeal has ruled on the matter.



POSSIBLE RESTRICTION IN SALE OF PRESCRIPTIONS IN COMBINATION

['Mr. Speaker, the reports on this subject and some related matters are not complete. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he might agree it would be better to wait until the Prime Minister is back in the house, at which time I am sure he will wish to make a statement and answer questions based on greater detailed knowledge than we have available at the moment.']
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who indicated he would have an answer for me today. I see the minister is not in the house and I wonder whether he has delegated anyone else to answer my important question regarding certain drugs offered for sale on the Canadian market ?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-
Royal.


Max Saltsman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object to not receiving a reply. I asked an important question and I was assured that it would be answered today. The minister is not scheduled to be in the house tomorrow. Therefore an answer will not be available until next week. I think the government could have extended the courtesy of having another minister answer on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the reply to that question has been made available to me. Unfortunately, as I was not acting yesterday on behalf of the minister, I do not know which question the hon. member has in mind. I may have received the reply, but I do not know which question is involved.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to repeat the question. It was about a decision by the food and drug administration of the United States to halt the sale of
January 16, 1969	COMMONS
six prescription drugs which combine the use of antibiotics and other drugs in fixed ratios.
I asked the minister whether any action had been taken to ban the sale of these drugs on the Canadian market.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, again I shall call the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to this matter. No information has been conveyed to me in that respect.



Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would he say whether the Prime Minister's statement that Chief Awolowo is prepared to meet the Biafrans without pre-conditions indicates that Nigeria is now changing its position that peace can come only if Biafra surrenders?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the reports on this subject and some related matters are not complete. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he might agree it would be better to wait until the Prime Minister is back in the house, at which time I am sure he will wish to make a statement and answer questions based on greater detailed knowledge than we have available at the moment.



EXTERNAL AID


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, in view of the fact that it is also reported that the Prime Minister has instructed officials of the Department of External Affairs to meet with Biafran representatives in London with regard to possible peace talks, will our representatives be talking about the possibility of expanding or initiating new relief efforts that will be coordinated with government transport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the talks will not be confined to one narrow issue, but I think it would also be better in this case to wait until we have a complete report from the officials who have been engaged in these discussions.
DEBATES	4367
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Would he tell the house whether he holds that the economic situation will improve in the province of Quebec in 1969? Does he expect sizeable progress in foreign investments in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that the hon. member's question as stated is far too general. It calls on a member of the government to make a general policy statement. I consider that such a statement should normally be made on motions.



PAYMENTS TO FARMERS FOR CONDITIONING OF DAMP WHEAT

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the opinion of farm experts that much of the 400 million bushels of farm stored damp grain will spoil, come spring, owing to the slow conditioning of this grain, has the government considered giving a direct payment on a per bushel basis to farmers to have the conditioning carried out and thus prevent a drastic loss to our economy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that much or a large part of 400 million bushels will spoil.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, just to satisfy my own curiosity I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Did he get permission from the Prime Minister to be in attendance today, a day when he should not be here?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TAX TREATMENT OF EXPENDITURES ON DRYING EQUIPMENT

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the answer the Minister of Agriculture gave earlier today, for which I thank him, I wish to direct a further question to him. In view of the fact
4368
January 16, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry that a number of elevator companies are now prepared to go to additional expense to instal dryers and may lose money on this operation, will the minister and the government consider giving a financial incentive in the form of no sales tax, no duty, and faster depreciation allowances on such equipment installed at country elevators?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made certain announcements with respect to some of these taxes. There has been no change in the government's attitude with respect to taxes on grain dryers. I do not see any justification for going beyond that at this time. It is up to the elevator companies to decide what is best for their own operations.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Will the elevator companies be allowed to use these dryers at local points to dry wheat or grain which is held to the account of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Mr, Olson:: I will look into that. However, that raises some pretty complex problems about wheat shrinkage and that sort of thing.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the number of corporations that have failed to file returns for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, does the minister intend to penalize those companies which are guilty under the act?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the order paper.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he received a communication on misleading advertising concerning the treatment of stammering and stuttering and, if so, does he intend to look into this?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be placed on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the house to ask the President of the Privy Council as government house leader what business the government intends to introduce for the balance of this week and next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had consultations with other groups. I gather that at the moment there would be no wish to have an opposition day under standing order No. 58 called during the coming week. Subject, therefore, to any unforeseen contingencies and depending on the progress which occurs on each particular item, I propose the following order of business. As previously announced, the items of business to be called today would be in the following order: First, item No. 30, second reading of Bill C-148, in respect of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; second, item No. 13, second reading of Bill C-102, in respect of the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act; third, item No. 17, second reading of Bill C-153, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; fourth, item No. 9, second reading of Bill C-151, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
With regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act amendment I have noted the observation of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) recommending that the bill be referred to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry, even though it comes under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and involves the chartered banks. Therefore I intend to propose an amendment to the second reading motion to refer the bill to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) will be responsible for conducting the bill.
Tomorrow we will again call the freshwater fish marketing bill and the drug price bill, if these have not been given second reading. Then we would call item No. 37, second reading of Bill S-3, to amend the Canada Evidence Act. If those items are dealt with before the close of business, my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube), would be prepared to move second reading of Bill C-152, to amend the Veterans Land Act.
On Monday next we would call in this order the Historic Sites and Monuments Act and the Veterans Land Act amendments, if they have not been dealt with, and would
January 16, 1969

then call item No. 36, second reading of Bill S-15, with respect to amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and related statutes.
On Tuesday next we would call the first reading of the fisheries improvement loans bill, if that has not already been dealt with, and then the bill to amend the Veterans Land Act. That would be followed by item No. 33, second reading of Bill S-14, to amend the Aeronautics Act, and item No. 41, second reading of Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Prior to the close of business on Tuesday and depending on the progress of the items already announced, I will be in a better position to indicate what the business will be on Wednesday. In any event I would propose on Thursday to call for second reading item No. 40, second reading of Bill C-150, the omnibus Criminal Code amendment bill.
With regard to the timing of business in committees 1 can advise the house that it is expected that the estimates for 1969-70 will be available for tabling by the end of this month. After consultation with the opposition parties we would propose to refer these to the standing committees by the middle of February. It would be desirable, therefore, for those standing committees which have legislative business before them to be in a position to complete their work by February 14 so that they may commence after that date their consideration of supply business. There will, of course, be exceptions to this general guideline as progress takes place.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do I understand from the hon. gentleman that, irrespective of the progress made next week, on Thursday next it will be the intention of the government to call the item dealing with the omnibus Criminal Code bill, C-150? Do I understand that this will be called as the first item of government business next Thursday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subject to any unforeseen contingencies, that is correct.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency involved, would the hon. house leader consult with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce some time between now and next week to arrange for the introduction of the bill that is necessary in order that advances may be available for the drying of grain?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Discussions
with regard to that measure are already in progress. I am not sure what the exact timing will be.
29180-276J
Fisheries



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Olio E. Lang (for Ihe Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: second reading and reference to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry of Bill C-148, to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-148, to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, has had some discussion in the house. Indeed, it had the interesting honour of occupying the time of the house on the last occasion a resolution stage was debated before the change in the rules which eliminated that stage of debate. In my remarks, therefore, I will not repeat what was said about the proposed bill. I might point out, however, what are the general objectives and the principle involved.
In collaboration with the provincial governments the federal government's objective is to establish an effective marketing board for freshwater fish produced in the prairie provinces, the Northwest Territories and northwestern Ontario. In order to accomplish this purpose a crown corporation with necessary powers to trade in fish and fish products is to be created. The corporation is desirable in order to serve the purpose of developing markets and sales for the production from these areas so that the corporation on its own account, where necessary or where it is deemed desirable, can join with private industry in developing the potential of this industry.
It is expected the corporation will operate jointly with private industry where private industry can fill an effective role with regard to processing and distribution. Through the intermediary of agents it is anticipated the corporation will purchase direct from the fishermen the catch in these areas and that it will then sell the resulting production. Though the powers given to it by this bill, it will be in control of the marketing of fish for export and for interprovincial trade. The commission will also have the power to obtain by consent from the provincial governments, and the government on behalf of the

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
territories, similar powers regarding marketing within the provinces and the designated areas themselves.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In addition to attempting to develop and expand the markets for freshwater fish, the corporation will engage in efforts to rationalize the operations of the industry for the benefit of the fishermen whose difficult position was one of the very strong motivating factors in producing and initiating this particular bill.
Years of study have gone before this bill, including work done by the Mclvor commission and studies by provincial governments and dominion-provincial conferences. The objective is to obtain a more rational industry, a more stable situation, a better marketing practice and, through all these, a better share for the fishermen of the money which is to be obtained from this valuable product.
The real and ultimate purpose of this government and the provincial governments concerned is to create a totally new environment in this sector of the freshwater fisheries, and environment which will again be attractive to capital investment so that the whole organization of the industry may be changed. There are some 6,000 or 7,000 fishermen who obtain employment in the freshwater fisheries, many of whom at the present time are living at or near subsistence levels. Many of them are Indians or Metis.
The objective is that through this corporation and the regulation of the industry a better market and better prices may be obtained and that through rationalization of the industry a better return may be available to the fishermen. Through the co-operation of the provinces and the legislation which they will enact the corporation will be the effective purchaser of the commercial product for this wide area of the freshwater fishery. The corporation will be in a position to take steps to expand markets at home and abroad and to improve the quality of the product and the dependability of that product, which in itself is an important factor in improving markets and prices.
The corporation will be under the supervision of a board of directors with members appointed by the governor in council, with some of them nominated by the lieutenant governors in council for the interested areas. There will be an advisory committee which is expected to include representatives of the industry in the widest sense, from all its parts,

so that the corporation may have in this form some direct communication with the affected people and, in particular, with the fishermen. It will know quickly at all times the reaction to its efforts in the areas concerned.
The provinces will continue to be responsible for the administration of the fisheries themselves; that is to say, for the basic responsibility for conservation and similar matters. This will remain with the provinces. The corporation will not produce quotas. This will result, if it results at all, from the conservation measures taken by the provinces acting under their jurisdiction. It is to be expected that the corporation and the provincial authorities will be in close contact on these matters, but the corporation will have the basic responsibility to purchase commercial catches in the areas and to use the best possible commercial means of taking these catches to market in the most rational manner.
This is an industry that has been in need of action for some time. It is an industry which can only be successfully helped through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments concerned. It is hoped that with the fruits of these efforts and co-operation, this corporation will do a great deal to improve the status of the men who work in the industry.
The corporation has been given powers broad enough to enter into the necessary commercial aspects of this venture, to ensure good and sound marketing practices and the best possible return to the fishermen and the industry. This bill is expected to be a very important milestone for the freshwater fish industry in Canada and I am delighted to move its second reading at this stage.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio why the fishermen of southern Ontario, particularly those on lake Ontario, are excluded from the proposed benefits of this bill?


Otto Emil Lang: The particular areas of the fishery covered by the bill represent the result of discussions with the provincial authorities concerned. These are the areas of the freshwater fishery in respect of which, in the opinion of the provincial authorities, there seems to be a very definite need for help at this time.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, before the minister resumes his seat I should like to ask whether the corporation will have monopoly
January 16, 1969

control in those areas designated by the provinces for inclusion under the provisions of this fish marketing enactment?


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldl):: In the
areas concerned it will have a monopoly as a result of the combined provisions of this act, which gives it a monopoly in regard to any purchase for sale or export abroad or for export from one province to another, whether or not within a designated area, and the provincial legislation in respect of all the concerned designated areas covering the sale of the products within the boundaries of the provinces. That will give it a complete monopoly on the purchase of fish within the areas concerned.


William Arnold Peters: In provinces where there may be internal sales, have the provincial governments agreed to implement legislation which will allow the equalization of interprovincial and export sales as well as local marketing by this corporation?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether hon. members might not feel that we are reviving committee of the whole at this stage. It seems to me that some of the questions asked and the type of discussion we are beginning should take place when the bill is considered in committee, if it is referred by the house to the committee.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, we have passed the resolution dealing with the regulations covering interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish, and Bill C-148 to establish a Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation received first reading on December 18. At that time a number of speakers from the official opposition as well as other members spoke extensively on this measure, and questions were asked which have now been answered by some sections of the bill.
It is my understanding that it is the government's intention to refer this bill to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry where it will receive a thorough, clause by clause study. Therefore it is not my intention to speak at great length on the measure at this time. However, there are one or two points with which I shall deal briefly, especially since the bill raises some doubt about the overlapping of authority between the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the saltwater fish industry.
As I stated previously, this bill sets a bad precedent in that it implies that only our
Fisheries
inland fisheries are facing economic difficulties. During the Christmas recess I had an opportunity to visit my constituency and was told that the landings of the groundfish and shellfish industries of Nova Scotia would for the first time in history exceed 700 million pounds with a value in excess of $50 million. These are the figures for 1968.
I am also informed that these tremendous advances in volume and value were made against a groundswell of falling prices for frozen and salted groundfish, and that three or four species, namely herring, scallops, lobster and the new queen crab industry, have enabled our processors to stay in business and remain solvent. The old, historic backbone of the saltwater fishing industry is broken. Here I refer to groundfish species such as cod, haddock and pollock, which are being purchased, processed and sold in many cases at less than the cost of production owing to the devaluation of foreign currencies and excessive competition in our major market, which is still the United States.
All the facts pertaining to this situation have been made available to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) and the rest of the cabinet, but unfortunately we have to date heard nothing from the government that would give encouragement to the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces who are literally fighting for economic survival with their backs to the wall. Even the so-called band-aids for the saltwater fishing industry have been removed and nothing has been put in their place. For example, we no longer have the salt rebate assistance program, and for the benefit of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) I would point out that dredging, construction and the maintenance of wharves and skidways, which are essential to our fishermen, have been seriously curtailed.
In view of the fact that the income of fishermen is declining, the government's attitude can only be construed as one they have adopted from Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-In", where "sock it to me" is the big event of the night. "Sock it to the fishermen" seems to be the attitude of this government with its recent announcement that wharfage, storage rates, berthage, wintering and laying-up charges for shipping and fishing interests have not been altered for ships up to 100 feet in length but for those over 100 feet in length we understand that the increase in these

January 16, 1963
Fisheries
charges will bring to the government an additional revenue of approximately $300,000 next year.
I ask the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister of Fisheries and the other ministers of the government, where in the name of heaven do they think the money will come from with which to pay these increased charges? Fishermen's incomes have declined and they are not in a position to pay any additional charges of this nature. I warn the government that its present policies with regard to the Atlantic provinces, and especially its lack of policy with regard to our major, primary fishing industry, cannot be continued indefinitely without creating major social and economic problems in our area.
Our Atlantic coast fishermen are crying out for the protection which would be afforded them through the implementation of Canada's Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act which which was passed under a Liberal government in 1964. When can we hope to see the geographical co-ordinates established and the base lines drawn so as to give protection to the new, queen crab industry, for example, which in Nova Scotia alone had last year an estimated landed value of $1 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I consider it my duty to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that the bill being considered by the house at this time deals with export trade in freshwater fish. The hon. member has in his remarks strayed some distance from the bill before the house. If he is allowed to make this kind of speech, other hon. members would be able to discuss salmon fishing in the Pacific, for example, and the general policy of the government regarding saltwater fish.
If the Chair allows the hon. member to continue along these lines it will be impossible to prevent other hon. members making speeches dealing with fishing in Newfoundland, on the west coast and in our salt waters generally. I would think that the hon. member, having made his point in a rather strong fashion, would want at this stage to return to the matter before the house, which is export trade in freshwater fish and the establishment of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is rather unusual for one from the east coast to get off course, but it happens once in a while. Perhaps the cold, winter weather has somehow affected my magnetic compass. I wanted to relate some of the problems of the east

coast fishing industry to this bill. In a few moments I shall deal with the bill itself and hope to relate the problems of the saltwater and freshwater fishing industries; therefore my remarks will be relevant to the bill.
The fishermen on Canada's Atlantic coast are asking in all earnestness when the government will take some action with regard to the problems I have mentioned. They face real problems because of the scarcity of fish on our inshore banks, coupled with the low prices they are receiving for their catch. Many of them realize they must go farther out to sea if they are to catch sufficient fish to provide a livelihood for their families.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot simply disregard what has been said by the Chair. If there is to be order of debate, the hon. member's remarks should be relevant to the bill now before the house. The hon. member's remarks are entirely irrelevant and I do not propose to allow him to continue along these lines.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce within three months after the end of each financial year, and compare the percentage of return received by the fishermen vis-a-vis the return which they formerly received.
At the present time the marketing of Canadian freshwater fish is of major concern to some 7,000 fishermen, more than 300 dealers, and close to 100 exporters. Most of the freshwater fish produced in western Canada and in northern Ontario, mainly pike, pickerel, sauger, lake trout and whitefish, requires the participation of all three levels. However, I note at page 11, clause 25, it is stated that this legislation applies to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Northwest Territories, and that the provinces concerned must undertake to make arrangements for the payment of compensation to the owner of any plant or equipment in the plant which may be rendered redundant through the operations of the marketing corporation.
This section of the bill raises a number of questions. Since Manitoba, for example, has a large number of plants compared with Saskatchewan, what federal process will be used to equalize the cost of purchasing redundant plants in these various provinces? I should like to put this question to the Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) who is piloting this bill through the house.
Another question that comes to mind is the effect that this legislation will have on present plant owners in the provinces concerned. Who will decide, for example, which plants will be retained and which plants will be classified as obsolete? Will the owners of obsolete plants be given a time limit in which to bring their plants up to a certain standard before the government inspector steps in and declares the plant redundant? Is it the intention of the government to declare a number of plants redundant as soon as this legislation is approved and, if so, what preparations are being made for those employees in the plants whose livelihood will be affected? As we have heard today from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), unemployment has reached dangerous levels, and so I ask the minister whether any plans have been made to take care of these people who will become unemployed.
I noted, for example, that under this legislation wide powers will be granted to the fish and plant inspector appointed by the Governor in Council. At page 12 of the bill the inspector is authorized, at any reasonable time, to enter any place or premises that he
Fisheries
reasonably believes is being used to store, pack, process or prepare fish for market or shipment, or any vehicle, trailer, vessel, railway, car or aircraft that he reasonably believes is being used to ship or convey fish to market. He may open any container found therein or examine anything found therein that he reasonably believes contains any such fish, and take samples thereof. He will have to be a very reasonable man. It seems to me that the government, by introducing this clause in the bill, is anticipating something less than 100 per cent co-operation from the fish processors and will be taking every possible action to control the entire freshwater fishing industry.
The entire bill is, of course, based upon the report of the commission of inquiry into freshwater fish marketing problems as submitted by Commissioner George H. Mclvor, following his appointment in July, 1965. In his report, Mr. Mclvor made 17 specific recommendations for the improvement of the freshwater fishing industry, and most of his suggestions are incorporated in the present bill. In fact, his first recommendation is that the interprovincial and export movement of fish and fish products and the sale of same for export or interprovincially should be prohibited except by the board, which should also have the authority to control imports. These recommendations are incorporated in the bill under clauses 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.
The granting of an outright monopoly to the board covering the complete control of the import and export of fish in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, plus the Northwest Territories, raises certain questions. I was rather surprised at the answer given to the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alken-brack) that the bill does not include the southern sections of Ontario. As I read the bill, and I have read it carefully from cover to cover, there is absolutely no mention of a definitive area in the province of Ontario being excluded. I would like further clarification from the minister at a later date on that particular point.
The granting of this monopoly compels all fishermen in these designated freshwater areas to sell their fish to the corporation, even though some of them residing on Lake Erie or adjacent to the United States border may prefer to continue marketing their catch directly to their old customers in the United States or in Quebec rather than through the corporation.

