1969-03-27

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on. a question of privilege. It relates to the refusal of the government, upon my election to the House of Commons, to pay to me the terminal gratuity provided as a normal practice to those leaving the public service.
I received a letter from the government informing me of the refusal yesterday afternoon. I am therefore raising the matter at the earliest opportunity. It is one which affects not only myself but also several other members of the house. The facts are, basically, these. Members of the public service are normally given a termination payment upon leaving the public service equivalent to their accumulated vacation leave. To the best of my knowledge my predecessors as executive or special assistants at the Department of Forestry and Rural Development all received this payment.
The technique for payment normally used is a device, or what I would call a fiction. The former public servant is kept on the books even though he may be working on a full time basis for another employer. The government contends that to provide me with the usual payment could lead to a challenge to my right to hold a seat in the house, under section 16 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. I dispute that such would be the effect of section 16 to which I have referred. The government, though it admits that as a matter of justice I am fully entitled to the payment, has therefore refused to make payment to me.
I should emphasize that since the payment is discretionary on the part of the government I have no redress through court action, and no forum other than the House of Commons in which to raise this question.
Bourinot's fourth edition states in a rel-event citation that the questions of privilege have a wide range and that they-
-refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the house collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character.
And they include:
-motions touching the seat or election of members.
I submit this is a matter touching upon the seat or election of a member, for if the payment were made it is conceivable that my right to hold my seat would be challenged, in which case such a challenge would be dealt with by the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Here we have a question-a mixed one of law and privilege it may be-in which the legal aspect is not foremost, for it cannot be determined until the question of privilege has been decided. Moreover, it is well accepted that on questions concerning the application of section 16 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, final authority as to the eligibility of members to sit rests with the House of Commons.
I contend that since this matter would be considered by the Committee on Privileges and Elections if the payment were made, the germane facts are not changed by the government's refusal to make payment. To assert otherwise would be to argue that the government can, in effect, pre-empt the judgment of the house by refusing to meet an obligation to which it admits I am entitled.
Bourinot goes on to say that for a member to be entitled to bring up a question of privilege he must show that it affects him since he became a member of the house and consequently in his character of a member. It is admitted that had I not been elected to the House of Commons I would have received the payment. It is clear that refusal to pay stems from the fact that I have become a member. This conforms to Bourinot's description.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The fact is that I have not received the customary termination payment for my government service. That is a fact. This payment is a normal condition, though not legally protected, which stems from government service
7182	COMMONS
Transport and Communications entirely prior to my election. There is therefore a divergence from the ordinary procedure, a divergence entirely attributable to my becoming a member of parliament. This divergence of treatment, therefore, constitutes a disability, indeed a penalization, placed upon a member of the House of Commons for becoming a member.
I suggest, with respect, that I have established a prima facie case of privilege, and I am prepared to make a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether any hon. member would like to offer comments for the guidance of the Chair on the question of privilege that has been raised by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Pay!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the remedy suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is within the power of the Chair.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say a word!


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for York-Simcoe who had given me advance notice of the question of privilege, thus affording the Chair an opportunity to study the matter. This, of course, is the intention and purpose of the standing order that provides for advance notice of questions of privilege.
At first blush I would incline to the view that it is the hon. member's rights as a former civil servant which are at issue. He has, perhaps, a grievance against the government in that capacity rather than in his capacity as a member of parliament. On the other hand, hon. members know that the house has always exercised great care in attempting to protect the rights and privileges of all its members. Since there is some doubt about the interpretation of the precedents in this situation, I would be inclined to resolve that doubt in favour of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson):
That the subject matter of my question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

DEBATES	March 27, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in French and English-Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East).
[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Caccia.
[Editor's note: For text oj above Reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Speaker:: Motions. The hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard).
On March 25 when the notice of motion to which I have just referred standing in the name of the hon. member for LaSalle was called the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) rose on a point of order. During the discussion of this point of order a number of hon. members took the position that the President of the Privy Council was not raising his point of order at the appropriate time in our proceedings. In particular the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) drew the attention of the Chair to citation 318, subsection (3), of Beauchesne. That citation says:
A member will not be permitted In presenting a report to make any remarks on the subject-matter; he can only properly do so on a motion in reference to the report.
The hon. member said that if this limitation is placed on an hon. member who has the moving of the motion in his care, it applies as well to other hon. members.
The question I have to decide therefore is whether or not the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council came too early in our proceedings; in' other words, whether or not the motion should have been put first and then the question as to the regularity of the report brought into issue by the house leader.
It should be recalled that hon. members who took part in the discussion on the point of order, more particularly the hon. member
March 27, 1989	COMMONS
for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), dealt exclusively with the very limited point to which I have referred. Since, according to the submission, the minister's procedural objection could not be raised at that point they obviously did not consider it proper to argue the substance of the minister's arguments. For the moment I will therefore limit my comments to the objection raised by hon. members to the timing of the minister's objection.
In my opinion it was not improper for the President of the Privy Council to seek to question the form of the committee report at the stage he chose to select. In this regard I bring the attention of the house to citation 323 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, where it is stated:
A committee report may be ruled out of order though it has been received by the House, and a motion to concur therein cannot then be entertained.
It seems to me this citation is directly on point and justifies the minister's submission that the procedural points should be considered and should be determined before the motion is put.
This having been said I would suggest that hon. members interested in this extremely complex situation should be given an opportunity to express their views in relation to the substance of the points raised by the President of the Privy Council.
After giving much thought to the complex procedural aspects of the matter I am concerned mostly about three specific points. First, it must be determined whether the sub judice doctrine is applicable here. Hon. members may wish to consult citation 152 (2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition on this point. Second, I am concerned with the form of the committee recommendation. Normally these recommendations propose that parliament or the government take into consideration the advisability of introducing legislation for a specified purpose. One might well wonder whether the form of the present report does not constitute a direction rather than a mere recommendation. A further point is whether the report is within the terms of the committee order of reference.
Of course, there may be other points of procedure that hon. members may want to raise, either in support of or in opposition to the presentation of the motion at this time. Because of the importance and complexity of the matter I would think that hon. members
DEBATES	7183
International Labour Organization would want an opportunity to give some thought to the procedural point I have raised and, at their convenience, submit arguments for consideration by the Chair. The hon. house leaders may want to consult one another or with the Chair in this regard. In view of the circumstances I suggest that the motion should stand.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to draw to the attention of the house the fact that one of the pioneer intergovernmental organizations, the International Labour Organization, is shortly to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary. The I.L.O. was one of the happier outcomes of world war I. It was established under the League of Nations as part of mankind's attempt to create a form of international order.

It is particularly appropriate that we in Canada should recognize this anniversary because of our longstanding association with I.L.O.
Canada has been a member since its outset and during world war II when the organization fled Europe before the Nazi invasion, the Canadian government invited the I.L.O. to come to this country. That invitation was accepted and the organization established its headquarters on the campus of McGill University.
In addition, several distinguished Canadians, some of whom are in the gallery this afternoon, have sat on I.L.O.'s board of directors.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)

A feature of the International Labour Organization which sets it apart from most bodies of its kind is the tripartite participation of governments, workers and employers. This organization, perhaps more accurately than any other, reflects the needs of that part of the international community which it serves. Partly as a result, the I.L.O. has to its credit an impressive list of accomplishments. It was the first international organization to regard social and economic rights as basic human rights. It was the first international organization to declare, to codify and to
March 27, 1969

International Labour Organization implement protection for human rights. It has adopted 128 draft treaties, known as International Labour Conventions and has secured more than 3,000 ratifications of these conventions by member countries.
Nor, happily, is there any diminishing of I.L.O. activity. In recent years there has been a heavy involvement in operational programs of technical assistance to the developing countries. It has now launched a world employment program aimed at the formation of skills and the creation of jobs throughout the world.

The Canadian government, Mr. Speaker, is happy to join with the provincial governments, and the labour and employer organizations in celebrating this important anniversary.
Canada is about to issue a commemorative stamp to mark this anniversary of I.L.O. The Public Archives will soon hold an exhibition of documents relating to Canada's participation in I.L.O., and later this year a tripartite conference will be held in Ottawa.

We take pride in this organization which commands the support of Canadian workers and employers and extend to it our greetings on its anniversary and our best wishes for its continued leadership in its worldwide struggle for social justice.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the Prime Minister today should make a statement relating to the fiftieth anniversary of an international labour movement in which Canada, as a founding member, has played a significant part.
The statement was both adequate and appropriate, stressing Canada's continuing interest in and contribution to the International Labour Organization. We should bear in mind however, as I think the Prime Minister has, that we should deal with this International Labour Organization on this occasion as more than a set of international initials, another of those bodies to which Canada contributes from a sense of duty and in order to discharge international obligations. This organization is an outstanding and enduring result of a contribution arising from the Treaty of Versailles. This organization survived the demise of the League of Nations and became associated with the United Nations. This was the first organization to