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
The purpose and powers of this corporation are far-reaching. The authority of the corporation is set out in clause 7 of the bill on page 4 under nine different headings and comprises the following:
The Corporation is established for the purpose of marketing and trading in fish, fish products and fish by-products in and out of Canada and, in addition to the powers conferred by any other Act and by other provisions of this Act, has for that purpose power to
(a)	buy fish and dress, fillet, freeze, package or otherwise prepare fish for market;
(b)	buy, manufacture or produce fish products and fish by-products and package or otherwise prepare fish products and fish by-products for market;
(c)	store, ship, insure, import, export, market, sell or otherwise dispose of fish, fish products and fish by-products bought, prepared, manufactured or produced by it;
(d)	purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold, pledge, mortgage, hypothecate, sell or otherwise deal with any real or immovable property;
(e)	establish branches or employ agents in Canada or elsewhere;
(f)	invest any money in its possession or control that in its opinion is not immediately required for the purposes of its operations, in securities of or guaranteed by the Government of Canada and sell any securities so acquired by it and re-invest the proceeds thereof or any part thereof in like manner;
(g)	borrow money from any bank upon the credit of the corporation;
(h)	make loans of working capital on a seasonal basis to persons engaged in fishing for commercial purposes in a participating province; and
(i)	do all such other things as are necessary or incidental to the exercise of any of its powers or the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act.
However, I would point out that in all of this part the bill refers to fish when defining the purpose and powers of the corporation, and it is not until you reach part III on page 9 that you find the following words:
In this Part except section 31,
(a)	"fish" means round, dressed or filleted fish of any species enumerated in the Schedule-
So there can be no mistake as to the powers and purpose of this bill, I suggest to the minister that under part III, clause 20, the wording be changed to read:
In this bill except section 31 which deals with offences and penalties, for the purpose of this Act fish shall be freshwater fish of the kind defined in the Schedule of this bill.
This wording would be very definite and would take away any doubt with regard to the authority granted to the corporation under this bill.
Another question that arises covers import and export control and the authority granted

the corporation. In clause 21 on page 9 we read these words:
Except in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in any licence that may be issued by the Corporation in that behalf, no person other than the Corporation or an agent of the Corporation shall
la) export fish from Canada;
(b)	send, convey or carry fish from a participating province to another participating province or to any other province;
(c)	in a participating province, receive fish for conveyance or carriage to a destination outside the province; or
(d)	sell or buy or agree to sell or buy fish situated in a participating province for delivery in another participating province or any other province, or outside Canada.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I cannot but wonder whether this export-import control applies only to freshwater fish and fish from other countries or whether it also applies to saltwater fish shipped to markets in central Canada. The words here are quite definite:
No person other than the Corporation or an agent of the Corporation shall... (d) sell or buy or agree to sell or buy fish situated in a participating province for delivery in another participating province or any other province, or outside Canada.
I ask the minister this question: will it be necessary for Canadian saltwater fish processors to forward all their orders to the corporation for distribution to their customers in the four provinces and one territory, or will the supermarket chains and regular customers for saltwater fish products be permitted to make their saltwater fish purchases without going to the corporation? I point out in passing that the corporation would, of necessity, make a charge in connection with its part of the transaction thereby increasing the cost of saltwater fish to consumers.
There are other questions I could raise but these can be discussed in committee. Since we have never before witnessed a monopoly of this type in the fishing industry of Canada, I trust the minister will deal with some of the points I have brought up concerning matters which are vitally important to our fishermen, to fish processors and to Canadians generally who are interested in the economic well-being of this important primary industry.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) on his venture into socialism. In 1945 or thereabouts, when similar legislation was introduced in Saskatchewan, the Liberals there said: "Ah, this is compulsion, this is communism." Well,
January 16, 1969

Fisheries
it is nice to know you have converted the opposition. I should like the minister to know that I support this measure, and I wish him well in its operation.
The success of boards such as the one now proposed tends to reflect the ability of their members and the importance attached to them by the minister and the government concerned. I suggest that the Canadian Wheat Board has reflected at various times the attitudes of Mr. C. D. Howe and Mr. Alvin Hamilton. Possibly it now reflects the ideas of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), though I wonder about that when I see that Canada's share of the world wheat market has dropped from 25 per cent to 20 per cent.
As I say, the success of such boards depends to a large extent upon the quality of the people who constitute them and direct them. No act of parliament is any better than the government which puts it into effect or enforces it. Those to be appointed to such boards should be chosen with great care. It might be that candidates perfectly suitable at one period of time would not be suitable at another. To refer again to the Wheat Board as an example, it might well be that an ex-air force type would be suitable for dealing with a foreign government in connection with grain trading but far less qualified when market conditions changed and he was called upon to sell to private buyers on a tough commercial market, with the emphasis upon developing different tastes and catering to them. This is true of the fishing industry. Board members must be aware of the problems of the moment; they must be prepared to change their tactics with regard to the selling or processing of fish as need may arise.
I should like to say a few words about selling. When the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) was discussing the saltwater fisheries some time ago he laid some emphasis upon the production of fish protein and similar products. After he had finished my reaction was to go to the dining room and order a lamb chop. I do not think this is the response which a minister of fisheries should provoke. He should be enthusiastic about the product, and I suggest that the Minister without Portfolio should be prepared to discuss fish in such a way as to leave his listeners with a desire to eat some. In this connection, perhaps I ought to mention one of the members from British Columbia who is involved in
selling chicken products. Whenever the subject is raised with him, a light seems to go on automatically and by the time he has finished talking about it his listeners all want to eat chicken. This is the effect that the Minister without Portfolio, who I understand will be in charge of this operation, should attempt to produce. When he gets through talking about fish we should all want to eat some.
While I am on this subject there is one other matter I should like to mention. At one time I had a meal of whitefish in the town of Lac la Ronge. What the cook did to that fish should have qualified him for jail. I am not sure how one can get round that sort of thing.


An hon. Member:: A recipe book.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I
suggest that the minister and the board should be developing new types of recipes and ways of preparing fish so that they may be even more attractive to the palate. The public, in turn, should be encouraged to use these recipes. I hope the minister will also encourage the canning of fish in ways which will develop new markets for fish products. We are all aware of the importance of canned tuna fish and canned salmon to both our export and home markets. I trust the minister will explore the possibility of developing these markets still further through advances in the canning industry.
After perfecting the recipes to which I have referred the minister and the board ought to be prepared to tour the country and speak to housewives and representatives of the food industry all over the nation, and in the United States if necessary, about the advantages of eating fish. I wish the hon. gentleman well in his new department and in his relations with the new fisheries board. I trust the establishment of the board will result in a larger income to fish producers in the areas concerned, increased market stability, a higher income to all concerned and a more effective industry generally.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, this bill really puzzles me.
Indeed, several questions come to my mind when I notice, first of all, that it deals with a program in which only four out of ten provinces have agreed to participate. I wonder why it is so.
With regard to Quebec, I think I know the answer. Quebec keeps a jealous watch over those fields in which it has-or at least it believes it has-exclusive jurisdiction, such
4376

January 16. 1969
Fisheries
as fresh water fisheries, for instance, which have always been considered as a solely provincial matter.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Now, if Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario deem it advisable to set up that Corporation, why do they not get together to do so? It would then be possible to prevent the Corporation from favouring certain provinces unduly. I agree whole-heartedly that the various areas should co-operate in improving marketing conditions in that industry. But, what I would like to know is whether that Corporation which in a way will regulate operations in four provinces, will not hamper the same industry in those provinces which are not members of it? Will not the taxes levied in Quebec be used to help the fishing industry elsewhere, to the detriment of the Quebec industry, which is extremely well off?
When this type of bill is proposed, I wonder whether we should not wait until there is agreement between all the provinces, in order to be sure that each will get a fair deal. I feel that this is another example of what often happens when the government seems to look for excuses to interfere in provincial affairs.
The government might perhaps make suggestions, but most of the time, it could wait until the provinces ask for a thing like this.
It would certainly be a good thing in my opinion, if trade pertaining to the freshwater fish industry were coordinated across Canada. Such coordination, however, would require the co-operation of all contracting parts. Such are the questions that come to my mind.
There have been endless discussions, which reached their peak in December, about ways of accelerating the proceedings of the house.
There is a very good way to achieve that. It would be, for Ottawa, to mind its own business and to let the provinces take care of their own problems. If matters under provincial jurisdiction happen to need coordination or planning, it will be up to the provinces to seek the co-operation of the federal government, if necessary. The reason why we are always short of time, to the point of considering the possibility of limiting debates under section 16A, is that there are several fields where the federal government concerns itself with matters that are none of its business. If one would confine oneself to one's own field, I think we might settle, partly at least, the problem of speeding up the proceedings of the house.
I would like all these questions to be answered, so that we may know why some provinces do not co-operate. Of course, those which do not have such an industry are not interested and this is most understandable. In other fields, however, it should be possible to establish bodies to deal with all the business of all Canada. Of course, in areas where there is no such industry, the province would not be interested. However, in the case of an industry such as this particular one-and we know that in a state like Quebec it can grow into a very prosperous one-I wonder why the federal government, whose field it is, suggests establishing a Corporation which will deal only with the provinces that agree to co-operate.
Therefore, it is advisable to give it serious consideration before passing such a bill; consideration must be given to any possible consequences and if we do not watch for those things, we will have once more to bear with recriminations from Quebec and once again the rest of Canada will have the opportunity to say: If things are not going well in Quebec, it should simply get organized as we are, and so on.
When the federal government has to spend money, it must do it equitably. We must of necessity be just in the sense that when the federal government deals with matters which are not of particular concern to it, we must reach an agreement with all the provinces, and not with just a few, before legislation is passed. It is this point in particular which I want to emphasize.
I would not want the provinces concerned to think that we are opposed to the progress of this industry but if four provinces and one territory are interested in the setting up of that Corporation, they should do it themselves, and the federal government should not do it alone without the previous consent of all the provinces.
I should like to have an answer to all my questions so that we would really know whether this is another blow aimed at provincial autonomy.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the freshwater fish marketing bill at this stage of its passage through the house I should like to make a few remarks thereon. Many of my comments will be in the form of questions to which I hope to obtain answers in order to ascertain how the act will function once it is brought

January 16, 1969

into effect, if indeed it is. I should also like to point out a few places where the bill seems to be obscure and should be clarified before final passage.
In my riding there are a few hundred licence-holders in the fishing industry who will be affected by the legislation. They have been asking questions about it and making comments, and I do not think these are altogether clarified by the provisions of the bill. One of their main points is in connection with the duties of the corporation and the extent to which it will take over the buying, processing and marketing of fish. It does not appear quite clear whether fish can be sold to the trade within the province in which they are caught without passing through the hands of the corporation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
For instance, it is not clear whether licensed fishermen will have the opportunity of selling to neighbours, local restaurants and so on, bearing in mind, of course, that they are bound by the requirements of our food laws and so forth. It is not clear from the terms of the bill whether or not this type of enterprise is going to be prohibited or allowed. Indeed, there does not seem to be anything in the bill that will prevent a fish producer from marketing fish in any form within the province in which the fish are caught. This may be an indication that the purpose of the bill is to allow some private competition or private trade in fish, or that there may be a low level of competition in fish products in the province in which the fish are caught. The legislation does not spell out whether the corporation can or will allow private enterprise to engage in fish marketing or, particularly, in the manufacture of fish into fish by-products. In my area, for instance, there is at this time considerable interest in the manufacture of coarse fish into pet food. I believe that this point ought to be clarified since clarification would remove the considerable uncertainty of the processors of fish. They are not sure whether there will be any need for private initiative in the actual marketing and manufacturing of fish products.
Another area where the legislation does not seem to be quite clear is in the definition of a fisherman. This has been a bone of contention in my province. Our fishermen argue about the definition of a fisherman. Although all commercial fishermen must procure a licence to fish, all too often this has been a mere formality. There has been criticism of some 29180-277J
Fisheries
fishermen who make their livelihood from fishing. There has been considerable discussion among fishermen themselves as to the designation of a fisherman. Some hope to make a livelihood from the fishing industry most of the time while others are part time fishermen who fish on a part time basis to supplement their incomes or who go fishing when fishing is good and proceed to another occupation when fishing is not so good. I believe the licensing of fishermen will have to be considered, as will the definition of a fisherman. If the corporation is to handle all or almost all fish on the market it may eventually have to be the body which will make this decision.
There is a further clause in the bill dealing with the granting of licences for the carrying on of interprovincial trade and the export of fish. It is not clear whether the present system of export licences will be continued, with the province having the power to grant an export licence to anyone it sees fit, or whether the corporation will grant such licences. In the past many people involved in the marketing of fish products have been worried about this situation. They have felt that to a large extent the existing conditions did much to bring about the Mclvor report. Indeed, they feel that too many export licences are being given to people without adequate trading or marketing facilities. It is felt that such individuals or companies dealing in fish have tended to drive down the price, with the result that the market was depressed. It would seem that this activity would also have to be carried out by the corporation if any kind of rationalization at the interprovincial or international level is to be achieved.
There is another point of general concern in my riding. Will the board buy all species of fish that are procured by fishermen or will it set some sort of quotas? Some fishermen in some areas catch mostly coarse fish and very few good fish that can be sold, while others in other areas catch good, saleable fish most of the time. If the board is to acquire control over the marketing of fish and fish products, surely it will be required to take all saleable fish caught by fishermen subject, of course, to the quotas which must be imposed on the yields from lakes in order to make for good fish husbandry. Unless it is made clear that the board is required to buy all fish offered to it, it does not seem likely that the corporation could carry on a meaningful rationalization of the industry.