form such a relationship as that with UNESCO.
This organization is above all an organization dealing with people. The fact that the government is commemorating this event, as it intends to, indicates the involvement with I.L.O. which is felt in this country. This involvement is felt all over the world. The human rights conventions of the I.L.O. have brought new hope and courage to the people in Tanzania where the new apprenticeship program is being designed, and to people in many other countries.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for the effort that is being made in this anniversary year to secure ratification by Canada of some of the conventions relating to human rights and working conditions. It has been a tragic feature, a depressing feature of our I.L.O. experience that owing to our structure in Canada so many vital and essential I.L.O. conventions have not been ratified, removing therefrom the powerful support that ratification by Canada would have marshalled.
It is rather ironical that this relationship with the International Labour Organization should expose our inadequate constitutional development, when it is remembered that the birth of the I.L.O. was so intimately associated with the development of Canada as a sovereign state. Hon. members will recall that it was in connection with the Treaty of Versailles and the related conventions that the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Robert Borden, asserted the independent position of Canada, and Canada signed the agreement and became a member of this organization as an independent country and not simply as part of the British Empire.
This anniversary therefore reminds us of our international development over the 50 year period. It also reminds us of our own constitutional imperfections, and Canadians cannot be happy that, even though we were a founding participant of this organization, we have not been able to ratify as many of its conventions as we would like.
An aspect of the I.L.O. that gives considerable satisfaction and adds to its pre-eminence in the field of dealing with the needs of people is the close working relationship now being developed between the I.L.O. and the Canadian International Development Agency. This co-operation ought to be very fruitful, bringing to the foreign aid program of Canada the valuable world wide contacts of the I.L.O. organization at the level of working men and women in many nations.
March 27. 1969	COMMONS
Foreign aid, of course, has many aspects. It consists of a great deal more than handing out food, money or materials. It consists of more than making available technological experience. It consists also-and this is the emergent structure and most vital fact-of providing the organizational structure and mechanism for putting the technology to work. This is the heart of the whole foreign aid program and it is in this area that the I.L.O. will be particularly useful.
So, sir, I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) upon his comments today and upon the measures his government is taking to commemorate this anniversary in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that it has fallen to me to say a few words on behalf of the New Democratic party on this important occasion. We welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in providing the opportunity for this country to pay tribute to the 50 years of service to mankind that have been rendered by the International Labour Organization. It is indeed one of the oldest intergovernmental organizations and it is a matter of pride for us in Canada that we have been associated with it from its beginning in 1919.
The Prime Minister referred to the fact that many distinguished Canadians have made contributions to the work of the I.L.O. and he drew attention to some of those who are in the gallery today. I would like to suggest names such as those of Tom Moore, Paddy Draper and Claude Jodoin, and I think also of the former colleagues of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) who have gone over to Geneva from time to time in an associate capacity.
I might also mention the name of Kalmen Kaplansky who, for a number of years, was a member of the governing body and is now director of the Canada branch, which has its office here in Ottawa. We also have the honour of knowing that the head office at Geneva assigned to Mr. Kaplansky the task of co-ordinating internationally the celebration of this 50th anniversary.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have indicated some things that are unique about the I.L.O. Perhaps I might add in my own words that I think there are about three reasons for the success of this organization. In the first place,
DEBATES	7185
International Labour Organization from the beginning it has been an organization concerned with people, and not in an ivory tower or academic sense but in terms of their conditions of work, which are the conditions under which they live the major part of their lives. In the second place, this organization has succeeded because it has been genuinely a tripartite organization representative of government, workers and employers, and comprised so that the independence of each from the other two has been clearly established and clearly maintained.
I can speak with some certainty on this point because in 1959, 1960 and 1961 I had the very great honour of being the workers' delegate for Canada at the annual conference held in Geneva. I learned there how useful it is to have this world body with these three groups, government, employers and workers, with equal voice, trying to work out solutions to the problems of the working people of the world. In the third place this organization has been successful because it has pioneered in the proclamation of principles of social and economic justice and has seen to it that those principles were implemented in as much of the world as possible.
I think it might also be said of the I.L.O. that it has shown a tremendous capacity for adapting to new conditions and to the needs of an ongoing world. In its earlier years it concentrated on the adopting of conventions and recommendations. This is still an important part of its work, but it realizes now that, if it is to improve in a substantial way the conditions under which people work and live, it must concentrate on training. Therefore the major work of the I.L.O. today is in the field of technical assistance. It has made great strides which have already helped to raise living standards the world around.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this opportunity to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the International Labour Organization. We are glad that things are being done such as those to which the Prime Minister referred, including the issuing of a commemorative postage stamp. We think there are at least two other things which might be done. We urge that we put real effort into getting more of the conventions and recommendations of the I.L.O. ratified, and if that means doing something to our constitution in Canada so that we can ratify these conventions in our federal state, I hope this will be done. The other course we urge is to increase our contribution to the I.L.O.'s technical assistance program and thus play a really active part in
7186	COMMONS DEBATES	March 27. 1969
International Labour Organization helping do the job the I.L.O. is trying to carry on, namely to improve the conditions under which people the world around work and live.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I received this morning the text of the statement just made by the Prime Minister with regard to the 50th anniversary of the International Labour Organization.
The Prime Minister may not be aware-but I wish to point it out to him-that I received the English copy only. Someone forgot to send me the French copy. The document is addressed as follows:
M. Heal Caouette, M.P.
That is in French. Then the message:
The Prime Minister will make this statement in the house this afternoon. Ivan L. Head.
That is in English as is the whole text.
Mr. Speaker, it is not that I do not understand it; I know English.
However, as the Prime Minister often makes statements to the effect that both languages are truly official in Canada, the fact that I received a text in English from his office would certainly be reason enough to raise the question of privilege. I see the Prime Minister shaking his head to the effect that I aim right in complaining about that.
If the statement had been received the way it was made in the house a moment ago, that is one paragraph in English, one in French, and so on, I would have had nothing to quarrel about. However, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would have been forced to translate the French paragraphs for the benefit of the house.
Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: It is spontaneous
translation.


David Réal Caouette: It is really spontaneous and not simultaneous translation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the International Labour Organization, founded' in 1919, brings together governments, employers and workers in a joint action aimed towards the advancement of social justice and the improvement of living and working conditions in every part of the world. This is an intergovernmental institution, hut the principle of tripartite representation is respected in all its meetings.

At the present time 117 countries are members of the I.L.O. This organization commemorates its 50th anniversary this year.
My colleagues and myself are very happy to join with the Prime Minister and the previous members who spoke about the 50th anniversary of the International Labour Organization whose aim is to serve the interests of workers the world over.
Today, the effect of the standardizing work of the I.L.O. is being felt in all parts of the world and its practical activity is world-wide.
Mr. Speaker, the aims of the International Labour Organization are praiseworthy since it is doing useful work for working people, as well as for governments and employers.
However, in spite of those praiseworthy goals, we still see a very high level of unemployment, at home in Canada and in most Western countries.
Therefore, after the 50th anniversary of the I.L.O., could not another organization be instituted to help the latter promote effectively the development of natural resources in Canada or elsewhere, so as to create jobs and to guarantee to man both the security and the freedom which we are attempting to protect through organizations such as the I.L.O.?



AIRPORTS


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a new international airport is to be built north of Montreal.
An intensive review of the airport requirements of the Montreal region was begun in December 1966. Following that review the cabinet agreed in July 1968 that the present airport at Dorval could not be expanded economically to accommodate the forecast growth in air traffic and that a new international airport was therefore required.
Officials of the Department of Transport then met with officials of the Quebec government to review some 20 possible sites in the light of the technical criteria developed in preliminary studies. These discussions led to a substantial reduction in the number of acceptable sites. A task force was then created, drawn from the federal departments of Transport and Regional Economic Expansion, four Quebec government departments and the City of Montreal, to examine these sites from the point of view of their different economic
March 27, 1969
impacts. The aim was to assess the stimulus that would be given to regional development, taking into account Canadian, Quebec and regional priorities.
After a careful assessment of the technical, cost and developmental factors identified by these studies, the cabinet has concluded that the new Montreal International Airport will be built north of Montreal, near the City of Saint-Jerome. This site, 26 miles north of the centre of Montreal and 17 miles from Dorval airport, will meet the changing patterns in air traffic and technology, including jumbo jets and supersonic aircraft, for the foreseeable future. It fits with regional development strategies and will provide the greatest benefits for the growth of the Montreal region and of the Quebec economy generally.
The location will provide for safe flight operations without interfering with activity at Dorval. It suffers from no restrictions because of natural or man-made obstacles. The runways can be oriented in the most favourable directions for the prevailing winds, without bad effects on adjoining urban areas. The incidence of fog and freezing rain are less than at other points in the Montreal region.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The site is well located to serve the majority of the users, who will largely be drawn from the centre, west and north of the Montreal metropolis. It is well integrated with existing and proposed ground transportation networks and it will be possible to provide easy access to Dorval Airport. This will facilitate cargo and passenger connections, and thus ensure continued optimum utilization of the present airport.
From the economic point of view, the northern site will maximize the essential close interaction between the Montreal area itself and the new International airport. Easy access to the scientific, cultural and other amenities of Montreal, and to the leisure centres of the Laurentians, will offer good inducements for the location of technologically advanced industries and their staffs. The site will thus foster the most desirable forms of development for Jesus Island and the corridor between the airport and Montreal. With planning, it will be possible to accelerate the spill-over of these developments along an east-west axis toward Trois Rivieres and Quebec City. Accordingly the location of the airport will make an important contribution to the prosperity of both the Montreal region and Quebec as a whole.
Saint Jerome Suggested Airport Site [Translation]


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the statement we have just heard the Minister of Transport has not told us anything that we did not already know, but has merely confirmed a rumour that has been growing for some time.
As a matter of fact, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) yesterday whether he could give us the assurance that the new airport would be located in the Sainte-Therese area. Unfortunately, Your Honour decided that my question was out of order and the minister did not give me any answer. I suggest that if he refused to answer, it may have been because he wanted to make a statement today and to tell us himself something that we knew already.
Mr. Speaker, this lengthy statement reveals that it took the government three years to choose a site for the new airport. Indeed, the minister stated clearly that studies began in 1966, and we are now in 1969. Only three years later do we finally get to know the decision of the present government.
I am happy about the chosen site, but I deplore that all this shuffling has kept us waiting so long for a decision. However, it is becoming more and more typical of the present government and we hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will not take as long to get the construction of the airport under way as it did to come to a decision about the site.
I know that this decision will not please all the areas which sent delegates to make representations to the federal government, but I take this opportunity to congratulate the representatives of the municipalities of various areas who worked eagerly for the establishment of the airport in their own area. However, I think that a decision had to be taken and following the arguments' stated by the minister concerning the security of flights, the weather, the land, the proximity of Dorval, all those factors make the- decision quite acceptable.
I would also say that the Quebec government behaved wisely also when it accepted that choice, even if the airport is to be located in the constituency of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux). I think there is nothing against it since that fact does not affect the value of the decision.
Mr. Speaker, let us hope that a decision will be made without delay about the early construction of that second airport and that Montreal will benefit shortly from the advantages involved.

March 27, 1969

Saint Jerome Suggested Airport Site [English']
I would also like to say a few words in English and ask the minister, now that he has settled one problem, to let the house know and clarify for us the negotiations he has undertaken, or will undertake, with the provincial authorities of Ontario or the municipalities concerning a second airport to be built in Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should remind the hon. member that this is not yet the question period. Regulations allow him only to comment at this time on the statement that has been made.
The hon. member will have an opportunity later on to ask any questions that come to his mind now.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that the decision is quite acceptable and that we are happy that the government has finally made its mind up. It is the first decision taken so far by the Minister of Transport and we are happy about it.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made today by the Minister of Transport is a long awaited one. The reasons the minister gave for making this particular choice seem, on the surface at least, to be plausible enough. But I think it must be said that simply because we were not privy to many of the representations and arguments presented to the minister, we really have no way of knowing whether the reasons the minister put forward today are genuine and profound or are superficial. I think the minister must appreciate that this is the position in which we find ourselves.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, we would like to know whether the federal government has given enough consideration to the advice given and to the views of the province of Quebec, before a final decision was taken.
I have a similar question, and I ask if there was the same type of consultation with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?

The minister has not taken the opportunity to give the house a full and detailed account as to why this particular site was chosen in preference to others. Anyone who has been following closely the stories in La Presse and other newspapers in Quebec can easily see

that many alternative sites and locations were being put forward. I recall, for example, that about two months ago there was a lead story in Montreal La Presse to the effect that a decision could not be taken in February because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was out of the country. It was said that no decision could be taken relative to the location of the airport until the minister returned to this country. One can obviously see that the Minister of National Defence was not out of Canada in recent weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Richard Schreyer: It would be helpful and useful to the house and parliament generally if the minister would indicate precisely what was the relationship between himself, his department and the Transport Commission, for example, relative to all the negotiations and studies made with regard to the question of choosing this site. One should assume-I say "should assume"-that the Canadian Transport Commission was consulted very closely with regard to this question.
Now that the Minister of Transport has got rid of one problem that was facing him in recent months, now that he has made the choice, is he prepared to give equal effort and time to arriving at a decision relative to the International Airport in Winnipeg?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we know at last where the new international airport will be located: at St. Jerome 26 miles from Montreal.
The minister stated that a task force made up of representatives of the federal Departments of Transport and Regional Economic Expansion, four Quebec departments and the city of Montreal, decided on the exact site where the new airport is to be built.
In his statement the minister said also that this will stimulate the economic development of that area.
Therefore, I wonder why the minister did not contemplate building the international airport at Rouyn, for instance, if he really wants to facilitate regional development.
For if we consider that the new airport will contribute to the economic development of
March 27, 1969

Montreal, instead of decentralizing, we centralize even more.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I took a stand, several months ago, in favour of the construction of the new airport on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. As I had proposed Drummondville, I thought I could depend on the support of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) since he had discussed the matter with the authorities there, and everything seemed to indicate that the 'authorities would take our proposal into consideration.
That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we are dissatisfied1 with the choice made by the people concerned, namely the provincial government and the Department of Transport. We rejoice about this happy event which will promote the economic development of the St. Jerome area and the vicinity.
But I believe more attention could have been given to the possibility of selecting the area on the south shore of the river, for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would have been more satisfied.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, we know we are going to have an international airport in the St. Jerome area, that will serve Montreal and the province of Quebec, as well as the Canadian people of other areas who will have to use it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two copies of the letters exchanged between Mr. Jean-Guy Cardinal, vice-president of the Quebec Council of Ministers, and Mr. Michel Debre, French Foreign Affairs Minister.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which arises from the repeated statement, which has become almost an annual feature of the Auditor General's report, that the failure of the
Inquiries of the Ministry government to give the Auditor General freedom to recruit the professional staff he needs, in the same independent manner as other officers of parliament, imposes a severe handicap on his work. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that the government is not dragging its feet deliberately in order to limit the activities of the Auditor General and, if not, will the Prime Minister say when the house may expect a decision on this matter, which the Auditor General has raised in his report in successive years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes to the first part of the question, and soon to the second.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will get an answer
eventually, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee in 1966 recommended that the office of the Auditor General should be governed by a separate act of parliament, and in view of the statement by the Auditor General that he submitted a draft act to the government over two years ago, will the Prime Minister say whether the government is opposed to having a separate act of parliament for the office of the Auditor General, or whether it is preparing to submit such a measure to parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have not considered the possibility of putting forward such an act imminently, in parliament. Our program is full, with other things, and I can only answer the Leader of the Opposition that I will consider this matter at a later date.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has raised this subject twice in debate during the current session of parliament, without ever receiving the courtesy of an acknowledgement from the government, will the Prime Minister arrange to give, or have one of his colleagues give, an early statement of policy concerning the attitude of the government toward the position of the Auditor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Many subjects have been raised in debate which the government either has not had time to consider or has felt it was inopportune to consider at this time. The house knows that we announced in the speech from the throne measures to be introduced in this session, and that we have a very full
March 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry parliamentary program. The house would not expect me to announce measures which will be included in the next speech from the throne. I can tell the house, however, that the general subject will be taken under advisement by the government.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the government to implement the recommendation of the Auditor General to set up an independent management study to root out causes for the continuance of wasteful and extravagant government spending?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We had such a study in the form of the Glassco Commission report a few years ago, and I must say that the government's record of implementing the overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the commission is very good.


Gerald William Baldwin: The seven year itch.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is supplementary to questions asked in the last few days regarding the United States A.B.M. program. In view of reports that the Governor General is to make a tour of the northern part of Canada to assert our sovereignty there, will the government consider shooting the Governor General into outer space so that we can assert our sovereignty out there as well?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must correct part of the hon. member's question in the sense that the purpose Of the visit of the Governor General is not to assert our sovereignty there. Our sovereignty in the northern part of Canada is very well established.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to asking the Governor General to go into outer space, I am afraid he will only find members of the New Democratic party there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, Mr. Speaker, we are everywhere.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Secretary of State said that the missile policy, to which reference is made at the present time, was an escalation policy and a threat to peace. Does the Prime Minister share the view expressed in Paris by the Secretary of State?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without being rude I would suggest to the hon. member that when he puts a question to a minister, he should say at the outset what minister he is addressing. I did not get the question and he simply mentioned my name at the end. I would therefore ask him to repeat it.


Bernard Dumont: I apologize to the Prime Minister. I had put a question to him but in view of the ovation he received, he probably did not hear it.
I am referring to the statement of the Secretary of State to the effect that the present missile policy of the Washington government is a threat to world peace; I was asking the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the statement of the Secretary of State?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware that the Secretary of State made such a statement. He will be back in Ottawa today and I shall ask him what he said in this regard.


AIRFORTS
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Further to the statement he made at the beginning of the sitting, I should like to ask him whether construction plans for the new airport are now under way and when the work is scheduled to start?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just as soon as possible. The usual critical path will obviously have to be followed, beginning today with the expropriation of the land, followed by soil testing, the designing of the runways and the terminal facilities,
March 27, 1969



and all the things which have to be done on a thorough and methodical basis with the least possible delay consistent with the best possible results in the use of the taxpayers' money.
[Translation\


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Now that the site of the future international airport is known, and that the citizens of the south shore are obviously somewhat disappointed, can he tell us whether money will be invested in or something done for that whole central area of Quebec, and more particularly the south shore, to help its economic development?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question is of a very general nature and therefore may not be put at this time.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SECRET DISCUSSIONS ABOUT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister held any secret talks with the premier of New Brunswick several times during the past few weeks, or even a few times, concerning the financial plight of the Atlantic provinces, as stated by the premier of New Brunswick within the last few days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know whether I would describe them as secret talks. I have met with the premier of New Brunswick on matters of mutual concern-once in the last few weeks, I believe.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance but in his deliberate absence this afternoon I will direct it to the Prime Minister. At the time of his discussions with the premier of New Brunswick and in the light of the budgetary situation of that province, was any suggestion made by the premier that a hurry-up or advance payment be made under one of the joint or shared cost programs to tide the province over?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before and after the federal-provincial conference held in February, an important part of the agenda of which was devoted to the question of shared-cost programs and so on, there were discussions with the provinces about ways in which the federal spending power could be altered or improved or modified in some way. Naturally, by way of exploring these questions some such items did come up for consideration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But did this one actually come up?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: In view of the statements being made in Fredericton about the matter of increased moneys from Ottawa, is the Prime Minister ready to make a statement filling us in on the discussions he had with Premier Robichaud about possible moneys for New Brunswick? Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that there were discussions between Premier Robichaud and himself and, if so, when will we be told what took place at those discussions?


INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Are officials of his department investigating and analysing the report just released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on the interlocking corporate structure in Canada, which showed a tremendous concentration of ownership and control of industry in Canada, with a view to introducing necessary legislation to regulate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked by the hon. member refers to a matter which is very general in scope and I would think it could not be asked at this time.


STUDENT UNREST
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Can he tell us if the provincial authorities have already requested the R.C.M.P. to help keep things under control at tomorrow night's expected demonstration at McGill University?
7192	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Attorney General of Canada received a telephone call from the Deputy Attorney General of Quebec asking him for the potential aid of the R.C.M.P. and the Canadian Armed Forces, in the event that violence at McGill University were to get out of the control of the provincial and municipal authorities. The situation is now being negotiated between the Department of the Attorney General of Quebec and the R.C.M.P., and the Canadian Armed Forces.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the minister intend to advise the R.C.M.P. to extend its help to the Quebec provincial police?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this matter is strictly the R.C.M.P.'s concern and comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Solicitor General of Canada, whereas the other matter is the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a further supplementary question.
Since several other ministers are concerned, does he intend, in his capacity as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, to request the R.C.M.P. to second the Quebec provincial police tomorrow night at McGill University?