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
One area has not been spelled out in the legislation and probably it cannot be. I am referring to research into various types of fishing and fish products. We do not know whether the effects of the legislation will spill over and affect research into the production of worth-while species of fish and good fish husbandry. In any event, no doubt the board will have some interest in this matter and will investigate the possibilities with the appropriate provincial authorities.
There is also the matter of pooling to consider, which is of considerable interest to my area. As I mentioned before, some lakes yield mainly coarse types of fish while others yield mainly good quality fish. It is important for us to have good quality catches and to preserve fish during transportation for processing purposes. I want to know whether fishermen catching high-grade fish will be rewarded by higher prices than those paid to fishermen who do not care so much about the quality of their catches and produce lower grades of fish. This will be an important problem and I believe the board may have considerable difficulty with regard to it.
The matter of transportation must also be considered. Will fishermen residing close to centres of consumption have a transportation advantage over fishermen not residing close to such centres? We must also consider the subject of compensation for processors of fish whose facilities will become redundant. The legislation on this point is obscure. I understand that the provinces are to be involved in this matter, with the corporation reimbursing the provinces. Very likely a number of companies, by no means all of them large, will find that their fish sheds and warehouses have become redundant. Although the legislation on this point seems obscure, I take it the corporation will reimburse them in some way. In any event this ought to be looked into. If there is to be compensation I should like to see wording in the bill setting out who is responsible for determining compensation as well as what that compensation will be. Also we ought to set up some type of appeal board or appeal mechanism in case some people feel they have not been adequately compensated.
Finally, I point out that in 1964 the freshwater fishing industry brought a return to the fishermen engaged in it of approximately $12 million, which is considered to be between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of the total amount of money received for the fish caught by them in that year. Approximately 6,000 to 7,000 fishermen will come under this legislation. The price of fish is not rising and the

catches do not seem to be any greater. There is a big problem here in that a total income of $12 million for 7,000 people means that each fisherman receives less than $2,000 a season for his work, or less than the minimum wage. Further, the fisherman has to deduct from that amount his expenses, which are not unsubstantial. So it is obvious that this is an industry in which the participants are operating at a very low level.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The proposed corporation is a very expensive looking set-up and to my mind it is doubtful that it will be able to conduct its business in a businesslike manner and be self-sustaining, at least in the initial stages. I believe that an ARDA type program may have to be instituted for many of these fishermen under which they can be upgraded to obtain a higher income, and some may have to be assisted to go into other occupations.
I am most interested in this bill. Although it does not deal with a large segment of our population it is interesting in that it deals with a perishable food product, and the history of marketing boards for such products has not always been the best.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that this proposed legislation attempts to carry out the very lofty aims set out in clause 23 I would certainly go along with it. That clause says it will be the aim of the proposed corporation to improve the lot of fishermen by:
(a)	marketing fish in an orderly manner;
(b)	increasing returns to fishermen; and
(c)	promoting international markets for...fish.
These are indeed lofty ideals, I say to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), who is piloting this bill through the house, that if they are successful in carrying out these ideals I for one will certainly be prepared to sing their praises loud and long. Also, to the extent that the legislation proposes to improve the economic position of freshwater fishermen and gives recognition to the importance and value of marketing boards I am prepared to go along with it.
There is certainly need today for improved methods and practices in the marketing of fish and fish products. Through no fault of their own our fishermen have seen their cash incomes slump from year to year. For as long as I can remember fishermen in all parts of Canada have been at the mercy of fluctuating
January 16, 1969

prices so that from one year to another they can never be sure what their incomes will be. While the fishermen themselves have made a great deal of progress in solving their own problems, and while it must be admitted that they are a capable group, nevertheless I am firmly of the belief that they must have machinery to protect themselves. Every other class of producer has machinery whereby its interests can be protected and our fishermen must be afforded the same means of protection.
Not too many years ago we had markets for our fish in Europe, South America, the West Indies, Puerto Rico, Cuba and various other countries, but one by one these markets have been falling away. As we lost them our fishermen were placed in a more and more precarious position. More and more of them were forced out of employment and more and more of them were forced to leave the industry. Therefore, 1 am also in accord with the principle of a marketing board involved in this bill. I believe we should have a dominion marketing board under which we could control the marketing of fish of all kinds, not just freshwater fish. Nobody will deny there is need for improved methods and practices in the marketing of fish and fish products. This is a highly commendable objective, and anything which tends to further this end without depriving individuals-I stress this- of the rights, liberties and privileges which are so sacred to all of us will, I am sure, receive general endorsation.
The greatest factor working against the orderly marketing of fish and fish products in Canada is the surpluses we have from time to time. This also applies to farm products. In times of surpluses fish are literally dumped on the market, prices to the fishermen are depressed and, of course, the fishermen suffer. A properly constituted marketing board should be the means by which this situation can be corrected. I stress the fact that it must be a properly constituted board, but in my opinion the legislation before us fails in that respect. It fails because it does not guarantee that there will be even one qualified fisherman on the proposed board. I suggest that the producer should be given the fullest measure of control over his own product. He is the one who has the most at stake. But this legislation gives no indication that there will be even one qualified fisherman on the board proposed to be set up to help fishermen control the marketing of their products.
Fisheries
I say that the producers themselves should have a say on all marketing boards. I maintain that a board of this kind will never work successfully unless it has the full co-operation of the producers of the product to be controlled by it. The only way to make sure that the fishermen are behind the board is to make sure that they are adequately represented on it. I repeat that this legislation fails in that respect. The board should be the collective voice of the fishermen. It is proposed that it speak for the fishermen and protect their rights. Surely the fishermen should be given a guarantee that they will be represented on the board by people actively engaged in the fishing industry.
There is another feature of the legislation which I do not like. It smacks just a little too much of government control. My fear is that the legislation as presented could set up a bureaucracy which would undertake to regulate the production and marketing of fish. If we examine the bill we find that the Governor in Council is the body that will appoint the members of the board. I suggest that the freshwater fishermen's associations-I presume there are such in existence-should have some voice in determining who is going to be appointed to the board. As I have said, it is their business that is going to be controlled. I do not think it is fair to give the Governor in Council complete say as to who should be appointed to the board.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
From day to day we see the old policy of laissez-faire rapidly becoming a thing of the past. I suggest, however, that we must not allow the government to take over all our activities. Surely we should be able to retain some power. Surely the fishermen themselves should have some say with regard to the composition of this board. We on this side of the house suggest very seriously that this is an example of government control with a vengeance. Obviously this bill is intended to give a greater measure of control over the activities of our fishermen. I feel that unfortunately there is a very grave danger that this board may become government controlled. We must not become overburdened with paternalism and bureaucracy. Already the hand of the state is almost everywhere except perhaps in the bedrooms of the nation. The Prime Minister says it has not got there yet.
Although I agree in principle with this legislation, it would appear to be an unwarranted extension of governmental authority

January 16. 1969
Fisheries
and interference with the rights of the subject. I believe something must be done to protect not only the freshwater fishermen but all our fishermen against the vagaries of the market, and I suggest very seriously to the Minister without Portfolio that some consideration be given to amending the proposed legislation in such a way that the fishermen, those who are primarily interested in the matter, will be guaranteed representation on this board.


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of Bill C-148, to establish a freshwater fish marketing corporation. Such a corporation is long overdue. It is necessary and desirable for the benefit of the fishermen on our freshwater lakes. When we consider the fact that most of the fishing operations on the lakes are divided between frozen fish products and fresh fish products and when we realize the difference in price is some six or seven cents a pound it becomes evident that this places a heavy burden on the fisherman who is entitled to a higher return. Aircraft transportation has to a great extent been brought into play in relation to the fishing operations on the freshwater lakes. We find that these fishing operations are highly specialized. Fish are transported from the lakes by air in the form of fish meal, fillets and headless. The weight factor is very important.
It is almost mandatory that the fisherman should have a ready market for his product. In the past he has lost a great deal of his product by reason of not being able to sell it when he brought it to the market. This freshwater fish marketing corporation should resolve this problem and provide the fisherman with a better return for his product. The industry needs this type of control. In turn the fisherman will profit from the possibility that some of the by-products which are not considered to have much value because of air transportation costs will likely revert to the fisherman and produce additional income. The fisherman will be able to have centrally located filleting plants and will be able to nvail himself of proper freezer facilities in certain areas.
I wish to commend the minister for bringing this bill before the house because it will co-ordinate efforts and will further the ability of the fisherman to increase his income. He will be able to market his product through the corporation at a higher price. There will be an orderly control over the marketing of

fish from fresh waters, especially in western Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments to express some of the fears I have in connection with this board. While the operation of such a board may be desirable-at least in the early stages we hope this will be so-I have always had some reservations about marketing perishable products when there is a possibility that too much emphasis may be placed on storage facilities, transportation and marketing rather than on providing the primary producer with an adequate return for his efforts.
In Saskatchewan we have had some experience with such boards. Some producers at times have been satisfied with the situation but, on the other hand, such boards have tended to monopolize the market too much and at times the fisherman was not really aware whether he was obtaining the maximum benefit from the board. The Indians and Metis who are engaged in fishing tell me they often feel it is not the fisherman who benefits from such boards but rather the operators of air lines or other transportation companies that are involved because these companies ensure for themselves an adequate return while the fisherman receives the crumbs from the operation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is now obvious that the existing provincial boards will no longer function in a really competitive manner, and since the grant which will be available to this board will be only about $100,000 I am somewhat concerned that this will not be sufficient to establish the board, pay for its operating expenses and salaries, and at the same time compensate the operators of the filleting plants or storage facilities. It is obvious that the corporation must operate at a profit and use its profits to provide filleting plants, storage facilities and transportation. I suggest that in its early stage the corporation will concentrate on establishing these facilities. It will be interested in providing modem equipment. This will take a number of years to accomplish. As a result there will be a period of time when the fishermen will not receive the maximum benefits of this legislation. I would like to see some arrangement made whereby the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would provide increased grants from the consolidated revenue fund so that the industry could operate
January 16, 1969

on a sound basis. Under the present circumstances the primary producer will not be able to obtain the maximum benefits for many years.
It is my belief that even with this marketing board there will be fluctuations in price. What may be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the corporation is a price stabilization board. This could be of assistance to the industry. One must be very careful in establishing initial prices for this product, just as with wheat. The initial price very often is not as high as the realized price. Having established a certain initial price it should not be possible during the following year to reduce the price because of greater competition or the unavailability of markets. The primary producer must have some assurance in respect of price and markets. The establishment of a price stabilization board might help this corporation in its infancy when it is spending money for the acquisition of the necessary operating equipment.
I wonder what the effect of the establishment of this board will be in respect of existing fish marketing boards such as the one in Saskatchewan. I imagine there have been some discussions in this regard. Perhaps some facilities will have to be taken over from the Saskatchewan fish marketing board or operated in co-operation with this corporation. I hope adequate provisions have been made to compensate equitably the people who have an interest in these facilities.
We must always consider employment opportunities for those people who reside in the areas to be affected by this corporation. I suggest that rather than establishing a bureaucracy to be administered from somewhere in central Canada great emphasis should be placed on hiring native Indians and Metis who, because of their locale and nature, are well suited for employment in this industry. There are many Indian settlements around lakes on the prairies. These people will not take part in the fishing industry because they feel it is a waste of time. In order to succeed in such a venture one must spend a great deal of money. These people feel that the cost and the effort involved cannot be justified by the return. There is not adequate compensation for their efforts.
In view of the fact there will be no competition in this field I hope a real effort will be made to avoid placing emphasis on the purchase of facilities. If it is found necessary the government should extend the time limit in
Fisheries
respect of the acquisition of necessary facilities by the corporation or in co-operation with existing authorities. We should not be too quick to establish a bureaucracy. We should do everything possible to assure a greater return to the primary producers.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the proposal to establish this marketing board was presented by a minister who comes from a province where most elections have been fought on the basis of local reaction to crown corporations. I was pleased to see that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) was not unwilling to present such a bill. I was equally surprised to hear another hon. member say that he is in favour of marketing boards. This is a very conservative attitude, but someone should always express such opinions.
I do not come from an area which produces a great deal of marketable fish. Most of the fish caught there are game fish. In northern Ontario as in Manitoba the potential production of commercial fish is greater than what now exists.
The government in drafting this proposed legislation has stuck fairly closely to the recommendations of the Mclvor commission. The saltwater fisheries have reason to be concerned about the establishment of an inland freshwater fish marketing agency. The freshwater fishery in central Canada and central United States has not been a great threat to the production and distribution of saltwater fish.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I have for many years read with great interest the advertisements placed in farm papers in respect of frozen fish in bulk for shipment from the Winnipeg area to parts of Ontario and the prairies. I have noted that a great fluctuation has taken place in this regard. If we are to have a viable industry we must do something to stabilize the price of fish and perhaps develop a totally new type of industry.
I agree to some extent with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) that caution should be exercised in regard to heavy capital cost expenditures in the initial stage. We will have to develop in Canada a greater market for fish. When I first came to the house Winnipeg gold-eye was on the menu of the parliamentary restaurant at least once a week. I have not seen this fish for several years. I thought they were terrible fish to eat,

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
but I am sure they were a good advertisement for Winnipeg. It was a unique-looking fish which I had not seen before. In this way we were doing something to increase the sale of this type of fish.
We do not have live lobster on the menu of the parliamentary restaurant. I think the saltwater fishermen would be very much in favour of increasing the sale of lobster. I find the Department of Fisheries is becoming very cheap, from the point of view of members of parliament, because I remember that a few years ago about one-third of the members of this house were invited to visit the excellent kitchen of the Department of Fisheries. We started with the first course, which was of course fish. We then proceeded through the soup course and several other unknown courses. Then we had a choice of several kinds of fish and finished with a dessert made out of fish in their own laboratory. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has perhaps not been long enough in his portfolio to realize the value of advertising the developments that have been made in this industry. I am not sure how you can make custard out of fish. I am sure that most housewives, even those in the fishing areas, would not know how this is done, but I was informed that we were eating custard made out of fish. The minister should consider having his department provide assistance in advertising the value of processing in the kitchen many of the fish products that are available to us.
I am sure the minister will find that many agents who have been selling freshwater fish up to this time will not look upon this new board favourably. They have developed a great deal of competition and have had a very lucrative business. This measure will of course put some of them out of business. There will be an established quality and quantity of fish available and therefore stabilization of the price is almost inevitable. As happened with former cattle buyers, if there is a stabilization of price there will not be so many people in the business and the market will be developed on much more orderly lines.
The problem in the Northwest Territories has been handled by the former minister of northern affairs, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing). He did a great deal of work in the development of the char fishery program. This market was developed for the benefit of Indians and Eskimos and a very coarse and, I presume, almost mullet-type

fish was produced. The sale of this fish resulted in a very high return.
In my area we have a form of sturgeon in Lake Timiskaming. It is fished commercially and sent to the. New York market where it fetches a very good price. Occasionally the local fishermen steal a sturgeon from the commercial nets so they may try it out. They cannot get it any other way. They find it to be a terrible fish so far as eating is concerned, but it is very much sought after and fetches a high price in the gourmet markets.
Char was developed in this way. The minister will have to concern himself with this fish because I am sure we have only scratched the surface of the potential trade. We should be able to develop a market far larger than at present. I am sure the market is there to be found. As a more orderly price is obtained for fish I am sure we could consider many other areas that are not now considered to be commercial and will be able to make these products a commercial proposition.
I have for many years had a running battle with the department of lands and forests in Ontario with regard to the type of fish produced. The Americans I have observed fishing come to northern Ontario for wall-eye or pickerel, but the department of lands and forests has been spending millions of dollars on stocking lakes with trout. An American can go to a trout farm in the United States and for about $1 can buy a trout. If he pays $10 he is entitled to so many trout. Somebody puts them in the pond and he takes them out. We will have to decide whether it is worth while stocking our inland waters with fish. The minister will under this legislation have to consider restocking our inland waters. If a fish is worth $3 or $4 on the market and it costs us 50 cents to develop this industry, that is good business. It is an easy type of fish farming and one in which we should be involved.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr Knowles)-Public Service- superannuated federal employees-request
January 16, 1969

lor increased pension; the hon. member lor Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)-Finance-request that interest rates be studied by standing committee; the hon. member lor Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-Sports-exercise ol dralt by National Hockey League.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the consent of the house to revert to motions in order to move a motion with reference to the standing committee on external affairs and national defence. I believe this motion which was mentioned earlier today, might now be found acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis):
That the standing committee on external affairs and national defence be instructed, and hereby is instructed, to hear evidence on and to consider Canada's policy with reference to defence and external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 29, consideration in committee of Bill C-101, respecting London and Midland General Insurance Company-Mr. Lind-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: When the committee dealt with this matter on Tuesday, October 29, 1968, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 1-Change oj name.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been to committee and while in committee
Private Bills
the Avco Company, who are the principals of this company, had the opportunity to make a number of statements in reply to questions that have been asked for some time regarding the company under consideration. The questions really fall into three categories. First, is this company willing to make a concession to the general policy of Canada as it has been outlined in respect of other financial institutions, including the Mercantile Bank? Is the company willing to provide through legislation for changes in ownership and control over a period of time, taking into account the financial considerations which might evolve? Second, has this company legitimate proof to offer regarding the necessity for the change in name from one that has been used in Canada over a considerable period of time and in view of the participation of a large number of Canadians through the purchase of policies from that company? Third, is it the desire of the company, as indicated by the sponsor of the bill, to state that it is losing money by continuing to be known as the London and Midland General Insurance Company and that it wishes to be renamed so as to eliminate what appears to be confusion in the British market because of a bankruptcy which occurred in a company of a similar name in England?
I gather from reading the report of the committee-I did not have the opportunity to attend the meeting-that the officers of the company did not avail themselves of the opportunity to make statements on the three points which I have enumerated, nor did they really make any attempt to do so. In fact, with regard to the inherent right to establish Canadian ownership, all the statements made by this company were negative in terms of their relationship with the Avco Corporation and its multi-unit corporation in England and the United States. They indicated that the strength of the company was going to flow from its association with the Avco Corporation, and obviously they were not willing or even in a position to consider the right of Canadians eventually to own this corporation.
Second, they spoke about the desirability of a relationship between this company and the previous company, but they made no effort to indicate the profit of the London and Midland Company in relation to other companies. I am not in a position to do so either. I have information available which would provide a comparison, but there are many unknown factors which would make it an unfair comparison.