John Napier Turner: We are always available, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF CANADIAN POLICY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with reference to petroleum. In view of the appointment by President Nixon of a task force headed by one of his ministers to conduct an extensive review of all United States oil import arrangements, will the minister say what special arrangements, if any, are being made for the consideration of Canadian policy and, specifically, will the government now act on the suggestion of the

DEBATES	March 27, 1969
Leader of the Opposition that a standing committee of this house inquire publicly into the need for a new and expansive oil policy and call in representatives of the petroleum industry of Canada?


Hon. Olto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members are well aware of the steps under way with regard to our oil policy as it affects the United States, and in particular that a meeting will take place on April 2 in this connection. We shall of course follow with great interest the development in the United States-the appointment of the committee referred to by the hon. member. I have noted the further representation by the hon. member concerning the possible use of a standing committee of this house, and I will take this under advisement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The government always seems to talk about taking matters under advisement. Having regard to the minister's inert words and the innuendo contained in them, may I ask whether he believes in government by secrecy and inaction?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it should be directed to the Prime Minister. Do the much publicized and widely promoted views of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) concerning Canada's attitude toward the North Atlantic Treaty Organization represent the views of the government with respect to Canada's relationship with that organization?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is not in order. The hon. member cannot ask in this way for the opinion of the government about statements made by members other than members of the government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With great respect, I would ordinarily agree with Your Honour's ruling, but in this case so much advance publicity has been given to the hon. member's remarks at a time when the question of Canada's relationship to NATO-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
March 27, 1969


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the Minister assure the house and the country that every effort will be made to ensure a continuous flow of grain from the terminals to the ships? A couple of months ago there was a pile-up of ships at Vancouver, yet today there are no ships at all waiting at that port. Can we have some assurance that this whole question is being examined very closely?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid there will be a slowdown of ships coming into Vancouver for loading in the next couple of weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That will help the
government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am afraid the Japanese and the Chinese importers have been listening to the opposition in this matter rather than to me. The tie-up that existed in the port of Vancouver a few weeks ago has been cleared more rapidly than the opposition expected it would.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: After seven weeks.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understood the right hon. member for Prince Albert had said it would not be cleared till the end of May or June, but in any event it has been cleared now. The Wheat Board and the trade are doing their best to see that ships from Japan and China are made available for loading. There is no lack of sales on the west coast at this time.


Mr. McKinley:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary question which I will direct-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Huron is rising on a point of order.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I suggest that the port of Vancouver has been cleared of ships because of the action of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point
of order. The hon. member for Crowfoot on a supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Henry Horner: People all across Canada will be pleased to hear that there is no shortage of ships, but we are very discouraged that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should not have a debate at this time. If hon. members are allowed to ask questions and ministers to-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member, but he knows perfectly well that only a few minutes are allocated to the house every day for the consideration of questions asked by hon. members.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Forgive me for adding one word of introduction to my question, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the minister's reply I could not help but do so. My question is this: There is1 no shortage of ships, the minister says, but is enough being done? There is a widespread belief that there will not be a boat into Vancouver until April 25-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -one month from today. Surely with no shortage of ships, somebody-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously
argument.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister, or possibly for the Minister of Transport. In view of the very alarming and disastrous situation in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan in regard to damp grain and the inability to move this grain, with the possibility that by spring it will have deteriorated and be badly damaged, will the Minister or the Minister of Transport give special and very urgent consideration to discussing with the railways the provision of box cars in these areas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is being done. If the hon. member has some specific cases in mind I will gladly take note of them.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister is in such a fine mood for answering questions today, may I ask him what is the projection until April 25 of the expected number of ships that will arrive in Vancouver to move wheat? He must have that before him at this very moment.
March 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not have the precise number but I will try to get it, it possible, for the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister not receive that information yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Regina East on a supplementary.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: In view of reports from the terminals in Vancouver that no ships are coming in, and since there are some 4,000 box cars on their way to Vancouver, have steps been taken to redirect the flow of grain traffic to those places where it is needed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Such as where?


John Stratford Burton: The Lakehead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that empty ships have been leaving Vancouver, what steps has the department taken in order to keep shippers informed as to the progress being made in filling the terminal facilities so that the ships will return?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge-and I think I am well informed on this subject-only two ships left unloaded at the time of the tie-up and they were supposed to come back later. I have information from the Wheat Board that they and the grain trade are making all necessary efforts to bring the ships back to Vancouver to be filled with grain for delivery to western clients.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary question. Is it a fact that grain dryers will not be operating at the Vancouver terminals because of congestion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask the minister to confirm or deny a matter. He is making an allegation.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he has ordered an investigation into allegations made in the past two months that line elevator companies and one of the pool elevators have been ignoring Canadian Wheat Board orders with impunity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I am in the habit of saying to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that is a debatable point.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the minister has had an opportunity of reading the memorandum, will he give the information asked for?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee there is no information here about the number of ships expected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was replying to my question or to the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Both, in succession.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister going on record officially as blaming the opposition for the inefficiency and bungling that has surrounded the handling of the wheat crop?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether hon. members feel we should go on to another subject now?


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question regarding the whole problem of moving wheat and I direct it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the negative statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon to the Agricultural Congress relative to the sale of Canadian wheat, will the minister and his department take a far more positive approach to the whole question of surplus wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member far Swift Current-Maple Creek. I suggest to hon. members that we pass on to another subject after this supplementary.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. I should like to ask whether he or the government are making provision, in view of what happened in Vancouver regarding ships and surplus grain, to ensure that the same situation does not develop at the Lakehead where the elevators are now half empty?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do my best, Mr. Speaker, but tha t is not the case now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your best is not good enough.
March 27, 1969


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FLOOR PRICE
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that the Congress on Agriculture has concluded, how soon may we expect a government decision to implement a $1.95J floor price for wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have avoided answering this question because I thought it better first to assess what the damage is, and no one yet knows what it will be.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know whether, in the wide-ranging discussions which took place in Washington earlier this week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed his United States opposite number of the date on which the Canadian government will be giving the United States charts that clearly show Canada's exclusive 12-mile shipping zone on the west coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not
undertake to do this with the Secretary of State, but I did tell him that this was a matter that I felt would shortly engage the attention of our two countries.


David Anderson: A supplementary question. I should like to know whether this will result in a meeting very soon of officials of the Canadian and United States governments on this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: This matter is shortly to be discussed in cabinet when a decision will be made on that very point.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether similar discussions are now taking place with the government of France regarding our 12-mile territorial limit off the Atlantic coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not recently had any such discussions but there have been discussions over quite some time with France on the whole subject of territorial waters, the position of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and so on.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
In view of the problems which the minister had to tackle recently in relation to the Montreal Longshoremen's Union, can he tell the house whether the dispute has been solved or is about to be solved?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the conciliation board charged with the problem of the port of Montreal has been meeting daily, and progress is being made. We can only hope that by March 31 or April 7 a collective agreement will have been reached. Of course it is really a matter of opinion when one says that progress is being made.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Because of continuing concern about this matter, is the minister in a position to make a statement on Devco's plans for No. 20 colliery in the area concerned?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, not at this moment.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the serious concern in the community involved, would the minister undertake to make a statement on the matter as soon as possible?


Jean Marchand: As soon as we have studied the plan and agree on it I will make an announcement about it.


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is one thing for the minister to study a plan. Does he not know that Devco has certain plans and certain intentions with respect to No. 20 colliery? It is simply a question of ascertaining Devco's intentions in the community and letting us know about them.
March 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the excellent decision taken by the government about the site of the new airport and' since this choice seems to me to respect the interests of Quebec, could the minister tell us if it was immediately accepted by that province? I dare hope so?


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since he seems to be an authority on iShippjng today, may I ask him if a committee consisting of representatives of the shipbuilding industry and members of the government has been set up to look into shipbuilding in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, after a visit by a group from the industry we were supposed to get a committee going. Two attempts were made to bring the other side along with us in forming this committee. This has been done now.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the terms of reference of that committee been agreed on?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it should be a rapid study if it is to advise on what might be done at this time.


HOUSING
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since early February the minister has been announcing that he will be placing recommendations emanating from the task force on housing before his cabinet colleagues and has repeatedly said1 that there will be an announcement of government policy in this field soon. Will he tell the house how soon is soon? Will we have an announcement before the Easter recess?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been asked and answered in the house. My hon. friend will have to show some patience. As he knows was the case with the Montreal international airport, Rome was not built in one day. It takes time to work out the details. As soon as a decision has been taken an announcement will be made.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising from an answer he gave some time ago to the right hon. member for Prince Albert and from another answer he gave today to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think the matter ought to be cleared up. The Prime Minister told the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre that there was no question about Canada's sovereignty in the north. May I ask whether that includes all the northern Arctic islands? Also, was the Prime Minister considering inland seas and 12-mile limits when he made his statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave a few weeks ago, which I repeat today, is that our sovereignty over all Arctic islands is not challenged in any way. I do not think the question of sovereignty has been disputed. I said before that the question of the status of the seas was not established in a way which entailed the recognition of the international community. This matter still has to be dealt with and will be the object of a policy statement by the government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister impart this opinion to the President of the United States recently, or did he discuss these points when he saw him earlier this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I communicated to the President the fact that the question of territorial seas and especially of fishing rights was of grave concern to us and we hoped to take a position on it soon which will be respected by all the international community.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
March 27, 1969

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would he indicate whether he has yet had the opportunity to take any action 'in the light of the continuing upward spiral in lumber prices?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government shares the hon. member's concern. Partly as a result of the very forceful and independent representations the hon. member has made-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member surely cannot be bought off like that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -officers of my department, the Department of Forestry and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce met, together with the ministers responsible for those departments', and contemplated action that might be taken. I think that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who has been so communicative today, will have something to say in a day or two.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to direct to the Minister of Transport. It is on a theme similar to the one covered by the previous question. Will he advise the house whether he has ordered an inquiry into lumber prices and their effect on housing costs? Have he or his officials told the Canadian Lumbermen's Association that such action has been taken?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I noted that this matter was referred to yesterday. It must be connected with some remarks I made in Toronto on Thursday last. As my colleague indicated, officials of four departments have met on this matter. More recently, the officials consulted with the ministers. Among ourselves we have decided on a plan of action based on such inquiries as have been made. As has just been indicated I hope that one of us, probably the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will be in a position to make a statement very shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon L. Fairweaiher (Fundy-Roy-al):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which
Inquiries of the Ministry he may want to take as notice. When will additional passport offices be opened in Canadian cities? I ask that question because of the severe strain imposed on a most competent and efficient branch of our public service which is now overwhelmed with passport applications.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is the type of question which lends itself to debate at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he say whether it is the policy of his department not to guarantee delivery of passports within four days by registered mail?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to give information on policy or to make a policy statement. I do not think the question can be accepted in its present form.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread concern of the medical profession about the future of our health services, will the Prime Minister say whether he has now changed his mind about meeting the Canadian Medical Association? Will he accede to the renewed request for a meeting made by the association's president?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave a few days ago.