January 1G, 19G9
Private Bills
The London and Midland Insurance Company has no distinct advantages in the Canadian market which would distinguish it from other companies, but in the case where agents are involved each of them plays some role in the development of the company and in the sale of insurance underwritten by this company. Therefore it would seem to me that there would have to be identical salesmen, identical situations and identical circumstances before it could be decided whether or not the statement was true. However, the company did not make any attempt to indicate that such is the case. They made the flat statement that they had been hurt and they let it go at that. This can be proved because we have a record of it in the report of the Superintendent of Insurance. I have volume 2 of the annual statements of the fire and casualty insurance companies which lists, among others, the London and Midland General Insurance Company.
In looking at this company we find that it has not done badly and, in fact, in my opinion has done very well. For instance, the investments owned by the company have a book value of $7,292 million. I suggest that this company has not been hurt very much. If we go back and check their assets at the time of the bankruptcy of the other company with a similar name, we find that their assets have increased and so has the business they have done. I think that the person who represented the company was downright dishonest in implying that the bankruptcy in England has hurt the sales of the company in Canada. In looking over the record of this company, if they wish to compare themselves with another company of similar size selling in a similar market-all of them sell exactly the same insurance anyway; they use a model bill and therefore it is all underwritten in exactly the same way-it appears to me that they would be hard pressed to find justification for a change in name for that reason.
With regard to the financial position of this company it was very interesting to read certain portions of the report of the committee. Mr. Burton said the following:
Could I ask, Mr. Chairman-I could move the motion if necessary-to have this balance sheet printed as an appendix to the proceedings for this day?
That would have been very nice because it would have meant that we would have had an up to date balance sheet. I am using as a reference the 1966 balance sheet which is the last copy I have of the report of the Superintendent of Insurance. There may be a 1967

copy out now but it must have come in since I brought this volume to the house. What actually happened? The representative of the company said he would be very happy to provide the balance sheet and then a member of the committee said:
I say, Mr. Chairman, it is not germane to this discussion; it is irrelevant and out of order and, therefore, I would oppose merely on that ground.
He went on to say:
I am trying to establish here a line of conduct for this coming year.
He did not need to establish that because he has been running interference for these insurance companies for a long time.
I think that the proposed change in name of this company hinges on these three points, and it is my contention that they were not discussed. I believe that there probably could have been a straight answer to this problem had the company provided their balance sheet. I am sure that if they had done so they would have been prepared to compare it with the balance sheets of previous years and to give an indication in dollars and cents of the growth which they would expect their corporation to have over a given period of time, knowing the performance of other insurance companies of a similar nature and relating it to their gain and growth over that period.
They could have said then that they had experienced a loss as a result of the name of the company, and this would have gained some support from some of the members of the committee. This did not happen as a result of interference, but I understand that in the end the committee members were provided with a copy of the financial statement. Of course this is an indication of the fact that the representative of the company was prepared to make the information available but that certain members of the committee were not interested in having it. Because of the fact that the balance sheet was not attached as an appendix to the committee's report it is not now available to other hon. members who did not have the opportunity to attend the meeting of the committee.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The major problem we face in Canada today appears to arise from the ownership and control of many of these companies by corporations outside Canada through interlocking directorships and financial arrangements. This means that by virtue of a corporate decision changes may be brought about in 20 or 30 interrelated companies without
January 16, 1969

Canadians having any say whether those changes are in the national interest. In many cases this might not matter but I suggest that in the case of insurance companies it does matter. They are financial institutions. A great deal of the mortgage money which our people need must come from savings which are held in trust by insurance companies operating in this regard in the same way as banks and trust companies.
In the case we are considering today the total direct investment amounts to $7,292,000. That is a lot of money which could be invested in housing or in related fields. The company now under consideration is only one of a large number of similar companies, perhaps a thousand, doing business in Canada. So there are probably a billion dollars available from insurance companies for reinvestment.
We have on several occasions held conversations with representatives of insurance companies and similar companies in the course of which suggestions have been made. We are now suggesting to this company that it should give consideration to certain proposed changes. One of these changes is similar to the one brought about in the case of the Mercantile Bank where it was agreed that the bank should be given a period of time in which to put its business in order for a sale to take place, or else continue as it was doing for a further period of time at the end of which it was bound to cease business. In several cases companies have agreed that after a ten-year period dating from registration they would either be owned to the extent of 51 per cent by residents of Canada, persons normally of Canadian citizenship, or else that would give up their right to do business and would cease to exist. I presume their petitions are already on the order paper or will be there shortly. Some of the insurance companies have agreed to this procedure. When I talked to the heads of some of these insurance companies they said-and I was pleased to hear it

We, too, want our companies to be Canadian; we want our companies to be so Canadian eventually that we shall be able to make policy decisions free altogether from outside influence.
I asked an American who owns one of these companies why he wanted to establish business in Canada. He did not beat about the bush. He said quite frankly that the market in Canada was so lucrative that if the company were given ten years in which to establish itself it would be willing to get out to the extent of 51 per cent of its shares at the end
Private Bills
of that time. The value of the shares sold would represent everything he expected to get out of the operation and afterwards he would be content to let Canadians run the business. If this is true in the case of one of these companies I maintain it is true of others, and in these circumstances I suggest it is time for us to invite these petitioners to state plainly whether they wish to do business in Canada through a Canadian corporation or through a branch office.


Albert Béchard: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, we are
dealing now with Bill C-101. The explanatory note to the bill says that the sole purpose is to change the name of the company to Avco Insurance Company and, in French, L'Avco, Compagnie d'Assurance Generate.
If this were the sole purpose of the bill one might be disposed to view the petition with sympathy. Nevertheless, when one hears the name "Avco" one is perplexed as to its meaning. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the last time I spoke on the subject I expressed regret that we in Canada should be asked to agree to change a name like "London" with all its implications of parliamentary democracy, all its wealth of associations for people who have left it to come to Canada, for a name like "Avco". Take the other part of the present name of the company-"Midland". I understand this is the name of another region in England. I know that the sponsor of this bill is the hon. member for Middlesex. Middlesex is a county in England of great fame and name and I am surprised that the present hon. member would apparently agree to such a change in name as is proposed.
It was revealed to me that the name "Avco" is a short name for "Aviation companies". This was stated before the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs when the representative of this company appeared on October 10 and 22. When one thinks of aviation companies one thinks of the large companies in the United States. When one looks at the background of Avco and the type of activities in which it participates one is confronted by the general question of the degree of horizontal and vertical development which is taking place in the corporate world today.
For example, Mr. Paterno, one of the witnesses before the committee, was asked to give a breakdown of the areas of economic

January 16, 1969
Private Bills
affinity to which the Avco company was directing its investments. This is the answer he gave:
The type of industries that we are in would be aerospace, less than 1 per cent; agricultural equipment, 1 per cent; automation equipment, 2.4 per cent; automotive equipment, 3.4 per cent; banking and trust, 5.3 per cent; beverages, 1.4 per cent; building materials, roughly 1 per cent; chemicals, 1.36 per cent; construction, 1.25 per cent; electronics, 3 per cent; food, both distributors and things of that nature, 6 per cent; investment companies themselves, which would be trust companies and things of that nature, 10 per cent; merchandising, 13.4 per cent; metals and mining,
5.1 per cent; oil and gas, 8.5 per cent; pipe lines,
4.2 per cent; real estate, 6.78 per cent; recreation,
3.3	per cent; secondary manufacturing, 4 per cent; tobacco, 1 per cent; transportation, 1.4 per cent; utilities, 8.3 per cent, and miscellaneous, about
2.4	per cent.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
That gives a pretty good idea of the spread of the investment involved. These are the sort of industries that this particular company invests in, and the record is quite impressive both in regard to its horizontal as well as its vertical development in the corporate field.
I should like to put on record the different companies that form part of Avco. In the opening statement of Mr. Alexander the parliamentary agent, appear these words:
I would point out that Delta Acceptance Corporation Limited was incorporated as a public company under the laws of Ontario by letters patent dated March 26, 1954. In July, 1962, Delta Acceptance Corporation acquired the whole of the outstanding share capital of London and Midland General Insurance Company, a company which was incorporated by an act of parliament on July 17, 1947, under the name of the Progressive Insurance Company of Canada and which subsequently changed its name to London and Midland General Insurance Company by an act of parliament on April 12, 1957. Subsequently Delta Acceptance Corporation changed its name to Avco Delta Corporation Canada Limited.
In addition to the London and Midland General Insurance Company the following companies are subsidiaries of Avco Delta Corporation: Avco Delta Corporation Canada Limited; Avco C.F.C. Limited, which was formerly C.F.C. Finance Corporation Limited; Avco Delta Dominion Limited, which was formerly Delta Acceptance Canada Limited; Avco Delta Quebec Limited, which was formerly called D.A.C. (Quebec) Limited; Avco Finance Limited, which was formerly the Crescent Finance Corporation Limited; Avco Highland Plan Limited, which was formerly called Highland Trial Plan Limited; Avco Delta Realty Limited, which was formerly Grand Prairie Investments Limited; Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada; Avco

Delta Realty, Manitoba, Limited, which was formerly called The North West Mortgage and Finance Company Limited; Consolidated Finance Western Limited; Empire Acceptance Corporation Limited; General Finance Company Limited; Lorne-Bruce Motors Limited, and Waverly Finance Company Limited.
So not only is there an impressive number of subsidiaries of Avco but there is a very wide range of operation which is indicative of the corporate enterprises that are carried on today. This is why the hon. member for Timiskaming raised three preliminary questions in considering this very important bill. The one that I would underline is the question of foreign ownership.
My reason for so doing is the serious concern that was expressed by the "late" Walter Gordon. When I say "late", I mean late in the sense of his being an active member of the Liberal party. Hon. members will recall that Mr. Gordon set up the Watkins commission to make a study of the impact of foreign ownership in Canada. After completing the study Mr. Gordon presented the report to the House of Commons. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not necessarily commit the government to the recommendations contained in the report; in other words, he was left alone on the iceberg to withstand the prevailing winds that were blowing at that time.
It is remarkable that during the last week another book was published by a former minister, the former secretary of state, in which she said that Walter Gordon was one of the most progressive and intelligent members that had ever graced the front benches of the Liberal party, that he was a visionary with regard to economic and financial ideas.


Albert Béchard: Order. I think the last remarks of the hon. member have nothing to do with the bill under study.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing that to my attention; I was rather carried away. I have read excerpts from the book and the commendations of the "late" minister of finance were so impressive that they caught my attention.
If I may relate my remarks directly to the question of foreign ownership and more directly to Avco-as hon. members know the purpose of the bill is to change the name "London and Midland General Insurance Company" to "Avco General Insurance Company"-I was equally impressed by the speech made by the present Secretary of
January 16, 1969

Private Bills
State (Mr. Pelletier) on Tuesday, January 14, two days ago, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. On that occasion he addressed the members of the Compressed Gas Association. I happen to have been fortunate enough to glance through his speech, and the opening remarks of the minister have a serious bearing on this problem. This is the way that the present Secretary of State commenced his speech:
"Canada, I have long believed, is fighting a rearguard action against the inevitable. Living next to our nation, with a population ten times as large as theirs and a gross national product fourteen times as great, the Canadians recognize their need for United States capital; but at the same time they are determined to maintain their economic and political independence... The struggle is bound to be a difficult one-and I suspect, over the years, a losing one... Thus, while I can understand the motivating assumptions of the Canadian position, I cannot predict a long life expectancy for her present policies."
Thus wrote Mr. George W. Ball, in his book, "The Discipline of Power", published last year in New York. Mr. Ball, as you know, was Undersecretary of State under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The personal opinion he expresses regarding Canada's future seems to me to reflect the opinion of the American public.
Canada, 51st State of the Union? . .. Basically, this is not such a fantastic idea.
Thus today, I am speaking to you in English, a language common to you all, Canadians or Americans.
Those were the opening words of the Secretary of State in regard to the United States' attitude to Canada's financial, economic and political independence. He must have had good reason to use them because later in his speech he sets forth how the Canadian government set up the Watkins Commission to study foreign ownership in view of the concern so many Canadians had about it. At page 24 of his speech appears this passage:
You know better than anyone how much the American economy has affected that of Canada. The report of the Watkins Commission, which was set up to study the problem of foreign ownership in Canada in relation to the structure of industry, begins with these words:
"The extent of foreign control on Canadian industry is unique among the industrialized nations of the world. Canadians are aware of the economic benefits which have resulted from foreign investment. They are also concerned about the implications of the present level of foreign control for Canada's long-run prospects for national independence and economic growth."
Some experts hold a much more radical opinion; they believe that Canada has deliberately sacrificed the advantages which economic independence would eventually bring for the more immediate advantages of a high standard of living.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Then, he sets out some statistics, as follows:
-in 1965, more than 60 per cent of the Canadian gross national product resulted from foreign investments in Canada and about 75 per cent of these investments were American. Therefore, 45 per cent of the Canadian gross national product came directly from the United States-this through the agency of 6,000 industrial and commercial companies belonging to American interests or controlled by them. This represents about 14 billion dollars. In Canada, the United States owns:
-more than 60 per cent of the petroleum and natural gas industry;
-approximately 60 per cent of the mines and refineries;
-35 per cent of the pulp and paper industries;
-45 per cent of the factories;
-13 per cent of the public services;
-more than 50 per cent of the chemical, electrical and farm-implement industries-
We could continue this listing of statistics indefinitely, but statistics are sometimes misleading and always tiresome. Best we should stop here.
After reading this interesting and revealing speech by the present Secretary of State which shows the extent of penetration by foreign ownerships in Canada, and when we couple with that the present attitude of the government which does not want to stop foreign ownership of our assets but rather encourages it, one can well become alarmed at the prevailing attitude on the government side of the house today.
When Canada was born in 1867 it had humble beginnings. We started as an agricultural country and through the years have developed not only our agriculture but our industrial life as well. Progress has been made by dedicated Canadians prepared to give their time and talent to the development of our Canadian economy. This development took place steadily over the years. But after the first war, or for the last 40 years, there has been a steady penetration of our economy by our friends to the south. Their capital and their expertise have penetrated our economic life, as well as their more recent technique of developing in this country a branch plant economy. When one reads the long list of concerns the company we are presently considering has under its control one realizes that the extent of penetration is almost beyond the control of Canadians. If we lose financial control of our country we may well lose our political independence. That is why our present Secretary of State showed such concern about the attitude expressed by George Ball, the former secretary of state under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

January 16. 1969
Private Bills
As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, Canada ought to develop her own economy. The way to do that is by telling our friends to the south that we must participate in the development of this economy. We welcome their capital which, I am sure, has helped us over the years. But the type of capital coming in has changed. At the turn of the century capital coming in did not involve the foreign ownership of our assets. Now, equity capital is coming in, and with that our assets are coming under foreign domination. This fact is dramatically exemplified if one studies Avco Insurance Company. They have brought with them their capital and have demanded what is known as equity ownership, foreign ownership in this case. We, as Canadians, must be alert to this problem. The hon. member for Middlesex and other hon. members in his position ought to say, "As a representative of this company and as sponsor of this bill I am prepared to suggest to this company that Canadians must be permitted an equity in ownership as well as participation in company growth. Canadians should be permitted the opportunity of becoming directors of the company and making decisions."
Only in this way can we maintain our identity as Canadians and show men like George Ball, who think we are fighting a rear guard action and that it is only a matter of time before we become the fifty first state, that they are wrong. I am certain that if men like the hon. member for Middlesex, the sponsor of the bill-I am glad to see the hon. member for Hamilton is here-as well as cabinet ministers and their friends realize that this is the No. 1 issue in Canada, they will direct their minds, efforts and attentions to the creation of a country which will be developed by Canadians for Canadians.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, I believe the question now under study is far more important than it might seem to be, and that, for two reasons.
I believe it should be given precedence over all other questions under study. The London and Midland General Insurance Company-in French, la London et Midland Com-pagnie d'Assurance Generale-according to the statutes, changed its name in 1947 for that of the Progressive Insurance Company of Canada. In 1957, it changed its name again to become known as the Progressive and now it is to be called the AVCO General Insurance Company. I believe that although the company acquainted the committee to some extent with its portfolio, its directors and president

did not prove that they wanted to reveal their names.
As stated by the members who spoke before me, that is the members for Timiskaming and for Broadview (Messrs. Peters and Gilbert), AVCO is dished out all around: AVCO Finance, AVCO Aviation, AVCO this, AVCO that. If the London and Midland, which now calls itself AVCO General Insurance Company, really wants Canadians to hold a majority of its shares some day, it must continue to prove its seriousness with regard to its policy holders.
For instance, once the insured has paid his premium, the policy belongs to him and at some given time he may find out that the company is known as the London and Midland, La Progressive, and AVCO. He must certainly trust his insurance salesman and I think he must have great confidence in the general economy or in the seriousness of the legislation of our country which allowed the company, by granting it a federal or provincial charter, as the case may be, to do business in Canada.
Our concern today is the granting of a federal chart. I guess the policy holder can feel confident, but what about the little man, who owns such a policy? Indeed, we know that in most provinces today, especially if we consider the act granting compensation to the victims of accidents, it is important to know where one stand.
I need not mention here those companies which have already been granted federal charts in the last three, four or five years, nor incriminate them, but I daresay-that two of them as least-have gone bankrupt since.
I do not think that because the London and Midland went bankrupt in England is a good reason to change its name into the common name of Avco. I call it a common name because here in Canada the United States' Avco is a household word. I think the idea is rather to enjoy the monopoly of a name so that the publicity made by anyone of the companies may benefit the others. In my opinion, that would be extremely detrimental and would affect the confidence of the Canadian people with regard to investments in that company.
As far as we, the legislators, are concerned, we must be worthy of the confidence of our constituents. As stated by the hon. member for Broadview, that confidence should rise upward and spread from left to right.
I think we should be given conclusive evidence that the name of the company should
January 16, 1969

be changed. Since the representatives of the company have not proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that this change was essential, I think that it is not necessary at this stage to let that legislation go through.
As far as I am concerned, I do not support this bill and I do not agree with those who want to change the name of a company every three, four, five or six years.
Therefore, I believe that, on these grounds, we should act in a responsible manner and firmly oppose such a change in the name of that company, since the fact that the London and Midland went bankrupt in England cannot be considered as a valid argument. For my part, I believe that we should strongly object to the change in question.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-sorry-the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, if I may offer an amendment to your remarks the riding I am privileged to represent is Fraser Valley West, but I congratulate you on your second attempt in being at least in the right province. I realize as someone sitting here a long way from the Chair, it is sometimes very difficult for the Chair to see the various members. This is especially true if they happen to be sitting in the back row and have not come to the Chair's attention previously, at least not often enough to etch indelibly on the Chair's mind the particular ridings that they happen to represent.
Like the previous speakers, I am concerned about the things that are happening in our country. I say this with all the sincerity I can muster. I would like to identify myself with the remarks made most recently by the hon. member for Richmond and certainly by the hon. member for Broadview.
I was particularly impressed, also with the knowledge, and the strength of the convictions of the hon. member for Timiskaming. I was very impressed with the quality of his remarks and naturally, since he is a colleague of mine, I look to him for a certain amount of leadership in these matters.
What is happening here, Mr. Chairman, is really another example of the Americanization of our country. We spend sizeable sums of money on research satellites, the C.B.C., the Canada Council, and the National Film Board for purely social reasons. Over the past three
Private Bills
years we have spent millions of dollars on similar projects such as the World's Fair that was so successful in Montreal. We do all these things because we believe they have importance so far as our identification as Canadians is concerned, and our culture is at stake. We are willing to spend billions of dollars on public enterprises of one kind or another to preserve and enrich our culture, but on the other hand I feel that for a great number of years the policies we have followed have had the opposite effects.
The particular company with which this bill is concerned has a profoundly British name in terms of its traditions. Certainly, to most English speaking Canadians the name London and Midland Company is a good solid one, and one which I think should inspire a great deal more confidence than the amended name proposed, at least so far as the buying public is concerned.
People have tended to associate themselves, as clients, with a particular company. This was mentioned in part by the hon. member for Richmond. I believe their interest will be aroused as to what business reasons necessitated a change in the name of a company which has solid British traditions to one which perhaps has a more North American connotation. At least the London and Midland Company sounds like an insurance company whereas the Avco Company sounds like an airline company or perhaps a brand new deodorant.
I notice the reason given for the proposed change of name is to make it consistent with the names of various other members of the group of associated companies, but I am certain that the name is not really the important thing at all. What's in a name? Several finance companies in Canada have had severe financial problems in recent years, regardless of their names. For instance in my own province we have now before our courts a group of companies similar in nature to the kind of thing in which Avco and this group are engaged. Included in this British Columbia group we have various mutual funds, certainly finance companies, and perhaps trust companies of various kinds and complexions. This B.C. group is known in general as the Commonwealth group.
I agree that the failure of the Commonwealth group in B.C. has really nothing to do with this particular bill, but it is interesting to note that in spite of the solidity of its name it was called by the receiver a financial garbage can.

January 16, 1969
Private Bills
Failure on the part of a company does nothing to enhance the confidence of the public. Even the fact that this name "Commonwealth" was so prominent among this group really did nothing to save the company from failure. I believe what is happening here is that some members have recognized the inconsistency of my argument. However, I do not think that is the main point. We can see that by this sort of manipulation of names, capitalization and so on, as well as other little stunts such as intercompany transactions, these companies are doing nothing to improve the kind of situation I thought we were attempting to improve in this country. I thought we were attempting to build a very solid financial structure upon which to base the kind of expansionist policy in our economy that we so desperately need, especially when one considers the extreme nature of the employment situation today. Unemployment is not a problem only in my province. I am sure a number of other provinces are a great deal worse oft in this regard. In any event, there is a growing distrust among the public of our financial institutions generally. The reason behind this is not just the failure of various financial institutions but also results from the fact that there are numerous little manipulative arrangements which go on from time to time which people do not understand. Some of them are interesting, and it even takes years for the courts to understand them.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We are concerned with the type of arrangement of our finances that will have a beneficial effect on our economy. If we continue to play around with this kind of thing, and if members on each side of the house concern themselves mainly with passing a particular measure regardless of its long term consequences, I do not see how we can make any progress. In fact we are wasting money on these changes. In this country we are faced with galloping interest rates. The hon. member for Timiskaming stated that the field in which this company is engaged is an extremely lucrative one, although it may not be lucrative to everyone. However, if one happens to be in a position of command and has the necessary knowledge it can be lucrative for him. This is not so in all cases. It was not so in the case of my constituent who lost $10,000 or more in a recent transaction because of our failure as a government to guarantee the type of protection needed to guard against violation by a member of a 
financial institution of the principle of pro tecting the money of the investors.


Mr. Lind:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Mark Willson Rose: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I fail to connect the remarks of the hon. member concerning this loss of $10,000 with the change of name of this company. I understand that this company, the London and Midland General Insurance Company, is a respectable company which has never been in bankruptcy. I wonder how he connects the $10,000 his friend lost with this company.


Mark Willson Rose: I shall be glad to attempt to relate this for you. I was just giving this as an example of the kind of financial jungle which is operative in our country. My friend, or my constituent, happened to lose his money through an investment in a Canadian institution. This type of transaction not only involves him as a person but also shakes the confidence of people all over the country in the kind of arrangements we make for the protection of people who happen to make investments of this nature.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley West what the situation in respect of this particular gentleman who lost his money has to do with the change in the name of this insurance company.


Mark Willson Rose: I attempted to explain to you the connection. If I have been vague or if you have been unable to understand the answer I would be very pleased to ask if you made yourself quite clear. I am wondering whether there is any connection between you and this particular insurance company about which we are speaking.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: You did not ask that.


Mark Willson Rose: I am attempting to demonstrate to you that this kind of manipulation of names and shaky financial situations are some of the things which destroy the confidence-


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Mr. Chairman, I object to the hon. member using the words "shady financial manipulation". There is no shady financial manipulation.


Albert Béchard: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Yes.
January 16, 1969


Albert Béchard: The hon. member tor Middlesex on a point of order.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Mr. Chairman, I object to the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West when he implies there is shady business in respect of the change of a name merely from London and Midland General Insurance Company to Avco Insurance Company. This company has never been in bankruptcy. It has enjoyed doing business in the city of London. It is a respectable company which has been in operation for a number of years.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt) (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) for second reading and reference to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry of Bill C-148, to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the freshwater fish marketing corporation.
William Arnold Peters: Just before the adjournment hour, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that this bill will have very far reaching effects in the development of the fishing industry where fishing is not now of commercial importance. The government will find itself involved in a very large operation before long. I concur with the previous speaker who indicated that the government would be very wise to be cautions in respect of capital expenditures for the establishment of this corporation. Changes will take place in respect of fish production and processing. This board will have to concentrate on selling fish to Canadians, and Canadians are not notably fish-eating people. Canadians have never taken advantage of this natural resource.
I am proud of the work done by the Department of Fisheries on the methods of production, utilization of fish products and
Fisheries
the issuing of pamphlets regarding culinary arts in respect of fish. I hope this effort continues. As a result of the establishment of this Crown corporation the government will be in the position of guaranteeing grades, freshness and suitability of products. In this country we have been provided with an inferior product, with a resultant decrease in the use of fish and its desirability. The government will also have to engage in a sales program of this Canadian product to Canadians and to export markets. In this regard it will face problems in respect of the saltfish market. I suggest before long this measure will be amended to cover the saltfish industry in Canada.
If the government attains success in the marketing of freshwater fish it will very shortly hear a clamour from the saltwater fish industry to provide the same type of service. I am sure this proposal will be amended before long to include that industry.
In closing, I should like to refer to the Indian population and the role that it could play in this field. Many areas in Manitoba, Northern Saskatchewan and Northern Alberta have Indian populations now engaged in commercial fishing. As a result of the enactment of this measure and the increase in markets in North America for freshwater fish, the Indian population will treat this industry in a little different manner.
The native population in Northern Ontario has never engaged to any great extent in commercial fishing. In many cases they do not have the knowledge or the equipment to fish commercially. In northwestern Ontario fishing could, and probably would, be a source of income for those who participate on a commercial basis.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) will have to take some interest in this measure. Success in this regard will require that hon. minister's co-operation because we could capitalize on the commercial production of fish as a source of income to the native population. There will have to be an influx of capital in these areas to provide a satisfactory economical development in this field.
This measure reminds me of the legislation in respect of feeds and grain. That measure had a great deal of merit and even more support. In my opinion it was very worthwhile, but it was not carefully considered. When this bill is referred to the committee I hope hon. members will consider the changes it will bring about in commercial fishing in those areas not now considered as economical

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
fishing areas. It will be absolutely necessary to conduct a study as to how to ensure a steady flow of fish products to the markets.
In the future we will have to find steady markets and ways to reduce the spread between the cost to the consumer and the sale price to the producer. We must at the same time maintain fish products of high quality, both in respect of production and type. The solution to these problems will require the attention of those people who are best equipped in this field. These questions will task the ingenuity of the minister and his officials.
Those hon. members who represent saltwater fishing areas will probably be able to advise members of this committee. However, I hope they will not demand an expansion of the crown corporation at this time but will co-operate in seeing that it becomes a success. It is my belief that if we can succeed in the limited and controlled markets that we have in Chicago, Toronto and the hinterland of the North American continent we will also be able to apply the same type of marketing legislation to much broader areas.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I therefore hope the minister has in mind some very good people for the operation and development of this board. I congratulate the minister for the attention he has paid to the report of the Mclvor commission which made the recommendations that in the main appear to form the basis of the legislation and the powers of the board.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to study this bill, a couple of questions come to mind in connection with it. Bill C-148 will, of course, result in the setting up of a corporation for the marketing of freshwater fish. I am in favour of the general principle of the bill. I am very much in favour of the ideals which are set out in the bill, but there are some questions I would like to raise in connection with it and two or three observations I would like to make with regard to this subject.
First of all, as my friend and colleague, the hon. member from the province of Prince Edward Island said this afternoon, if a marketing board can achieve the ideals set out in this bill we will certainly not be reluctant to give praise where praise is due. The aims of the proposed legislation should result in a very much better situation in respect of the marketing of fish and should work to the

benefit of the fishermen in various parts of Canada.
However, there are some observations I would like to make in connection with the proposed legislation having in mind the fishermen who will be affected by the provisions of the bill. First, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the legislation was not drafted in a much broader way. I am required, of course, to speak only to the terms of the bill. There are other aspects of the Canadian fisheries which should perhaps be considered, but I will confine my remarks to bill C-148. There is in the bill one phrase that has stuck in my mind. It is one that has been in my mind since I entered this house last September. Since that time I have listened to several ministers talking about our fisheries, specifically the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), of course, and his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I have always been fascinated by one concept which seems to be popular in Canada. I refer to the statement made on page 7 of Bill C-148, in Clause 15 (1), as follows:
The corporation shall conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis without appropriations therefor by parliament.
This phrase has received a great deal of attention from the ministers I have mentioned. Not too long ago our Minister of Fisheries while in Boston observed that the Canadian fishing industry must pay its way. This remark gave to the American people the impression that the fishermen of Canada are the recipients of a great deal of welfare and have to depend upon government hand-outs in order to survive. I do not feel comfortable about this statement because I am one who has a great deal of respect for our fishermen. I think this remark has painted the fisherman of Canada as being a person receiving from the government half of the money he needs in order to live. I am sure the minister did not intend to convey that impression, but it was the impression we received after reading what he said.
Several weeks ago the Minister of Fisheries admitted to the committee that a guarantee had been given to the government of the United States that certain assistance which was being rendered to the Canadian fishing industry would not continue. An agreement was made between the Canadian government and the United States government that the government of Canada would not continue to assist the fisheries in certain ways because it might appear to the United States government that the Canadian fishing industry was being
January 16, 1969

heavily subsidized. Consequently, this would be sort of a black eye to American fishing interests.
I am wondering whether there is more to the phrase "self-sustaining" than one would imagine. I have a feeling there is a great deal more behind this phrase than meets the eye. This is the reason I am a little concerned about it. Any fisherman in this country must wonder whether this phrase is used because of Canadian policy with regard to our fisheries or to comply with American policy. This question must be in the minds of many Canadian fishermen. I would like an answer from the Minister of Fisheries, his parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is responsible for the proposed legislation. What is the purpose of this statement?
We can of course see that there is a clause in the bill that will allow the corporation, when set up, to borrow $5 million. If one thinks in terms of the corporation surviving, one would say there is no danger of a great burden being placed on the fisherman because, under the provisions of this bill, the corporation may borrow up to $5 million from the banks or the government.
However, Mr. Speaker, will there not be situations under which the government will have to guarantee that it will assist any aspect of the Canadian fishing industry in the event of an emergency? For example, in the 1940's, and later by a revision to the act in the early 1950's, the fisheries prices support board was set up. The purpose of the board was to assist any aspect of the Canadian fishing industry which at that time was lagging behind or was not in a good, viable position. Anybody involved in Canada's fishing industry, any member of parliament whose constituency is concerned with the fishing industry, can think back and recall a number of ways in which the prices support board has come to the assistance of our fishing industry.
On the one hand we have the prices support board which guarantees that under certain emergencies, given certain world marketing conditions, competitive conditions, and so on, it will assist in keeping alive any aspect of the industry until it can stand on its own feet. Of course, every fisherman, merchant and person involved in the industry wants this assistance to be available. Now, we have a proposed pice of legislation which seems to contradict that principle completely and says that in no circumstances will the government
Fisheries
take any action to assist the industry after the corporation is set up, because the corporation must be a completely self-sustaining entity.
There is no guarantee of any kind of government assistance under any circumstances, no matter how badly assistance may be needed. This strikes me as peculiar and I am wondering whether it is a case of the Canadian government setting high standards for this corporation. This is, of course, a very good thing because every fisherman and person involved in the industry wants the board to be effective. If this is the purpose of the legislation, well and good. We are saying to the corporation: Under certain terms of reference and responsibilities we want you, the corporate body, to stand on your own feet and conduct your own affairs. We want you to assume this responsibility and be a selfsustaining, viable entity. This is fine; this is a great ideal and is the sort of expectation any government should have in respect of a crown corporation.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
But if the purpose of this objective is just to satisfy persons in other countries who have particular interests in fisheries and are not willing to state their own policy on their fisheries, then I am not in favour of it. In other words, I have a feeling that the Government of Canada is actually stating what is called a Canadian policy but it is actually only a reflection of some one else's policy.
There are several points on which I should like to elaborate. For example, I am wondering what interest a fisherman would have to pay on loans which he might receive from the corporation. According to the proposed legislation, the corporation will be given authority to make loans to any fisherman or to any person involved in the fishing operation. Likewise, of course, the government will be given authority to make loans of up to $5 million available to the corporation, but there is absolutely no mention anywhere of the interest which is to be paid on these loans.
I am sure the government is not asking the fishermen or the corporation to go on a blind date. I do not think that any minister of the crown, apart perhaps from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), would enjoy this kind of activity, so why should we ask the fishermen of Canada to get involved in this kind of affair? So, I am asking the minister, in response to my inquiry, to make some reference to the interest rates which would be charged. Certainly, we are not going to charge any

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
fisherman who is going to borrow from the corporation an interest rate of nine or ten per cent or even higher, because those are the interest rates being paid today in Canada.
I have indicated, for example, that there is no mention here of any government assistance in an emergency situation. Also, there is no mention of fishermen. Having read this proposed legislation, I wonder if it is designed to set up a corporation or if it is designed to assist fishermen. There is an important difference. I have a feeling, for example, that the only important thing in this bill is the corporation, and that is just another way of providing a few jobs for a number of people who are not already earning $25,000 or $30,000 a year. This is the sort of thing with which I am not too happy.
As the hon. member from Prince Edward Island said today, there is no mention here of the actual fishermen involved. There is no advisory body to help the board to gain a knowledge of the industry, and thus aid in the decisions of this corporate body. There seems to be no indication of guaranteed prices and no guarantee that the fishermen will receive a return from their labour investment which is the procurement of fish. I see no indication here that the fishermen are the focal point of interest, and that is all I am concerned with. I do not give a darn about the corporation. The corporation is only a means to an end which is to benefit fishermen, and we are in favour of this. However, I see little evidence in this proposed legislation of interest in the man who is the prime reason for the existence of the corporation, namely the fisherman.
My last observation is about the confusion which seems to exist regarding jurisdiction over the Canadian fishing industry. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries will be happy to hear what I have to say on that subject, or at least my feelings on it. Early in the last session on a number of occasions I and a number of members of the house, even some members of the Liberal party, asked questions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the marketing of fish. On a number of occasions the minister made eyes at the Minister of Fisheries regarding the latter's position, and although he might have had a keen interest in the marketing of fish he did not seem to know too much about it, at least I did not receive much response. Several times the minister indicated he would answer my questions tomorrow but as yet I have not received any answers from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce

regarding government action to stimulate the fishing trade in North America. Now, we have this bill before the house. Originally, I thought it would be presented to the house by the Minister of Fisheries, but then I found it was to be proposed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I am wondering now whose responsibility the marketing of fisheries products is. On inquiring I found that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is responsible for marketing fish outside Canada and the Minister of Fisheries is responsible for the marketing of them within Canada. There is ample evidence in the bill that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is responsible for the marketing of fish outside Canada as well as for interprovincial marketing. There seems to me to be a measure of confusion here. I would like to see the ministers responsible put their heads together and specify exactly who has the jurisdiction over the Canadian fishing industry. I would like to see the Minister of Fisheries have this responsibility, which I do not think he would shirk. We are talking about the same product and we are talking about it in Canada. This is not an export problem but rather an inter-provincial or an intra-Canadian problem. Consequently, I do not see any reason for the confusion which is evident here.
It is obvious that the Minister of Fisheries has a keen interest in this matter since he has been the only minister present in the house today since debate on the bill commenced. So, I would like to see the minister responsible give some consideration to this matter and seek to eliminate the confusion.
I could go on for quite some time making specific observations about a number of other sections of bill C-148 but I think other hon. members commented on most of the points to which I would have made reference. I would certainly like a reaction later on the viability of the Canadian fishing industry.