REFUSAL OF ELEVATOR COMPANIES TO ACCEPT DAMP WHEAT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will he check on the reported intention of line elevator companies not to take any damp wheat after April 1? Much damp wheat still remains to be handled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a representation to the minister.
7198	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REPRESENTATIONS OF HIGH COMMISSIONER TO NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is tor the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since our High Commissioner in Nigeria was asked almost two weeks ago to make representations to the federal government of Nigeria, will the minister tell the house whether those representations have been made to that government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, some of the representations have been made, but the High Commissioner has not yet completed his mission. I should like to wait until it is completed before making a report.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When were such representations made and when may we expect a report to the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Minister of Transport so often says, soon.



MOVEMENT FROM PRUDHOE BAY THROUGH CANADIAN CARRIERS

Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This seems to be his day in the house. In view of the government's interest in Panarctic Oils Limited, has the government made any representations to United States interests with a view to establishing a joint consortium to transport oil from Prudhoe Bay through Canadian carriers in the Yukon and British Columbia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This would come under the jurisdiction of either the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the government's interest in Panarctic Oils Limited, has the 
DEBATES	March 27. 1969
government made any representations to United States interests with a view to establishing a joint consortium to transfer oil from Prudhoe Bay through Canadian carriers in the Yukon and British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, because of our interest in Arctic oil and oil generally, the government has had discussions with interested persons, including companies involved in various discoveries, as to the best means of transferring the oil already found and the oil expected to be found as well.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Has the government had any conversations or discussions on this subject or any aspect of the Prudhoe Bay development with United States interests? If not, why not?


Otto Emil Lang: The answer is yes.


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compion):: I wished to put my question to the Prime Minister but since he is absent, I will wait until tomorrow.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. It concerns Your Honour's ruling today on the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council in the house a couple of days ago. In the light of Your Honour's ruling, I ask the President of the Privy Council to give this house an assurance in view of the time limitation in the recommendations of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I am referring specifically to the April 15 date. In view of the fact the house will adjourn in a day or two for the Easter recess, will the minister give an assurance that he will bring this matter forward at the earliest possible moment for debate?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this matter involves a question of order as to the acceptability of the report. I intend to follow Your Honour's advice to consult with the Chair as to an appropriate time in the near future to raise this question.
March 27, 1969



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Waller C. Carter (SI. John's Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Transport but as he has left the chamber I will direct it to the President of the Privy Council. Is he aware of the fact that the Newfoundland legislature has unanimously approved a resolution to defer the abandonment of C.N.R. passenger service in Newfoundland?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Secretary of State but since he is absent, I will put it to his parliamentary secretary to whom I gave notice of it.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary obtain a report and make it available to the house with respect to the activities of the C.B.C. resulting in its report of uranium discoveries in Quebec?


Mr. Roberl Slanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have made inquiries about the report to which I believe the hon. member has referred. I am informed by the C.B.C. that they believe their employees exercised proper journalistic judgment in presenting this report on March 21. Consideration was given to the ample opportunity there would be for comment or clarification of the matter by the parties concerned between the time the report was broadcast and the re-opening of the stock market. In fact, a statement made on behalf of the companies was carried on the C.B.C.'s early evening national newscast on March 23. I am informed by the C.B.C. that the company did not contradict the report but only the tonnage figure used in the report.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: May I
ask the government house leader about the business for this week and that part of next
Business of the House
week that we will still be here? Could the minister when replying confirm the date members will be free to depart for the Easter recess in order that they may dialogue earnestly with their constituents on the large mass of still unsolved problems?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before making that statement perhaps I could give the second report of the inter-party committee on parliamentary hockey. I wish to confirm that the House of Commons once again triumphed in eking out a defensive victory over the press gallery by a score of four to four. In view of the fact we only got a tie, no stars are being awarded.
With regard to the business for the coming week, as hon. members know the first item of business today will be No. 36, Bill S-15, to amend the Food and Drugs Act. This will be followed by item 13, the report stage of Bill C-102, with regard to drug prices. It is anticipated that tomorrow the drug prices bill will be called again to be followed by Bill S-26 with regard to hazardous products.
On Monday next the first item of business will be No. 23, Bill S-5 with regard to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Act for report stage and third reading. This will be followed by No. 53, Bill S-28 with regard to the Co-operative Credit Associations Act. Following that will be No. 55, Bill C-171 with respect to the National Library.
On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week it is proposed to call item 7, Bill C-112 with regard to the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act. This will be followed by items 18, 19 and 43 with regard to agricultural Bills C-154, C-155 and C-157.
With respect to the question by my hon. friend, it is the government's intention that the house will sit until April 2. If, however, it is possible to deal effectively with this timetable before that date, it might be possible for it to rise sooner.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I noticed that in the house leader's observations concerning the business there was no reference to Bill C-182, to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I rise on this question of privilege for the reason that an undertaking was made to the house privately and publicly. There was an agreement to deal with this matter because the freeze on maritime freight rates expired on March 23. There is great concern,
March 27, 1969
7200	COMMONS
Food and Drugs Act-Narcotic Control Act worry and misunderstanding in the Atlantic provinces. If the government makes no effort to deal with this matter before the house rises, it can only be taken as a further indication of the attitude of the government toward the people of the Atlantic provinces.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If I may deal with that particular point, Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague the Minister of Transport, who was here earlier today, that the principal consideration is whether there will be a change in rail rates during the period until the bill is brought into law and that the railways have undertaken not to bring about any change. My understanding is that various groups have sought to make representations in this regard. It was thought desirable to hear those representations before the bill was called forward for further action.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should refer to the question of privilege by the hon. member for Oxford. I would think it was not a question of privilege. It seems to me that, a statement having been made by the President of the Privy Council, the hon. member had a very legitimate question. I suggest to him it was not necessary to raise it as a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: I wish to ask a question before oral questions are completed. I raise it as a question of privilege or a point of order. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development and nine or ten other ministers are violating the Prime Minister's roster system. It is impossible for me to get answers to questions regarding the very serious economic problems in Cape Breton. The house leader rises and talks about awarding stars for hockey games. I remind the house leader there can be no stars awarded for the attendance of ministers in the house.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Groos:: They had been in the house for am hour and 35 minutes when they left.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his point and I wonder whether we could not go on to the business of the house now.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to deal with the interjection of the hon. member for Victoria-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really do not think the hon. member should deal with the


interjection. I suggest to the hon. member who made the interjection that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond had the floor, and his were the only remarks that the Chair heard.


Donald MacInnis: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, it was the hon. member for Victoria who made the interjection.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill S-15, to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of Bill S-15 I would like to give a short explanation of its background. Bill S-15 is a consolidation of two bills which were introduced ini the last parliament and not completed at the time of dissolution. One of them, Bill S-21 in that parliament, was designed to create a new category of drugs within the Food and Drugs Act known as restricted drugs. The other, the former Bill S-22, was an omnibus bill whose major component was the creation of a hazardous substances act. This portion of that bill was subsequently shifted to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs where it formed the basis of the hazardous products bill now before parliament. The balance of the former Bill S-22 was combined with the former Bill S-21 to become the present Bill S-15.
This bill adds a new Part IV to the Food and Drugs Act, called restricted drugs. It also makes certain amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act which are designed to bring into uniformity certain provisions already in those measures.
This bill further amends the Food and Drugs Act in accordance with the very important recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare of the previous parliament by adding provisions that will bring within that act the regulation of the sale and advertising of contraceptive
March 27, 1969

be added to the schedule in order that maximum protection to the public health can be achieved with legitimate research and experimentation still permitted.
I mentioned earlier that the provisions of this bill go back two years when they began as parts of two predecessor bills. A great deal has happened in the field of drug abuse in that time and this has been reflected in the enormous increase in the number of prosecutions under both the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act.
The numbers of prosecutions for possession of a drug listed under paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Narcotic Control Act increased between 1966 and 1968 from 493 to 1,727. But in spite of the enormous variety of individual situations1 involved in that number of cases, the relevant section of that act provides very little scope for flexibility, either on the part of Crown prosecutors or presiding judges or magistrates. There is no provision for the Crown to choose to proceed summarily; it is obliged to proceed by way of indictment. There is no provision for a judge or magistrate to impose a fine as the penalty; they are obliged to impose a penal sentence, though they can, of course, suspend it.
This rigidity has been the subject of increasing criticism from a wide variety of sources such as the addiction research agencies of several provinces, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the United Church, university-sponsored conferences, and judges and magistrates themselves. Clearly there is need for the introduction of scope for flexibility into this section. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I propose that a further amendment to the Narcotic Control Act be included in this bill and I intend to move at committee stage as follows:
That Bill S-15 be amended by striking out line 29 on page 8 and substituting the following:
"(2) Every person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a)	upon summary conviction for a first offence, to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both fine and imprisonment, and for a subsequent offence, to a fine of two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year or to both fine and imprisonment; or
(b)	upon conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for seven years."
Section 2 of the amendment will read, "Section 9 of the said Act". The amendment will be passed around to hon. members.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that provision remains for the Crown to choose to proceed by way of indictment and for the court, in
Food and Drugs Act-Narcotic Control Act such a case, to impose a penalty to the extent of the present maximum. But provision will also now exist, if this amendment becomes law, for the Crown to proceed summarily, in which case the maximum penalties, both for first and subsequent offences, will be the same as the maximums set out for possession of a restricted drug under the section being created by this bill in the Food and Drugs Act.
This bill covers a number of areas in the health field. I hope its provisions and the amendment I have proposed will commend themselves to hon. members.