John Stratford Burton: As a member from western Canada and as a member from Saskatchewan I welcome the legislation that is now before the house. As a member from western Canada, I welcome it because I think it extends some hope to those people and to those communities having a vital stake in the future of the fishing industry. In western Canada there are many communities and many fishermen who have found themselves at the mercy of a small number of people who have controlled the buying of the fish
January 16, 1969

they had to sell. A large portion of the fish caught in western Canada has been exported to the United States, and a great deal of that has gone to the Chicago market. As is well known by some people, there has been a difficult marketing situation there, one which in fact has resulted in a very low level of returns to the fishermen of Saskatchewan and western Canada for many years.
I also welcome this legislation as a member from western Canada because I know of the great similarity which exists between the proposed corporation and the structure and operations of the Canadian Wheat Board which has served western Canada so well over the past number of years. This is not too surprising in view of the fact that this bill arose in large part out of the work of the Mclvor commission and, as is well known, a man by the name of Mclvor had a great deal to do with the Wheat Board in past years. I think that this lays a good foundation for a possible solution to the problems that have been faced by fishermen in western Canada.
As a member from Saskatchewan I also welcome this legislation because in fact it represents an extension of efforts that have been carried on in our province for some years. As was referred to by some hon. members previously, it is now some 20 odd years, or about 24 years, since an attempt was first made at orderly marketing of fish products in that province.
The first attempt took the form of a fish marketing board, later succeeded by a fish marketing service, which some ten years ago was converted into a co-operative fish marketing service. These agencies performed a very useful function in bringing a good deal of stability to the communities and people who are involved in the fishing industry. However, at the same time it has to be recognized that the work and the objectives of such an agency operating only within one province were very limited. This agency could not do the things that might have been possible if the scope of operations had been extended on a wider scale.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Thus it is a welcome development, this proposal to set up machinery which will be able to operate across a large part of Canada. I would certainly be in favour of the suggestion, put forward by other speakers today, that it might even be desirable to extend the scope of the arrangements still further at some time in the future.
Fisheries
This program, as has already been pointed out, could be of great assistance to people of Indian ancestry who are involved in the fishing industry. It could do a great deal to improve the economic position of communities in which large numbers are of Indian descent.
As hon. members realize, this bill arises in large measure out of the work of the Mclvor commission and the recommendations which it placed before the government. There is no need to refer at this moment to all the recommendations which were made, but there are certain points to which I should like to draw the minister's attention.
One of the recommendations was that the board accept delivery of freshwater fish only from the fishermen. My reading of the bill leads me to believe that this will in fact be the case. I think it is of considerable importance that the board should deal only with those who are actually doing the fishing. I mention this aspect because it is possible in this industry, as in so many others, that there could be invasion by outside commercial interests which have no particular concern for the welfare of the industry itself other than the protection of their investment and profits. I should like to feel confident that in the future this agency will be used to serve the people who are actually fishing on the lakes and streams and that it will not be used for the benefit of some commercial interest which simply happens to employ a large number of people.
A further recommendation of the commission was that the board should determine and make a final payment to the fishermen after all the fish have been sold. This is a system which is obviously patterned upon the arrangement followed by the Canadian Wheat Board. I am not altogether clear about the situation from my reading of the legislation, particularly clause 24, but I should like to be assured that the payments will be made directly to the fishermen and that no intermediate agency will be able to get its hands on money which belongs to the fishermen by right.
The commission also recommended that the Canadian government make a formal approach to the government of the United States in an effort to agree on a method of inspection of white fish which would be mutually satisfactory. I understand this would probably involve a considerable amount of negotiation and difficulty due to some of the parasite infections which have affected some

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
of our fish in the past. I should like to hear from the minister whether such negotiations have in fact been commenced.
Another recommendation was that a cooperative educational effort be made by all levels of government to acquaint the fishermen with the operations of the board. I support this recommendation and think it is important that such efforts be made by the government and by the new board. I think I can say from my own background in Saskatchewan, and as a supporter of the political party which first introduced orderly marketing in the fishing industry, that one of the things learned from experience was the necessity of doing more educational work to inform those affected of the benefits of the action which is being taken.
The commission further recommended that research pertaining to freshwater fish and freshwater fish products be continued and expanded where desirable. In my view such expansion is necessary; reference is made in the report again to some of the infections which have affected the quality of our fish.
Finally, a recommendation was made that the opening and closing of fishing seasons on lakes be determined collectively by the governments concerned in order to facilitate the coordination of supply and demand. I note from the minister's introductory remarks that the decision has been made, apparently, to leave these decisions in the hands of the provinces. I can understand that acceptance of the recommendation would have involved negotiation with the provinces. The government may have decided to try to achieve the desired results through voluntary co-operation rather than through any attempt at direction from the federal level. Nevertheless, I am concerned about this point because by the very nature of the wording of the recommendation the commission showed concern about the co-ordination of supply and demand in this context. I believe further consideration should be given to this aspect and I would appreciate hearing the minister's comments on it.
I conclude by repeating that we welcome this legislation. It will not automatically solve the problems which face the fishing industry. There is room for further extension and expansion of the activities of the corporation once it has gained some experience in its operations. I certainly hope that its work will be to the benefit of the people of Canada.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Needless to say, I support this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Davis: I support any legislation which, in addition to helping to stabilize the fishing industry will also, in the years to come, help to increase the incomes of fishermen.
In the case of fishermen on the prairies and in the northwest territories, we need one particular device. Essentially, it is a device for single desk selling on the United States market. This will enable us to improve the condition of the industry and provide a better return to the fishermen themselves. In other words, this bill and the corporation which will be set up as a result of it, will put us in a stronger bargaining position in the United States; it will enable us to streamline the process of the manufacture and transportation of fish products and will provide a better return to fishermen and a more certain price for their products.
I am not convinced that this device is the only one which can be used. It is certainly not one which we should use in all parts of Canada. Reference has been made to the fact that this particular legislation, for the time being at least, will cover northwestern Ontario, the prairies, the northwest territories and the Yukon. It does not cover all Ontario. It does not cover the fishing on Lake Erie, for example, where in the last few years the catch of perch has been growing rapidly. It has been growing under the impetus of private enterprise, and it is proving very successful, because of the selling initiatives including the use of wholesale and retail channels in the United States, the use of well known brand names, and so on.
e (8:40 p.m.)
Our supply of fish, on and off, has been in a surplus position, but looking ahead some years I think the supply will fall behind market demand. I think the time will come when fish will increasingly be in short supply rather in surplus supply. In other words, the long term prospects are good, but we have to get through an intermediate period, which may run for five or ten years and use various devices to improve our bargaining position.
The market price in the United States of late has remained roughly constant or has increased slightly; it certainly has not fallen. At the same time, and in marked contrast to this the return to the fishermen of Canada- this is particularly true of our salt water
January 16. 1969

fisheries-has actually gone down. Usually the trade has been able to maintain prices to the fishermen, but the processors and distributors, caught in the middle, are in difficulties. This is the case today in Newfoundland. It has also been true as well of our freshwater fisheries.
It is true that we must improve our efficiency. We can do this in respect to catching methods, processing, the collection of fish, refrigeration to preserve quality and distribution. The corporation proposed in this bill will do that. It will be doing it, I expect, in a more efficient manner than the slipshod, relatively primitive, and unorganized way which has characterized most of our freshwater fish operations. There have been efficient operators and there are a few first class companies but, by and large, it is still an industry in a relatively early stage of development. By moving in with a single agency which will look after collecting, processing, interprovincial and international trade, we are doing what was done years ago with respect to wheat. We are enabling the fishermen-in the former case it was the wheat farmers-to get a better break, and over a period of time to make their product one that is highly desirable and will attract premium prices.
Through this single desk operation we will be able to do several things. Not only will we be able to bargain more effectively in the markets of all of North America, but we will also insist upon quality products, provide refrigeration and other plant necessary to preserve fish and maintain quality, as well as avoid duplication by streamlining facilities and arranging for higher load factors in plants, thus making the maximum use of our transportation system. Certainly, in this way the fisherman will enjoy the greater certainty of knowing what the floor price will be for the coming season. At the end of the season, if the corporation has been able to market fish at a higher price, the fisherman will get a supplementary payment. In other words, he will be receiving an income that he can predict with some certainty, and with greater accuracy than he could before, and will receive an income with which he can plan and invest.
This corporation will also be assisting the fisherman to finance his operations. It will grubstake him, in loose terminology, and assist him by paying for such things as fuel, his nets and so on. As I undertand it, the corporation will not be helping him to buy a new boat or to make an even more substantial investment in new plant and other
Fisheries
fixtures. I hope that our own improved Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the legislation respecting the fishermen's indemnity plan, which covers the risk of losses and so on, can be used for this purpose by the fishermen. I also notice that perhaps the department of northern affairs will be able to assist our native people, the Metis and others, in the financing of boats and so on; but basically I expect that the same improved capital assistance and insurance programs which are available right across the nation will be used in this case as well.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) raised several points which I think are quite relevant. He referred to a speech that I had made in Boston about the fishing industry standing on its own feet. I hope that it will stand on its own feet and I am sure that he looks forward to the time when it can and will stand on its own feet.
Certain industries in this country are doing quite well at the moment, though we have others that are in some difficulty. It is the role of the government often to help industries adjust to new and changed circumstances, but I should like to see industries given adjustment assistance rather than perpetual assistance. The hon. member comes from an area where part of the fishing industry, at least, does need adjustment assistance. It needs assistance not on an ad hoc basis, a sort of band-aid, temporary basis implemented in the late spring of the year and terminated in the late fall of the same year; it needs a five, 10 or 15 year program. This is what industries like the salt fish industry on the east coast require.
It occurs to me that perhaps this particular industry also needs a salt fish marketing corporation similar to the freshwater fish marketing corporation. But such a body would have to be tailored to the particular circumstances, geared to improving the incomes of our fishermen, helping stabilize their industry, giving them a base from which they can plan ahead and helping rationalize and streamline the processing, sales and transportation phases of the industry so that returns from the market are greater.
Another big problem, one that is not totally confined to Canada, is getting a larger share of the retail price for goods sold outside the country. There are various ways of achieving this. Perhaps in one case it is achieved through the establishment of a crown corporation. Undoubtedly it is achieved through well organized, competent co-operatives and

January 16, 1969
Fisheries
corporations whose operations are integrated right across the United States, doing whatever further processing is required and selling their own brand name products from one coast of the country to the other. With this sort of arrangement we would get our fair share of the retail price that is paid by housewives in the United States and Canada, and as a result our fishing industry would be much healthier.
In turn, our industry would be able to lend itself to more predictable operations, attract more money, buy better plant and equipment, and as a result we would all be better off.
There is a division of labour, naturally, between departments. For example, the Department of Fisheries administers the Fisheries Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and so on. Basically, the Department of Fisheries looks toward the fishermen and the fish processing industry of this country.
The department of trade and commerce, which is now the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is responsible for international trade, particularly for the promotion and development of expandings markets and the securing of a fair share of markets abroad. Since interprovincial trade is also trade, I would say that, to some extent at least, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has an important responsibility there as well.
The legislation setting up the freshwater fish marketing corporation is joint legislation with the provinces. The provinces are taking an inward look and will be responsible for the redevelopment of plants, the acquiring of property within the provinces, and so on. So that in some measure, the provinces will be doing what the federal Department of Fisheries may do in other areas. As I have said, fisheries department also has an involvement. Certainly the fisheries department is involved through its inspection service, and the federal Fish Inspection Act provisions will have to be adhered to so far as the processing and marketing of fish products are concerned. In addition, the provisions of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act will apply, as will the fishermen's indemnity plan. So, this is a co-operative enterprise, as many such enterprises are.
I am pleased to endorse the motion of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), speaking on behalf of the department of trade and commerce, in regard to this bill, which I think is a worthy one and I hope will receive speedy passage through the committee on

fisheries and forestry of the House of Commons.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention whatever of participating in this debate. This afternoon when I heard the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) say that this legislation applied to northwestern Ontario I thought his inexperience had probably caused him to make that remark. Tonight, after hearing the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) say this bill only applies to northern Ontario, I am completely perplexed. Clause 25(1) of the bill says:
In this section, "province . .means . . . Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or the Northwest Territories.


William Arnold Peters: That is because they have no name for northern Ontario.


Mr. Rynard:: Not north of Aurora, anyway.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Maybe we have two jurisdictions here, although I am completely unaware of that fact. I should like to know why the fishermen of Lake Erie are precluded from this plan? I notice that the main catch, yellow perch, from that particular body of water is covered by the legislation. Although the fishermen I am referring to may be in better shape financially than some of the other fishermen that have been referred to by other hon. members in the debate this afternoon, they are not all that well off. The fishermen of Lake Erie want to know why they cannot be included in a marketing scheme, if it is good. For the last several years they have co-operated extremely well with the federal government in a quota system, and that cost the government plenty of money. Unfortunately, the money did not seem to filter down to the point where it could help the individual fisherman. Now, the fishermen from the north shore of Lake Erie want to know the how-come and why of the present situation. Are they not included because there is only one big market or only one big processor? They want to know what steps they should take to be included.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the house that if the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) speaks now he will close debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate in a general way. I was
January 16, 1969

delighted that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) could come into the house for a few minutes to participate. I was surprised that he had the temerity in those few minutes to comment upon the attendance of a number of ministers who attended while he was not here. Also, he did not seem to know what was in the bill since he did not seem to know that the prime object of the bill, to be found in part in clause 23, is to increase returns to fishermen. That is the whole object of the bill, of the establishment of the corporation and of the introduction of regulations into this part of the industry.
I was also interested this afternoon to hear one of my compatriots from Saskatchewan, a socialist. I must say I would ordinarily not use that word, having thought that hon. members in that corner of the house, generally speaking, had abandoned the term. Since the hon. member styled himself as a socialist, I take the opportunity to describe him that way.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thompson) made the very wise observation that the success of a board of this sort, which is a crown agency, will on many occasions depend on the kind of minister who is behind it. I was a little surprised to hear that.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to be petty because I am sure the Minister without Portfolio did not intend to mislead the house. However, I have been in the house for the entire debate. I was here until five o'clock this afternoon. The hon. gentleman indicated I had not been present throughout the debate and I am sure he did not mean to say that. He has completely misrepresented the true situation. This is a minor point but it is the kind of misrepresentation of a situation that ought to be clarified immediately.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to accept the statement of the hon. member opposite. I did not misrepresent the fact that he did not seem to know what was in the bill. I concluded, naturally, that he would have known if he had been here during the debate.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley congratulated me on several aspects of the bill and suggested that it represented some kind of conversion to the socialist cause. He does not seem to appreciate that there is a fairly fundamental distinction in the ways in which socialists and Liberals over the years have come to enact measures of this kind.
Fisheries
The distinction lies in the nature of the men in charge of efforts like this. The socialists tend to take over ventures that are going and efficient concerns, nationalize them because that seems to be their prime objective, and run them into the ground. The Liberals use such weapons, as well as many other weapons, in order to do something for an industry or area where there is real need for improvement, as there is in this particular case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Aiken Lang: There
were several comments this afternoon and this evening about the area involved and the scope of the bill before us. The bill mentions certain specific areas that are involved. Some hon. members who know about the intentions of the participating provinces have referred to a portion of Ontario as being involved. It is, of course, largely a matter of negotiation; it is for the provinces themselves to opt in or out, in total or in part, of the provisions of the bill. Hon. members opposite, therefore who were critical of some of the aspects of the bill should look elsewhere for the responsibility in this regard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To people like Mr. Robarts.


Otto Emil Lang: Hon.
members have also said that certain provinces are not mentioned at all in the bill. The cause of that has a similar root. This corporation developed from the involvement of the provinces in the conference of dominion and provincial fisheries ministers. This corporation is to cover a particular area of the fishery.
It is noteworthy, however, that the area of the fishery covered does include by far the greatest part of the specific species of fish which are enumerated in the schedule. The proportion of fish in any area coming within the scope of the bill, compared with the total produced in that area, varies from 90 to 100 per cent because of the variety of species enumerated in the schedule. So, in fact, the corporation will be in a position to deal with the great bulk of the fish which are caught.
There were some questions about the operation of the corporation with regard to buying and selling. It is clearly the intention of the bill to make it the duty of the corporation to enter into direct relationships with the fishermen or their agents to buy fish.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The expectation is that the fisherman will be paid as close to market value as possible

January 16. 1969
Fisheries
for his catch. Indeed,, the initial price will be as close to market value as possible, but there will still be reflected variations for kinds of fish, qualities of fish, and the average of areas in regard to the proper price of fish.
The sales of fish within an area, generally speaking under this legislation and the complementary provincial legislation, will lie entirely with the corporation. However, it will be possible and it is expected that certain direct local sales by fishermen, which will not affect the general quality or market control, will be allowed. Thus, sales to mink ranchers, to local smokehouses and local customers, may indeed be permitted. The general approach is to give the corporation significant power to deal with the various exigencies which may face it. The expectation, as I stated before, is that the corporation will make great use of private industry in all those areas where existing facilities are at hand.
There is expected to be some problem of redundancy where at the moment there is improper equipment, inefficient operation, or unnecessary duplication and the like. This question of redundancy is basically a provincial responsibility and the bill envisages the bearing of that responsibility by the participating provincial regions.
The suggestion by one hon. member was that there be some reimbursement by the corporation to the provinces for this redundancy, and of course this is not envisaged at all. The redundancy costs will be borne by the provinces, and this is part of the understanding between the government and the provincial authorities which was arrived at prior to the introduction of the bill in this house.
It is expected that the advisory council will be an important factor in the work of this corporation, and that a significant voice for fishermen themselves will be found in the advisory council.
The corporation is, of course, basically intended to be a business operation. It is not intended to be involved in other regular governmental or non-governmental activities with regard to many other facets of the fishery. The corporation is not intended to take over governmental efforts with regard to research, improvement of lake standards and the like. It is not intended to replace governmental programs with regard to education or retraining, or indeed programs specifically designed to make it possible for Indians to participate in an occupation such as fishing.
These, then, are the objectives behind this bill and I am sure the establishment of the

corporation will be a tremendous help to the fishing industry of the regions concerned.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the minister allow a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I wonder if the minister would care to reply to the question that I posed to him?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He did. You should have been here.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hear somebody saying I should have been in the house. I have not been out of the house. If the minister answered, then I am afraid my hearing is getting pretty bad.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble with the presence and the absence of hon. members opposite but I am sure the hon. member will find the answer to the question in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Lang, seconded by Mr. Macdonald moves-


John Stratford Burton: Will the minister permit another question before he resumes his seat?


Otto Emil Lang: Certainly.


John Stratford Burton: With regard to the minister's comment that all dealings would be with fishermen or their agents, as I understood it, I would like to ask what is the situation with respect to Indian fishermen who are members of bands on Indian reservations? Will they be able to deal directly with this corporation or will they deal with it through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the observation I made was that the fish would be purchased by the corporation directly or through its agents. I did not intend to convey the impression that the corporation would be dealing with the fishermen's agents but rather that the fishermen would be dealing with the corporation's agents.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Lang, seconded by Mr. Macdonald-
January 16, 1969	COMMONS


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question before the minister resumes his seat. During the course of my remarks I posed a question with regard to the sale of saltwater fish in the areas concerned. I asked the minister to advise the house whether it would be necessary for the shippers of saltwater fish to deal with the corporation, in view of the course contemplated in Part III, clause 21, which prohibits the buying and selling of fish without the corporation's approval? Will the saltwater fishing industry be required to sell its catch in the four provinces and one territory concerned through the corporation, or will it be allowed to deal directly with the wholesalers and chain stores as it has been doing to date?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Fish,
other than fish enumerated in the schedule, is not affected in any way by the operation of Part III because Part III in clause 20 defines "fish" as fish enumerated in the schedule. As a result, saltwater fish are in no way affected by that part.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Lang (Saskatoon-Hum-boldt), seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) moves the second reading and reference to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry of Bill C-148 to regulate interprovincial-


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to remind hon. members that when the minister spoke he closed the debate and that we are not in committee of the whole. However, if the minister will allow the hon. member to ask a question I will allow the debate to continue.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. My question will not be antagonistic nor will it provoke debate. I simply want to re-ask in much briefer form, the question asked by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon). Would the minister advise the house why Lake Erie was not included?


Daniel Aiken Lang: The question of which portion of any province, or whether any province at all, is included is a matter for the decision of the provincial authorities.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Ask Mr. Rob arts.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in which I feel the whole house will be interested. Can I
DEBATES	4401
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act ask in all seriousness why the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) did not sponsor this
legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry.

[Stage Direction]
extension of authority to grant

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 17, 1968, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Kon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I had concluded my remarks when this bill was previously before the house.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 1968, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner) moved the second reading of Bill C-190 to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act. He explained that the purpose of the bill was to permit the importation of drugs from outside Canada, which would have the effect of reducing drug prices in Canada which he said were among the highest in the world.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
He said this, as recorded at page 6623 of Hansard:
The government now has a program which it calculates will bring about a reduction in the price of drugs to the consumer.
The former minister explained the program in three steps. First, the removal of the sales tax from drugs and reduction of the customs duty from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. Second, the removal of the barriers to imported drugs provided under the Patent and Trade Marks Act, and, third, provision of information to the medical profession relating to drug prices.
The effect of this bill is to allow the commissioner of patents to grant licences permitting the importation of prescription drugs on a more flexible basis than that which applies
4402	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act at present. Where there is a delay in the granting by the commissioner of the required licence over a period of six months, provision is made for the granting of an interim licence under a patent relating to medicine.
The minister indicated the following on December 15, 1967, as recorded at page 5467 of Haiisard. He said the objective was to-
-allow compulsory licences to import prescription drugs, having the effect of injecting more competition at the manufacturers' level in the drug industry, and beneficially affecting the prices of drugs.
Anything which can be done to bring about a reduction in the price of prescription drugs will win the approval of the public at large and this party. At the same time there must be no weakening of the protective standards expected by Canadians and to which Canadians are entitled.
As a result of this legislation, we are likely to witness the importation into Canada, under interim licences in many cases, of a whole range of pharmaceutical products bearing brand names identical or similar to those of Canadian or United States products which have undergone testing and inspection at the government level.
What assurance will Canadians have that these products bearing similar identification to Canadian or United States products have passed the same tests as products produced in this country? The question of safety in the use of drugs is a vital one. There have been instances in the past which indicate that in spite of all possible precautions, dangerous consequences can arise unless drugs meet the most rigorous conditions with regard to manufacturing standards. A case in point is the thalidomide problem of a few years ago.
The Commons special committee on drug costs and prices recommended that applicants for importation of drugs under compulsory licences satisfy the Food and Drug Directorate that in the manufacture of their product they had met the minimum requirements consistent with public health standards. Surely, this is a minimum requirement that Canadians have a right to expect. It is the government's responsibility to see that Canadians are granted adequate protection. Canadian drug manufacturers have operated on a high level of efficiency, safety and reliability for many years.
The Department of National Health and Welfare, through the food and drug division, is in close and constant touch with those who manufacture drugs in this country and in the

DEBATES	January 16, 1969
United States. The same situation does not exist in the case of imported material originating we know not where. There will be no assurance that controls are in existence in every case or even of the nature or extent of such controls as there may be.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Nonsense.


Paul Yewchuk: With new drugs coming on the market every day, with each new discovery bringing a rush of imitators, once you open the door to unrestricted and unregulated
importation from unknown sources, the government's inspection and testing facilities will be strained to the limit.
Canadians, when they buy drugs, are entitled to know they will not be risking harm or injury. We cannot be too careful in dealing with considerations of human health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Yewchuk: We must not break down safeguards laboriously erected over the years. In summary, my position is this: We will support any measure having as its objective the reduction of drug prices. I remain unconvinced at this moment-and I do not think the minister has made a strong case-that this measure will in fact accomplish this purpose. On the other hand, while we are prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt with regard to the price question, we are not prepared nor should Canadians be asked, to give the benefit of the doubt as to safety and inspection procedures. Canadians will have to have greater assurance than has been given so far by the minister that this bill will not result in a lowering of pharmaceutical standards and in the importation into this country of products which do not measure up to Canadian standards.
I am a little confused about whether the hon. member who is interjecting is supporting or rejecting what I have said. On the one hand, he appears to be supporting me and on the other hand says "nonsense". I do not know whether or not he knows the difference.
In view of the thalidomide problem of a few years ago, for example, it would seem obvious that if we were to allow importation of drugs under a wide open patent provision there would have to be a stringent tightening up of inspection and testing procedures. We should like to hear something from the minister on that score.
I am confident that every member of the medical profession, while supporting a measure to reduce drug prices at the same time
January 16, 1969
will require assurance from the government that there will not be a lowering of standards and that every possible precaution will be taken with regard to inspection and testing procedures.


Mr. Basford:: You have that assurance.


Paul Yewchuk: Thank you very much. So far, the accent has been on the question of price. We have had very little information about the procedures which the government will have to take to expand and strengthen inspection facilities in order to give the assurance to medical practitioners and consumers that safety and performance standards will not be lowered.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, before beginning to discuss the position of our party with regard to this bill, I believe I ought to say a few words about the speech we have just heard from the hon. member speaking for the official opposition. If that speech was not written by representatives of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, it very w7ell could have been. Those members of this house who were on the committee which sat over a period of more than two years looking into the question of drug prices and drug safety-a committee which heard representations from doctors, pharmacists, representatives of the pharmaceutical manufacturers and of the food and drug administration-will know that the department found as many infractions of the standards by the large, well known companies, as they found by those companies which sell what are commonly referred to as generic drugs. So, the suggestion which is implicit in the hon. member's speech that if we restrict the use of generic drugs and leave the field open to the other companies the public will not have to worry about safety is nonsense. This was proven during the long hearings which the committee held.


Paul Yewchuk: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member is accusing me of saying I want to restrict the sale of generic drugs. I did not make that statement.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the hon. member said. I know that if members read Hansard tomorrow they will see that the whole tenor of what the hon. member was saying, namely that we have to worry about safety-
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act


Paul Yewchuk: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel I should reiterate that I support any measure which will reduce drug prices, but not at the cost of high standards in respect of drugs.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. Under the rule the hon. member may have an opportunity to take part in the debate again if he thinks he has been misquoted or misrepresented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I suggest the hon. member for Winnipeg North might be allowed to continue his speech at this time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you ruled that that was not really a point of order because I suppose I could rise on a point of order to say if the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
e (9:20 p.m.)


David Orlikow: I did not realize it is out of order to comment on statements made in this house by an hon. member. Certainly if the hon. member implies that he and his party are worried about the safety of drugs and they are the only ones worried in this regard, then obviously the rest of us are not worried. I reject that idea.
Let me say something about this bill. We in this party find ourselves in a somewhat strange position. We are going to support this bill and vote for it even though we do not believe-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: I see that the hon. member for Burnaby-where is it? What is his name? When I see him supporting me, I begin to think I am saying something wrong because I do not often agree with him. We are going to support this bill because it is a step in the right direction. I think I will be able to easily demonstrate that this bill, as well as the other measures the government has taken and proposes to take, will do very little to reduce the onerous price of prescription drugs which the Canadian public must pay.
This is a subject about which there can be little argument. The price Canadians have to pay for prescription drugs is much too high. Exorbitant and unconscionable prices are being charged by drug manufacturers in Canada and other countries. We have had a

January 16. 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act whole series of careful and detailed studies conducted in this and other countries. In this country we have had studies conducted by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, by the Ontario government committee on drugs and by the royal commission on health services which was appointed by the former Conservative government. As I listened to Conservative members speaking about the various aspects of this matter with which that commission dealt, I came to the conclusion they were sorry they ever appointed Mr. Justice Hall to conduct that inquiry. We have also had a study by a special committee of the house on drug costs and prices on which I and other members of the house served. All of these bodies came to the same conclusion; that the price of prescription drugs is too high and the drug companies are making too much money. I have had the opportunity of looking at some recent examples of the fact that these drug companies have not mended their ways but still gouge the public as they have always done. Smith, Kline and French, one of the respectable companies, makes a drug called stelazine. I suppose the hon. member who spoke before me would commend this company. This is one of the important tranquilizers on the market today. It is made by a United States company at a cost of $1.32 per thousand tablets, and sold to Canadian consumers in 50 tablet lots at a price which brings the drug company $125 per thousand. I leave it to members of the official opposition to calculate the margin of profit. "
Thorazine, another drug sells in Paris at $1.08 for 100 tablets, in Rome for $2.40, in Mexico for $4.80 and in the United States for $6.06. You could add 15 per cent to the U.S. price to get the price of this drug in Canada.
Another one of these international companies is Schering, which manufactures meti-corten. One hundred tablets in the United States sell for $17.90 and in Berne, Switzerland, where the parent company has its offices, for $4.37. In Rome, they sell for $12.20 and in Canada for $22.70, almost five times the cost in Berne, Switzerland. This is the kind of thing which goes on.
In late 1967 a group of New York city drug companies were prosecuted by the United States government for illegally combining to set the price for tetracycline, one of the most important antibiotics prescribed by doctors. The cost of manufacturing 250 milligram capsules was $1.52 per hundred. They were sold
[Mr. Orlikow.l
by those five companies in the United States, which either made them or had a cross-price arrangement with the company that produced this tetracycline, at $30.60 per hundred.
It is some years since I worked in a drug store but I am certain that the minimum price which a patient would pay for a drug which cost $30.60 cents per hundred would be $45. The patient would pay $45 for a drug used to save lives which cost the manufacturing company $1.52 to produce. This is the kind of thing that is happening. Those companies were prosecuted and were found guilty. This kind of thing takes place and has led to the numerous inquiries we have held. I am sure it is the feeling of all the members of this house that we must do something drastic in order to bring down the price of prescription drugs in this country.
The committee of this house found that the high cost of drugs resulted from the high rate of profit obtained by the manufacturing companies in this and other countries. The evidence of this is on the records of the proceedings of that committee. That committee found that the drug companies in this country were spending about $5,000 per doctor per year for advertising. They do not call it advertising, they call it the cost of detail men. What is the job of a detail man?
A detail man goes to the doctor and convinces him that he should use Chloromycetin instead of aureomycin, even though they do the same thing. About $5,000 per doctor per year is spent by drug companies on this kind of advertising. It is not very difficult to figure out who pays that expense. It is not paid by the drug companies, it is paid by the customer or the patient. The cost of detailing or advertising is added to the cost of selling the prescription to the patient. About 30 cents of every dollar the drug companies in Canada spend is spent on selling the product to the doctor, not to the customer.
We will never obtain proper drug prices until the government of Canada amends the Income Tax Act and puts a ceiling on the amount of money drug companies can legitimately claim as advertising expense.


An hon. Member:: Why stop at the drug companies?


David Orlikow: It is necessary that we start somewhere. We have looked into other fields. We have considered newspapers and magazines. We have to start with drug companies
January 16. 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
because of their importance. I am sure the people of Halifax would agree with me in this regard in spite of what the hon. member for Dartmouth seems to think.
We have been told, of course, that if we pass this kind of legislation we will stifle scientific research and that the drug companies will not be able to spend as much money-on research. The evidence we received at the hearings of the committee was to the effect that the drug companies have never spent very much money on research. We were told that Canadian drug companies have been spending 2\ cents of every prescription dollar on research at the same time they have been spending 11J cents on promotion and advertising. So, again, we ought not to worry about the drug companies in this respect.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The government proposes to take a number of steps, of which this bill if passed will be one, to try and bring down the price of prescription drugs. What are the steps the government has taken or proposes to take? There was the removal in September, 1967, of the 12 per cent sales tax on prescription drugs. There is no question that this led to a reduction in the price of prescription drugs, but the reduction was far below the 12 per cent sales tax which applied to prescription drugs. As a matter of fact, statistics of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics some time after the 12 per cent sales tax was removed indicated that only half of the tax decrease was passed on to the consumer in the form of lower drug prices.
I am told and I am certain-if anybody questions what I am about to say I can at a later date bring the evidence to prove it-that the price of a very substantial percentage, if not all, of prescription drugs has risen since that tax was taken off. Therefore drug prices are nearly, if not entirely, back to what they were before the 12 per cent tax was taken off.
Second, the Department of Industry established the pharmaceutical industry development assistance program which was supposed to provide loans at commercial interest rates to firms in the industry, mainly the small, generic drug producers, to improve their competitive position by mergers and thus rationalize production. The amount budgeted for this program was $2 million. This, together with the financial terms under which the money was available, really made a mockery
out of any attempt to help the small company. Therefore, this program did not work.
Then, it was proposed unanimously I think by the committee chaired by Dr. Harley, who was then the member for Halton, that if we were to get the price of prescription drugs down, if we were to get generic drugs used more extensively, we could not expect, and this is probably the only thing that the previous speaker suggested with which I agree, doctors to use generic drugs instead of brand name drugs produced by the large companies unless they could be certain that the generic drug was as good as the brand name drug. You cannot expect a doctor to prescribe a generic drug, meprobamate, if he does not know that meprobamate is as good as equanil. How can he know this?
There are two things that have to be done, and the committee made it very clear that they have to be done. First, the food and drugs organization must have the facilities, staff and equipment, by arrangement with university medical colleges, to carry out sufficient testing so they can be certain that the drugs used are adequate. With regard to the question of safety, I do not think any prescription drug should be sold in Canada if it is not safe, whether it be cheap or expensive. I think poor people who have to go to hospital and dispensaries in out-patients' departments where they use generic durgs are just as entitled to high quality drugs as the rest of us who go to neighbourhood pharmacies. We ought not to sell any drugs which are not safe.
The way to make sure that drugs are safe, and the committee made this very clear, is to give the food and drugs administration the ability to test drugs. We are caught in a financial squeeze. We have to be careful; we have had to cut the budget, and therefore the food and drugs administration is not getting the money which the committee said it needed.
The second thing that is necessary, and without this second step all the other steps will be useless, is this; Unless the doctors of Canada know that the generic drugs available in Canada are safe, they will not use them. I do not blame them for this; I think they are right. I believe a doctor should be concerned about the financial ability of his patient to buy the drugs which he prescribes. I believe most doctors are concerned about that. But the first concern of the doctor is, and should
January 16, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act be, that the drug he prescribes is of high quality.
How is the doctor to know that there is available a generic drug? He will not know it from the detail men, I know the detail men will not only not tell him about the generic drug but will do everything possible to convince the doctor that the generic drugs are not safe; that they are of poor quality; that they have not been properly standardized and all the rest of the horror tales that the medical profession has heard for years. The detail men who work for a particular company are like any other salesmen. They are like the Ford salesman who tells the prospective car buyer that Ford is the best car, or the Chrysler salesman who tells the same prospective buyer that Chrysler is the best car. This is what detail men do. This is their job, and I do not blame them for it.


An hon. Member:: They are hucksters.