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long at this stage. I know that the bill is to be referred to the standing committee. By and large I think the minister has given a very complete explanation of the provisions of the bill. He mentioned a further amendment which he proposes to move when we get to the committee. Of course at that time we will be in a position to study the matter completely.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I was interested in the evidence given by Mr. Curran, general counsel for the department, before the Banking and Commerce Committee of the other place when they were studying this bill. The minister in his remarks made a statement concerning the advertising of contraceptives. I believe that such advertising is to be limited to a degree. I think the minister said that associations might be permitted so to advertise but probably only in professional magazines, or that type of thing, rather than through the general media of television, radio, newspapers, and so on. Personally I am in favour of all the amendments proposed in the bill. One or two members of my party wish to say a few words on the details, but generally speaking I believe we are in favour of it. We will, of course, be looking forward to giving it closer study in committee.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I think a great many people across the country feel that this is an occasion which ought to be welcomed and of which special notice should be taken because it is the end of a very long road and a long campaign to legalize the dissemination of birth control information and the sale of contraceptives. The minister introduced the bill in a very clear way. He explained its genesis and how it is composed of the remains of two
March 27, 1869

Food and Drugs Act-Narcotic Control Act other bills. Birth control legislation has had some very strange bedfellows.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: In the last parliament it appeared in a measure to deal with hazardous substances, Bill S-22. Barbara Cadbury, a pioneer in planned parenthood in Canada, referred in an article in Canadian Welfare to the debate on the bill which took place in the other place. She told how one of the legislators there described the need for that legislation to deal with the following:
Toy chickens with poison-contaminated feathers, blankets contaminated with dieldrin, poisonous beads and poisonous canape picks and ice-balls that might leak poisons into cocktails, about the hazards of silver polish and of "that family of commodities commonly used for cleaning pipes and drains". At the very end (of the bill) came a proposal to move contraceptives, both drugs and appliances, out of the Criminal Code and into the hazardous substances section of the Food and Drugs Act.
Mrs. Cadbury commented that supporters of birth control had never imagined that their cause would be dealt with in a composite bill along with the hazards of silver polish, but they were nonetheless thankful that with the passage of that bill birth control would be removed from the Criminal Code. Bill S-22 was set aside, as the minister said, at the end of the last parliament. Now we have birth control back in Bill S-15, teamed up with narcotics control. As I say, birth control has had strange bedfellows, but I hope the strange bedfellows are at an end and that birth control is now being made into an honest woman or an honest man, or probably both.
I shall now deal with some of the amendments contained in the bill. I intend to confine my remarks to those clauses which deal with the birth control issue. In general, we are tremendously concerned about the narcotics issue, but I hope someone else from my party will deal with that question. The amendments in this bill concerning birth control will make it possible for Canadians, for the first time in history, to plan and space their families legally. We hear a great deal about the need for a bill of rights. This bill defines and protects some of the most basic and fundamental rights the people of any country can have, the right of parents to decide how many and at what intervals they will have children, and the right of children to be loved and wanted once they arrive.
While talking about pioneers I would like to mention our colleague in this group, the former member for Burnaby-Richmond, now
[Mrs. Maclnnis.1
the mayor of Burnaby, who from 1963 onward in almost every session introduced a bill to legalize birth control. So did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford). He did not start quite as early, but his acceleration was very good once he got going on it. The minister introduced a very fine bill in the 1966 session.
This has not been an easy matter. Certain members of this house took a great deal of converting. Quite a while ago one hon. member in an earlier session-I am quoting from Hansard-said:
In my opinion this is a diabolical scheme straight from hell itself-
Another member said:
-such a measure would pave the way for the most damaging abuse and the most awful immorality.
But things have moved in this respect and today I believe this matter is seen in the light in which it is now regarded all over the world, that is, one of enlightened planning of our human resources.
I want to say something about our experience on the Health and Welfare Committee, on which this party was represented by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself. From February, 1966, to November of that year we studied briefs on this subject from representatives of many types of organizations, medical, legal, social work professions, all the major churches, women's organizations, and many others across Canada. Almost all the evidence favoured removing birth control from the Criminal Code, so much so that one of our members made the following remark:
Maybe we could find a way to get briefs from people who are against birth control.
The result was a report that was favoured by all but one body which came before us. Every body that came before us, except one, which was one of the smaller churches, favoured our report. All but one committee member favoured the report. I refer to that very colourful member from Toronto who is no longer with us and who was referred to at one time as "the implacable foe of the 20th century". That hon. member registered his vote against the report but the rest of us voted in favour of it. I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker, but I think this is a pretty historic occasion for a great many people in this country who have worked for many
March 27. 1969

years on this matter. Part of that 1966 report reads as follows:
Your committee feels that the dissemination of family planning knowledge should be completely available and free from any fear of illegality, as a matter of personal choice.
On the following page of the report we find these words:
Medical knowledge and technique are at a level today where intelligent family planning can be carried out relatively easily. The present laws of Canada have made this impossible in its fullest sense. It is the feeling of your committee that family planning is a personal decision of a married couple and the state should not interfere with action or laws in any way to influence such a personal decision.
That is a little longer-winded way of saying what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has put in very pungent language, that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. I am glad to see that the result is this legislation.
In the bill now before us the government has embodied all the recommendations of our committee report. As the minister pointed out, these are three in number. One was that section 150 of the Criminal Code be amended by taking out those three little words which are pregnant with misery, "preventing conception or". By taking those three words out of the Criminal Code we are taking birth control out of the category of crime. The second was that the Food and Drugs Act be amended so that the word "device" is broadened to include contraceptives, which now come under the aegis of the Food and Drug Directorate. The third was that the Food and Drugs Act be amended to control the advertising of contraceptives.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I notice that the minister stated that the advertising of contraceptives was, in his opinion, if I understood him correctly, to be limited only to those organizations concerned with family planning and information in connection with it. I am a little worried for fear this may be interpreted too narrowly in the regulations. For this reason I should like to quote the position which was put on paper on September 27, 1968, by the Family Planning Federation when they wrote to all of us concerning what they would like to see in the regulations governing advertising. The Family Planning Federation, which has its French language counterpart in La Federation Pour la Planification Familiale, said the following
Food and Drugs Act-Narcotic Control Act regarding the advertising of family planning devices:
Our position is that the innate good taste of the general public will dictate what they will accept in the way of advertisement of any product.
Then they quote the following:
The medical committee of the F.P.F.C. feels strongly that no distinction needs to be drawn between regulations concerning contraceptive products and regulations already applicable to controlled drugs, to patent medicines, cosmetics, beauty aids, tampons, toilet paper, suppositories for feminine hygiene, deodorants, and the like.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is coughing, perhaps I might answer the question she asked me. She wondered what advertising would be permitted. Our understanding is that in the committee, of which the hon. member was a member some concern was indicated with regard to widespread advertising and a desire was expressed for some type of control. We propose to do it by regulation and not to restrict it in respect of the various responsible agencies that are concerned with birth control and family planning. What we are really talking about here is the prevention of direct advertising by the manufacturers themselves.


Donald MacInnis: The quotation continues:
We therefore recommend that contraceptive products should be considered on precisely the same terms as other products for which regulation of controlled drugs or hazardous substances is necessary.


John Carr Munro: From her coughing, I think the hon. member is smoking too much.


Donald MacInnis: That is one temptation I have not had. It is the only minor vice I do not have.
I just wanted to put that opinion on the record. This legislation will do a number of very desirable things, and I want to summarize them briefly. First, it will bring our law into line with the way we live. Birth control is being widely practised across Canada. The figures of birth in Canada show this to be the case, not without exception in the Canadian provinces but certainly it is so in those provinces where one might expect not to find declines in the birth rate.
Second, it will provide rules that can be respected and will create respect for the law as a whole. Several witnesses appearing before our committee impressed on us the fact that birth control legislation under the Criminal Code was not good legislation because it could not be enforced. They said it would bring
March 27, 1969
7206	COMMONS
Food and Drugs Act-Narcotic Control Act the whole of the law into disrespect. Among these organizations was the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops who emphasized very strongly that it was a bad law and should not be continued. They said:
In the light of these conditions we consider Article 150, which forbids giving information about contraception as well as the sale or distribution of contraceptives, an inadequate law today. We consider it so quite independently of the morality or immorality of various methods of birth prevention. We believe it a deficient law because it does not meet all the conditions outlined above.
The law is not in fact enforced-
The minister said that there have been very few prosecutions.
-and the good of public peace might well be lost by attempts to enforce it. A large number of our fellow citizens believe that this law violates their rights to be informed and helped towards responsible parenthood in accordance with their personal beliefs.
It is our clear understanding, of course, that the modification of the law in question is not to extend to that part of it which has to do with abortion.
That was the stand of the Catholic Conference of Bishops at that time.
In the third place, this legislation will give people the knowledge they need. From a pioneer in birth control education comes the following comment:
Canada cannot raise enough money to support all dependent people in comfort; and it is about time that the increasing demands were checked through birth control which would be welcomed. There has been a definite drop in Canada's birth rate and Quebec province rate in 1967 was slightly less than Ontario. People who can help themselves do so ... Birth rates on the average vary inversely with the earning capacity of the parents.
From the Canadian Welfare Council's brief comes the following:
There is no evidence that the poor are basically less willing and anxious to plan their families than are the economically well off. Most often they simply do not know how.