David Orlikow: They are hucksters, exactly. How can the doctor know there is available a meprobamate or an antibiotic of high quality which is cheap? He can only know it if the department, which does not represent a particular company in the industry, has an information service. I do not mean the kind of information service that we are becoming accustomed to in this house, where every minister has his own P.R. man who is trying to convince the Canadian people that the minister is the best the department has ever had. I mean an information service that will distribute factual information to the doctors of this country.
What has happened? Again we are caught in this cost squeeze and do not have the money. When are these information bulletins going to be published? How will they be distributed? We do not know, because the poor minister is being told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that he had better go slow because the government just does not have the money. I say, as I have said from the time the committee was first established, that the expenditure by the government of Canada of a relatively small amount of money would save tens of millions of dollars for the Canadian people. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the house will understand that the proposals the government has implemented, those they are proposing today and those they still have to propose, are really not going to do very much to solve this problem.
I now want to speak very briefly about what we think ought to be done if we are to


bring down the cost of prescription drugs. The details will be dealt with by some of my colleagues who will be speaking later in the debate. In my opinion, these specific proposals should be followed. Most of them have been proposed by others, by the people who worked for the Kefauver committee and people like Mr. Douglas Fullerton who is well known and cannot be radical about all things because he has had some pretty important appointments from the Liberal governments.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
He went into this question pretty extensively and has made some specific proposals. I want to indicate some of the things which we think should be done if we are really serious about bringing the price of prescription drugs down for the Canadian consumers. First of all, we think that brand names for all new drugs should be abandoned and that new drugs should be used and sold through the use of the generic name. If there is one thing which we must keep in mind, it is that the doctor is the key to the prescriptions which are used. The patient has no choice. After the doctor sees the patient, he writes the prescriptions, and if he uses a brand name the druggist has no choice. The druggist must fill it in that way and the patient pays the increased price which can be two, three or ten times more. So, we think the government should bring in legislation prohibiting the use of brand names for new drugs.
Second, we believe that the provisions of the corporation income tax applying to manufacturers, importers and distributors should be amended so that a maximum of ten per cent of total sales should be the allowable deductible expense for advertising and sales promotion. This would immediately reduce the cost of prescription drugs by 20 cents in every dollar. These are the figures which we have from the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves.
Third, we believe that drug advertising should be extensively scrutinized and legislation introduced to control drug advertising. Not a month goes by in which one does not read a report that in Canada, in the United States or in Great Britain a government authority charged with the responsibility of policing advertising in the field of drugs has issued an order to a drug company to cease using advertising which is misleading. The largest and most important drug companies have been involved in this kind of game.
January 16, 1969

Next we believe that a standard cost report for all new drugs having sales of over $500,000 a year should be filed with the department. This should include anticipated sales, proposed profit margins and proposed selling prices. Evidence before the Kefauver committee made it very clear that when some of the large companies develop a new drug, such as Parke Davis' Chloromycetin or aureomycin, they were able in the first year or two to make net profits of between 40 and 60 per cent. Why was that? Because they were able to get the jump on everyone else. This was done at the expense of the consumers, and we think it ought to be stopped now.
As I said before, we believe that there should be an intensive doctor education program established regarding prescription drugs, prices, safety, quality and generic names. This can only be done by the government giving the food and drug administration the financial ability and the staff to do that kind of job.
There is one last point I wish to make. We believe that if we really want to bring down the price of prescription drugs, the Government of Canada should establish a crown corporation which would manufacture and distribute a limited number of important and basic prescription drugs. I want the house to be very clear on what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting public ownership of the drug industry, nor do I suggest the nationalization of the drug industry. We are not interested in taking over the drug companies. What we are interested in is that we establish a crown corporation which will probably make not more than a dozen or 15 important prescription drugs, a few antibiotics, a few tranquillizers and a few drugs in other fields. What we want is a crown corporation which will act as a yardstick. After all, if we had a crown corporation producing prescription drugs, there could be no question on the part of doctors, hospitals or consumers that the drugs are of high quality.
If the government follows our proposal, the corporation would operate as close to cost as possible. It would not be interested in making a profit, and the doctor would have a choice. He could use one of the brand name tranquillizers, one of the brand name antibiotics or else a product in the same field produced by the crown corporation. Since the doctor would know that here was a drug of high quality he could afford, on behalf of the patient, to look at the relative cost. If the 29180-279

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act government had that kind of crown corporation, I am certain that the drug companies would do what they do in every other country, namely meet the competition. They would bring their prices down to meet the prices set by the crown corporation. That kind of corporation, which I think would not cost a great deal of money to set up, would save millions of dollars a year to the people of Canada. This is a program which we think would meet the needs and requirements of the Canadian people. It would bring down the price of prescription drugs and it would ensure safety. That is what the Canadian people need.
When I began I said that we were going to vote for this bill. We are going to vote for it because, as I said tonight and on other occasions, it is a small step in the right direction. But when you look at all the steps which this government proposes, I think the Canadian people will find that when they are implemented the government will not really have accomplished very much by way of reducing the price of prescription drugs.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Ralliement Creditiste have a few brief remarks to make on Bill C-102 entitled: "An Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act". That legislation is the repetition of a bill introduced during the last parliament and put off indefinitely because of the elections.
The bill now under consideration will amend the Patent Act in order first to allow the Patent Commissioner to grant licences to manufacture medicines in any form.
This would allow for a broader and better sampling of drugs, and would give the possibility of making discoveries such as are made in other countries while providing a better service for the Canadian consumer.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has two different aspects. It allows a more thorough sampling of drugs, a greater number and a wider variety of drugs. On the other hand, it might slow down domestic trade as imported products will take the place of Canadian products.
In that respect, the Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada claimed that imports now make up nearly 10 per cent of the sales in Canada which, between you and me, is not exorbitant.
In his speech of October 17 last, the minister stated that this figure of 10 per cent was
4408	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act not likely to increase in view of the particular nature of the industry and of its integration into the international network.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather be inclined to think that the Drug Manufacturers Association is justified to fear a massive and free inflow of foreign products on the Canadian market. In that respect we support the bill in principle but we fear the ill effects of a too heavy inflow of imported products which would saturate our market.
If we compare, for instance, what happens in the drug industry with what has happened, and is still going on, in the footwear industry in Canada, we notice that the adoption of this bill will increase Canadian reliance upon foreign products and will kill

I did say "kill" Canadian initiative.
Mr. Speaker, we would be surprised to know how many Canadian shoe manufacturers have had to close shop because of massive imports or because the import market was poorly supervised by the federal government. We fear that the same phenomenon might recur-perhaps not within two, three, four, five or ten years-but over the long run and, then, we will face the problem which now confronts the footwear industry. I believe that this section of the act carries a hidden danger with regard to the import market. We must in fact watch our imports and not be content to talk only.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The control provided in the bill on imports of new products appears to me inadequate. The protection afforded Canadian products and manufacturers also leaves much to be desired. However, this represents an improvement on what was being done up to now, since we are facing a major problem due to the prohibitive cost of drugs. This was the main point on which I wanted to comment.
By the way, I greatly appreciated the remarks of the previous speaker, a member of the New Democratic party, who said that drugs must be within the means of anyone, whether rich or poor.
When one considers that some pills cost $4.12 and retail at $105, one can rightly wonder what is going on. When one sees a spread of from 194 to 491 per cent in tenders for the purchase of drugs, one has a right to ask questions. When hospitals pay $1.95 for 100 
DEBATES	January 18, 1989
capsules of prednisone, a cortisone-base chemical for the treatment of arthritis, as compared to $17 paid by the druggist, one understands why the user has to pay more for those drugs.
Mr. Speaker, because of the high cost of drugs and their prohibitive retail price, for the Canadian consumer, this government not only repealed the sales tax, but also enacted another legislation to reduce the cost of drugs.
However, the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) revealed not so long ago-and I shall give the reference-that an unofficial survey indicated that the saving which resulted from the removal of the sale tax had reached only the wholesale and retail dealers without yet having benefitted the consumer. In other words, the Canadian government has taken steps for which he has to be commended, as they promote better competition. Indeed, it is very well known that the drug industry operates entirely on a monopolistic basis, because of the patent system. The government tabled some bills aimed at improving the situation; however those steps seem to favour the doctors, the druggists and the wholesale dealers, rather than the poor, the housewife or the head of a family who is disabled or has a diabetic condition.
At this stage, I would like to mention the case of one of my constituents, and I am sure that it happens in all ridings. This man is the father of eight children, he is an invalid, a diabetic and he had a stroke recently. After a stay in the hospital he went home, and he now receives a social welfare allowance of $85 through patronage. But since he must pay $50 a month for his medicine how can he make ends meet? It is absolutely impossible! Thus, considering those facts, the federal government has taken certain measures; it helped those who had money and not the needy.
Besides, the former Minister of Finance himself admits it because since he does not know whether the legislation has been effective or not, he uses his $1.25 words, and I quote:
It is difficult for us to say definitely-


Mr. Speaker:: 

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house understanding order No. 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 14, as reported in Hansard at page 4245, I put a question to the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I realize that the rules of the house permit parliamentary secretaries to answer on behalf of ministers at this time of night, but on this occasion I do regret that the President of the Treasury Board is not here to deal with this matter. This was my question:
In view of the fact that the government has acted upon a recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada with respect to the salaries of deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, when will it act on the recommendation of the very same committee for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants?
I draw attention to the reply made by the President of the Treasury Board. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I think the first step to which the hon. member has just referred was attributed rather more to the recommendations of an outside committee known as the Clyne committee.
There is one more sentence in the reply, in which the minister said, with regard to the matter of substance, that it was still under consideration.
I want to register a very strong objection to the way in which the President of the Treasury Board tried to turn aside my question. My statement stands that the special joint committee on the public service of Canada made the two recommendations to which I referred. In its sixth report, tabled on February 3, 1967-I am looking at page 1274 of the Journals for that session-the committee expressed concern about the position of public servants who would be excepted from bargaining units, and recommended that within six months the government do something about the position of those public servants who were outside collective bargaining units.
The Clyne committee to which the President of the Treasury Board referred on Tuesday was set up in response to that 29180-2791
DEBATES	4409
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion recommendation, and this was done in six months. This was exactly the point of my question, that our recommendation that something be done about deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers had been met. The Clyne committee was established, and that committee made recommendations that there be certain rather large increases in salaries. The government has now said that it approved the recommendations of the Clyne committee. But the self same committee which made the recommendation in its sixth report on February 3, 1967, that led to the appointing of the Clyne committee, recommended in its ninth report on May 8, 1967, that there be immediate action to increase the pensions of retired civil servants.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The whole point of the question that I asked on Tuesday still stands unanswered by the government. Here was a committee of parliament that made two clear cut recommendations; one that something be done about a certain group of people whose salaries are not low but who nevertheless are outside the ambit of collective bargaining, the other that something be done for a very large group of people who are in a very difficult position. Yet this government still seems to think it is perfectly all right to do something for those who need it the least and to ignore those who need help the most.
I do not object to the proposal that there be adjustments to and increases in the salaries of deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and others in executive and professional positions, but I do say that this kind of discrimination is an affront to our retired civil servants and to the whole system of parliamentary committees.
We made those two recommendations in good faith. As I say, one concerned people some of whom are in the higher income brackets of the public service; the other concerned people who are in dire need because their pensions are not equal to the needs of the present day. I say that for the government to act on one of the recommendations, and to act within the six months requested, but to ignore the other recommendation for nearly two years is scandalous.
So, the premise of my question still stands. I repeat it tonight: Since the government has acted on the one recommendation that was made by the special joint committee, when is it going to act on the other one and increase the pensions of retired civil servants?
4410	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening at the request of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) to respond to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I regret that there is nothing I can add to the response of the President of the Treasury Board when he attempted to deal with the hon. member's question on January 14. At that time he said that this matter remains under consideration by the government.
However, I can say, as I have said before on similar occasions, that concern over the question of increased pensions for retired civil servants has been expressed by members on all sides of this house; it is not limited to one particular corner of the house. Therefore, I am going to make a point of drawing the attention of the President of the Treasury Board to the remarks of the hon. member so that he will be able to bear them in mind in his continued consideration of this matter as a member of the government.



SPORTS-EXERCISE OF DRAFT BY NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE

Mr. Eleven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is reported at page 4323 of Hansard and I was hoping that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), would have had some startling remarks to make after the discussions that were to take place with the president of the National Hockey League during the Christmas recess. Perhaps he would have discussed what right a young junior hockey player has to choose the club for which he wants to play? What happens the moment he signs his first pro contract? Does the minister realize that the player is the property of that club for life, to be traded and demoted as the club sees fit? I do not think the minister is that concerned. He is unaware of what is happening to our amateur athletes in this country and he does not care about the N.H.L. universal draft; otherwise, he would be here this evening to answer some of these questions.
I was most disappointed to learn that no discussion took place, apparently, about a Concomitant situation in hockey which, in my opinion, has far greater substance than the windmill at which the hon. minister chose to tilt. The Professional hockey league has denied that it stoops to slavery in shinny and affirms strongly that this old albatross has been finally discarded. The professionals would have us believe now, that they have no

DEBATES	January 16, 1969
interest whatsoever in amateur hockey. Finally they have achieved the ultimate solution; that is, an annual draft of overage juniors.
I would like to object, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that professional hockey has merely changed, chameleon-like, to another form of slavery. They may not be called the Sultans of Shinny Slavery any more perhaps, but I suggest that the distinction in the light of facts which have come to hand may be more one of semantics. There still exists in hockey a form of serfdom so odious that I cannot conceive it being countenanced in a so-called just society. I wonder how many hon. members have heard of this fantastic and ingenious arrangement called "Draft of Overage Juniors"? It is a plan so simple and so ingenious that I heartily endorse the recommendation that its authors be installed immediately in the hockey hall of fame.
It means simply that all junior players who reach the age of 19 and one half, which is the new lower age agreed upon by the C.A.H.A. and the professionals, can be drafted for the price of $3,000, only $2,200 of which goes to the Junior A team which discovered, developed, educated, and subsidized the player over three or four years.
Quite simply, it means that a player drafted for a mere $3,000 is worth, only seconds later, a minimum of $30,000 to the pro club. If he happens to be a Bobby Orr, a Frank Mahovlich, or a Bobby Hull he is instantly worth $1 million or more. That's a pretty nice profit to turn in a few seconds. Is it any wonder the professionals feel they have achieved the ultimate in arrangements? You have heard the minister say there is no direct liaison now between the professionals and amateurs in the sense of sponsorships. Nevertheless, the liaison is no less effective, ironclad, and slave like through the unique agreement between the C.A.H.A. and the N.H.L. Under this agreement, which the C.A.H.A. demanded in its search for greater autonomy, the pros pay a sum of approximately $550,000 a year-a figure which they plan to reduce with time, if you can believe it-in exchange for which the C.A.H.A. agrees to deliver the bodies, so to speak, each June at the annual draft.
Because the boy is under the age of 21, and that was carefully guarded by reducing the age even further to 19J, he is completely at the mercy of the draft, and so is the Junior A team which developed him and which is about to finally reap dividends. The player has no choice about where he may want to
January IS, 1969
COMMONS DEBATES	4411
play, nor has his junior club any redress with regard to the recompense for producing him. All this is reprehensible enough; but when I consider that 31 of the professional teams in hockey are in the United States and only four are in Canada I react with even greater shock. Canadian junior teams and Canada youngsters are being recruited for the masters of the Coliseums in the United States, to reap profits for them and another government and bringing back little or nothing to Canada. It is small wonder that many of the Junior A operators in Canada feel their days may be numbered. Indeed, many have already rebelled and have quit the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In western Canada a new hockey association was formed this year called the Canadian Hockey Association. Because it refused to go along with this new version of serfdom these clubs were declared outlaw by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and now exist in a form of limbo. But do you think for one moment that the better players on these teams won't be drafted this June by the N.H.L or other pro teams? They will be absolved of their sins as soon as they are drafted.
Last year, and this year, each Junior A team was given $9,000 out of moneys paid to the C.A.H.A., but this amount is to be lowered and, as I am given to understand, gradually phased out altogether. Then there will be only the $3,000 for each player drafted.
The plan is so fantastically ingenious and inexpensive that one of the new N.H.L. owners, when appraised that his share for future talent was a mere $40,000 a year, was astounded. He suggested that the figure wouldn't even pay for a scout's entertainment expenses in baseball.
At one time it cost the six N.H.L. teams about $100,000 on the average each year to maintain farm systems. On that basis the pros should today be putting at least $1,200,000 back into amateur hockey. But how much are they investing? A mere $550,000, of which each N.H.L. team puts up about $40,000. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even the old slave ships didn't have a margin of profit like that.
Recent years have seen the decline of hockey in Canada, both in number of leagues as well as clubs. Today, outside of the four professional teams, only the top Junior A clubs appear to be keeping the sport going
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion economically. But how long can these people keep going in the face of rising costs, little or no help in producing or developing players, and no one to share the risk? Even the C.A.H.A., which has the fantastic gall not only to give the orders with no personal investment whatsoever, but to extract a percentage of their profits as well, will not be able to keep going.
Justice, Mr. Speaker, was once described by Cicero in De Officiis, as indispensable for the conduct of business. He also wrote that good faith is the foundation of justice. But do we have justice here? If there is it is heavily weighted in one direction.
This is no mere plea for a few Junior A clubs. It is a plea for all those who work in amateur hockey in Canada; the men, the boys who become the Bobby Hulls and the Bobby Orrs. It is also a plea for a better share of the fantastic profits which are now accruing to hockey from television and the result of expansion to the United States. Perhaps Canada can't charge for the snow it exports to the United States, but we can and should charge for the players we develop.
There is now an investigation taking place of amateur sport in Canada. If the minister had people assigned to this task force who know the difference between a jock strap and a pair of ear muffs, then perhaps the arrangement between the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and the N.H.L. would be highest on its list of priorities. Right next to that should be the nefarious draft of underage junior players.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his remarks, the hon. member for Edmonton-Centre (Mr. Paproski) said that if the minister were more interested in this serious problem, he would be in the house.
I think the hon. member will admit that the minister's absence is clearly justified, since he is discharging his duties as chairman and host at the federal-provincial conference on welfare now under way.
In addition, I would like to quote the words of a poet: "On old tunes, let us sing new songs", because I answered a similar question from the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. Gibson) on December 16 last.
Perhaps the hon. member would be well advised to refer to the speech delivered by the minister in Moncton on November 23,
January 16, 1969
4412	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion 1968, when he dealt with this matter, and, as we would say, he made no bones about it, in connection with the complaints made by the hon. member. He said in part:
We cannot allow businessmen to buy or sell athletes as if they were properties. Players are not movables.
Needless to say that the minister has exposed the matter outlined by the hon. member by dubbing it a slave market. Not only has he wanted to make public statements in this regard-to show that he is strongly in

favor of correcting such a situation-but he has also established a task force or a committee which must, as early as January or February, report on its findings in connection with the serious problem pointed out by the hon. member.
We hope that, as a result of the conclusions of the committee's report, it will be possible for us to pass legislation to set things right.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, January 17, 1969