Here is the opinion of Dr. Serge Mongeau, director of the family planning centre, in Montreal, and I quote:
For the population in general, would repealing the law bring demographic growth to a standstill? In this connection, perhaps it is time for Canada to examine its conscience a little. We leave it to the have nots, who often are the least prepared for it, to bring into the world and to educate our citizens of tomorrow.
This .legislation, Mr. Speaker, will give low-income people, as well as those who are better off financially, the necessary information and the right that will enable them to plan their family according to their means.

Finally, the fourth point is that in a world where so many people are suffering the tragedy and disaster of populations far greater than they can support, it ill behooves us in Canada to lecture them on the need for population control when at the same time we have neglected to take the steps necessary to legalize such measures ourselves. I may say that it strains their credibility to the breaking point. The passage of this measure will be an important step along the road to speaking to other countries not by our words but by our example. With the spectre of a world with diminishing resources whose population will double between now and the year 2000, any contribution we can make in this direction will be of some value.
We in this party commend the government for this bill which we shall support wholeheartedly.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this bill in a general way. But in dealing with the contraceptive portion of the bill may I say that this legislation is far behind what has been the custom and a part of the social mores of this country for many years. So this is a case of catching up with what has been practised by society for a long time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I would say that though variations in birth rates' are caused by a combination of many factors, some of them fairly obscure, there is no doubt that the ease with which contraceptive devices can be obtained has some effect, though perhaps not as great an effect as many people believe. I suppose that in Canada knowledge about birth control is available to most students and it is practiced as personally deemed fit. I should like to point out, however, that this measure would allow officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare in their dealings with the native populations to establish family planning. Our attention is focused upon the problem in this regard when we consider that the birth rate among native peoples is almost 44 per 1,000, some three times the national average. So this part of the bill brings us up to date and falls into line with what has been the practice for a long time.
The second part of the bill is concerned, among other things, with l.s.d. which constitutes a continuing problem. As one familiar with controlled drugs for many years, I am amazed by the great problem they have
March 27. 1989

become. The difficulty about l.s.d. and the other drugs mentioned here is that they are hallucogenic and their effect on those who take them is unpredictable. While the effects of alcohol can usually be predicted, the effects of l.s.d. cannot. There is not much evidence that these drugs produce addiction in the accepted sense that heroin and morphine do, but their unpredictability makes those who deal with these people quite wary. One trip a person might take might seem normal or not unusual, but on the following one he might attempt to defy the law of gravity. So I think it is wise to include these drugs in the schedule.
This action only scratches the surface, however. The real problem is what we shall have to do as a society about the use of marijuana and other euphorics, which seem to be in a different category. I, personally, would not say at this time what we ought to do about the drug problem, but I would ask the minister and his department to investigate the subject with all reasonable speed, because I think that we as a society and we as a parliament will eventually have to deal with it.
Having made these few remarks, let me conclude by saying I look forward to examining this bill more closely in committee and I commend the minister for bringing it forward at this time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for a little elucidation in connection with this bill. I want to commend the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) who sits in the same row as myself and who has been such a doughty warrior over the years in this field. She used the word "bedfellows", and I note the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has said we must not invade the bedrooms of the nation. So if I am confused, Mr. Speaker, you will know why.
The subject on which I need some elucidation concerns the sale and the advertising of contraceptive devices. I believe the minister said advertisements would not be allowed to be placed and paid for by the commercial firms which make these contraceptives. If I am wrong or if I misheard him, I hope he will correct me. Are the social service workers going to pay for these advertisements? Who will check them? Are they to be checked by public health officials or by the welfare agencies before they appear in magazines or other printed media? Who will scrutinize the
7207
Food and Drugs Act-Narcotic Control Act journals or other papers in which they are
advertised?
There is another matter about which I am a little concerned. I notice that the senator who introduced this1 bill in the other house, one who is a member of my own profession, spoke about "devices" and in doing so roamed over a wide field. As I understood his remarks, they covered hearing aids and eye glasses. I find myself wondering whether the purport of this bill is to include all devices which may be used in the treatment of medical illness or in the course of medical welfare.
I should also like to know whether springs and loops are included in these devices. Will these loops be inserted by persons other than doctors in the welfare agencies which may be carrying out birth control measures or running family planning emits across1 the country? Who will say whether these devices should be used or not? Who will pay for them? I think this is an important consideration. Will they be recommended to people who are in receipt of welfare grants? Who will look after them?
I was interested, too, in the provision concerning the analysis of drugs and chemicals. I note that the analyst can analyse each chemical mentioned and sign a certificate which may be brought into court as evidence. He does this on the basis of a sample. But is part of this sample given to the accused so that he may check it and produce his own evidence in court if he wishes to do so?
The other matter which drew my attention arises in connection with clause 8 having to do with the possession of controlled drugs for trafficking. All the barbiturates are included here, and they cover a wide field. Does this provision mean that if a doctor writes a prescription for barbiturates his patient, if found in possession of it, is liable to be hauled into court for trafficking, though the doctor who wrote it goes scot-free?


An hon. Member:: No.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Somebody says no. But I am not sure about that.
Is the number of barbiturates on a doctor's prescription limited? Surely a doctor is not going to write a prescription for a lot of barbiturates. If he writes a prescription for a small number he may repeat it, if necessary. Some prescriptions have to be repeated at certain intervals. The patient has to go to the doctor, pay for an office call, which would usually amount to $5, and then pay the price of the prescription plus the cost of the drug.
March 27, 1969
7208	COMMONS
Food and Drugs Act-Narcotic Control Act This would make it expensive and not conducive to trafficking, and I am wondering what is the purpose of relieving the medical doctor of complete responsibility for the writing of that prescription. Maybe it is a good thing, maybe it is necessary, but that is something I should like to find out about from the minister.
I note that the question of l.s.d. comes up in connection with prescriptions and I find myself wondering whether doctors have ever written prescriptions for l.s.d. I wonder whether a doctor could write a prescription for l.s.d. and get it filled. Why is it mentioned? I understand from the research people that l.s.d. is difficult to obtain through legal channels even for research. I do not know what drugstore or agency could fill a prescription for it. These are the questions I should like to have the minister elucidate if he can do so.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, If I made an adequate note of the questions put by the hon. member for Simcoe North-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Carr Munro: Then I will wait.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the desire of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) to speak so that he can answer some of the points that have been raised, but I think he will get that opportunity very shortly. It looks as though this debate is not going to last very long and that we can get the bill through before five o'clock.
As a matter of fact, I think it is rather significant that a bill of this kind is going through so quickly. When one thinks of the many years that it took to establish the propriety of disseminating birth control information, years in which one could hardly mention the subject, it is interesting to contemplate that this bit of progress has at least been achieved. I wish merely to support the position that has already been taken on behalf of this party by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). We welcome the change that is being made, and in the main it is a very simple one: any law respecting birth control or contraception is being taken out of the Criminal Code and put under the authority of the Department of National Health and Welfare, where it ought to be.


We appreciate the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in regard to regulations far advertising. I do not think we need press him any further; I gather it is pretty clear that he is not going to be too prudish about this sort of thing or take a line that would make it possible for certain people to make undue profits or for certain people to be put to heavy expense in this connection.
With regard to the legislation on drugs, it appears to us that the government is moving in a sensible direction. We notice the distinction between restricted drugs and controlled drugs, and the distinction between mere possession and possession for trafficking. We also notice the authority that the government is asking parliament 'to give the minister's department so it can exercise a certain amount of flexibility in this matter. In other words, we recognize that society is still trying to sort itself out in this field1. This is an area where the government has to act, yet where it has to have a certain amount of flexibility. Therefore we welcome both parts of this bill, the part having to do with birth control and the part having to do with the control of drugs, and we are happy to give the bill our support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if there are no further speakers may I answer a few of the questions that have been raised. I want to indicate to the house that this legislation has received input from members of all parties; we acknowledge that. My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has been a champion of such action, along with many members of the official opposition, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and others. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, the bill is going through the house very rapidly and this is obviously due to the fact that the law is catching up with what society has condoned for many years.
To answer -some specific questions that have been asked, particularly by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), I think the definition of devices would now include many of the examples the hon. member referred to, if not all of them.
March 27, 1969

With regard to his question about barbiturates, what clause 8 actually provides is that if somebody is found with an undue or excessive amount of barbiturates, the mere fact he obtained them on prescription in an otherwise legal manner will no longer be an automatic defence to a charge of possession for purposes of trafficking. Previously, if a person was able to show they were legally obtained that was a sufficient defence and the Crown's case was dismissed.
In this regard I think some protection is also given the medical profession, pharmacists and so on. It is possible to go to many different sources with prescriptions and get them filled, and1 to go to many different doctors for prescriptions, thus obtaining an excessive quantity of such drugs. So there is merit in this type of provision we are now suggesting the house pass. It does deal with that particular situation.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask a question on that point when the minister is through.


John Carr Munro: If I may go to the other points, it is not possible to get l.s.d. on prescription now. In order to control the situation we put it in the prohibited category, but it will now go into the new restricted class and it can be used for research purposes only with special authority. Other than that it will be prohibited and possession will constitute an offence, which it is not at the present time.
The hon. member also asked about drug analysis and physical possession of the actual substance itself. I am not certain about that matter and will check before the bill goes to the standing committee. I have some doubt whether that would be permissible. As I indicated, defence counsel with the leave of the court can require the analyst to be present in court and can subject him to crossexamination. Or he could himself call the analyst as a defence witness without leave of the court. This gives the defence considerable legal protection because it can subject the analyst to vigorous cross-examination. Undoubtedly counsel would be able to demand production of the actual substance itself for the purpose of making it an exhibit in the court, but whether he would be able to take it away and have his own analysis done I am not certain. However, I will check that.


Philip Bernard Rynard: 
John Carr Munro: I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker, but the hon., member probably knows more about this than I do. It seems that very few people would acquire these devices and try do use them without professional help.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would the minister check into that point and inform us whether these devices will be under the control of doctors? There are certain risks attached to them, and I believe that there should be such protection in the bill.
The other point concerned prescriptions for barbiturates. If a person is convicted of having possession of barbiturates, is there any way of notifying his doctor that he had better not prescribe them for him in future, or is the whole process to be repeated again? Is there some provision along that line?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is no provision in the bill that makes it incumbent upon the Crown or the police to inform the medical profession or pharmacists about people who are convicted of offences of this kind. That suggestion may have great merit but I am not sure it is the type of thing you put in legislation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 14, consideration of Bill C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): The
hon. member for Richmond.
An hon. Member:: He is not here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Since the hon. member is not here the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
March 27, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we had not expected this bill to be called so early today. We therefore beg the house to excuse the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) who is in his office right now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate the hon. member who wishes to move the first amendment may I suggest that, if hon. members agree, we should allow that amendment to stand and proceed with the amendment that immediately follows it, as listed at the back of today's order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that the first amendment shall stand and that we proceed with the second amendment listed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The understanding is, of course, that we shall return to the first amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-102, an act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, he amended by inserting in clause 1 after the word "Commissioner" on line 15, page 2, the following words:
"on advice of a tribunal comprising the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce."


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this proposed amendment to the bill may I say that certain fundamental principles have been disregarded. Dr. Harley, a most able man, was chairman of a commission that examined the question of drug prices. He has since left the house and gone to other fields. I think there are only a few of us here now who sat on the Harley commission from its inception. I may be wrong, but that is my recollection. That commission did -a tremendous amount of work. It heard approximately 100 witnesses, sought legal and accounting advice and heard representations from the medical profession, drug manufacturers and others. As hon. members know, the commission was instructed to inquire into ways in which drug prices could be reduced, a worthy aim for it to pursue. I believe the commission's legal adviser is now the patent commissioner. The
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
hon. member for Wellinigton-Grey (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) were also members of that commission.
After studying for many months the question of whether drug prices could be brought down in this country the commission brought down a report. I will not go into details except to say that the fundamental part of the report or its core, if you like, was that drug prices might be brought down if that could be done without interfering with the clinical effectiveness of the drugs concerned and without harming the public good in any way.
The government that preceded this one introduced Bill C-190. Fortunately, it later agreed to abandon part of that bill. The Conservative opposition of that time deserves credit for fighting some of the clauses in that bill to the point where it was withdrawn. Fundamental changes were made in it and a similar bill has now been introduced in the house by this government.
I commend the minister for introducing a changed bill. It ought to be understood that the previous bill has been changed, that the changes were for the good and that it was the Conservative party that insisted on those changes being made. I commend the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), then the minister of consumer and corporate affairs, for having had the wisdom to examine the previous bill, recognize that it needed changing and co-operate with the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) in bringing about the changes. Nevertheless, the present minister did not go far enough in order to make it a good bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is an excellent bill.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister says it is an excellent bill. That is what the government said about a year ago. They said, "This is a perfect bill. You should not object to it." Despite what was said, the minister's predecessor saw the light of day and I hope the present minister will also see the light of day.
I remember the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) saying that Bill C-102, introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, was designed to bring down drug prices. As a matter of fact, the present minister attended almost all the meetings of the committee, and I commend him for his courtesy and for his manner of answering the questions that were asked. I think he did a good job on the subject of drug prices. What annoyed me was that after the commission brought down its report the government
March 27. 1969	COMMONS
introduced the present Bill C-102 and said there would be no changes, come hell or high water, and that was all there was to it. In view of what happened ultimately the Committee's sittings were nothing but exercises in futility. As I say, there were to be no amendments. Any amendments that were moved were not accepted. The government would not permit any witnesses other than the officials it chose to call to be heard. We wanted to hear the evidence of certain witnesses to clear up certain matters. We did not know how far the Food and Drug Directorate was to go in determining the clinical efficiency of drugs or the therapeutic effectiveness of equivalent or substitute drugs.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to do so because I enjoy listening to the hon. member for Simcoe North who always has a great many important things to say. As I understand the new rules as they are being enforced, the rule of relevancy is being enforced rather stringently at this stage by Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with an amendment proposing that compulsory licences be granted by a tribunal. I think the hon. member for Simcoe North is wandering somewhat from that point.


Mr.   Becnard@Acting Speaker: I thank the minister, but I think the hon. member for Simcoe North is coming to the amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister did not mean exactly what he said. He is pretty good natured. I know that what I say hurts him and I realize he is on the spur. He knows this as well as I do. If he did not, he would not be jumping up from his seat.
I want to say there was not one witness heard. They were invited but their invitations almost told them "Don't come here because you haven't anything to say". Telegrams were sent all the way from Vancouver stating that they had something to contribute to this very important measure. The minister knows how important it is because he has said many times that he must have the co-operation of the doctors in order for it to be successful- either that or force them to use drugs they would not otherwise prescribe.
In the committee the minister stood up and said "Oh no, the hon. member for Simcoe North is completely wrong. I would never do that. It is a complete distortion of facts". The minister has either one of two choices. I would like him to state if there is any other
DEBATES	7211
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act course for him to follow. The minister did not receive the valuable co-operation of the Canadian Medical Association. It is the doctors who will be writing the prescriptions. This could have been done very easily. I also believe that the operation of this bill should be reviewed after the legislation has been in force for a while because we will want to know how it is working out. We can then study it in order to determine that the Canadian public is being protected in the way it should.
In the committee meeting somebody asked that one drug be named that had the quality and same constituents but did not have therapeutic equivalency. The drug named was Chloromycetin. I think it was Goddard-I will refer to my notes to make sure this is correct-yes, Goddard stated that there were approximately 20 drugs and not one was as we were led to believe. I refer to page 301 of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, volume 100, which states:
Official standards by themselves do not necessarily assure therapeutic effectiveness. They do not provide biological performance tests. The generic name applies only to the drug entity and hence so-called generic equivalence may vary widely depending on the particular manufacturer. Despite the minister's statement that "lack of therapeutic equivalency among drugs meeting all official standards has been grossly exaggerated as a major hazard to public health", there is an impressive list of treatment failures, drug recalls and reformulations.
I think this indicates to the minister what thin ice he is skating on. This is the authority. Goddard stated that "there may be in reality more than two dozen types of drugs to be implicated as generically equivalent but therapeutically non-equivalent." The minister did not follow the premise that safety in clinical equivalence must be foremost or whether that could be consistent with price reduction.
The article continues:
These include chloramphenicol, erythromycin, tetracycline, corticosteroids, anticonvulsants, griseo-fulvin, tolbutamide, bishydroxycoumarin, penicillin, etc. This danger is directly compounded by the number of manufacturers and different sources of supply.
I am trying to be kindly when I state that the minister is skating on very thin ice and that he should have tried to get the co-operation of the medical profession as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I will kindly tell the hon. member I was mistaken when I thought he was coming to the point.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the point.

March 27, 1969
Private Bills



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. 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 Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Labour Conditions-alternative to compensate for cancelled winter works program; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- Post Office Department-effect of increased rates on Printing industry; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-Fisheries-seals- disposal of Norwegian ship under seizure.
The time being five o'clock 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]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Weather-head for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-13, An Act respecting The Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
Mr. Forest:: Stand.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to stand an order to resume a debate. The hon. gentleman behind me is prepared to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yves Forest: I understand that the member who sponsored this bill is away on government business overseas. We would be ready to proceed with order No. 4, Bill S-27, in the name of the hon. member for L6vis.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there (has been no communication of that sort that I know of. We were prepared to proceed with the first item in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, which has been stood at the request of the government. In anticipation of the next item being called, resuming debate on second reading of the bill respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance
.[Mr. Rynard.l
Company, we are prepared to proceed with that bill. For that reason it is not possible to give unanimous consent.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): In the
absence of unanimous consent we will proceed with order No. 2.
The house resumed, from Friday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weath-erhead that Bill S-13, respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that during this debate someone will tell us more about this company. I am a farmer and I buy insurance. I was hoping that someone on the government benches would try to sell this insurance company to us a little so that we could learn more about it. In times past government members have frequently been reluctant to tell us very much about such bills, and since this bill does not say very much about the particular company concerned it would be a little awkward for a backbencher to debate it without doing some research on it, which is what I did.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I thought I had better have a look at this great Canadian insurance company which was founded on August 7, 1889. I wonder why it has been a subsidiary of the Aetna Life Insurance Company since 1960 and why it is no longer a Canadian company. If it was such a great Canadian institution, why did that happen?
If we look at the company's balance sheet we discover that its premium income in 1967 was some $34 million and its total income was some $49 million. Total assets of this great Canadian company were $204 million and it had a surplus of $11,792,000, with net reserves of some $166 million. In the period from 1908 to 1956 it averaged 8 per cent on paid-up capital. To me that sounds fairly affluent. If I had earned a rate of 8 per cent over the 26 years I have been farming I would have a lot more money than I have now.
The other day we had a nice lecture from the government benches to the effect that we in this party have no idea how business is run. Maybe I am in the wrong business. Instead of being a farmer possibly I should be in the insurance business. But, as I say, I am a buyer of insurance, not a seller, and to me an average earning of 8 per cent seems a little too high, particularly when one takes into
March 27, 19G9

account all the sinking funds and other incidentals previously deducted by the company. I wonder whether this company, by overcharging for insurance, is not contributing to inflation. As a farmer I feel it is charging too much and that I am not getting value for the dollar I invest in insurance.
If government member say that we know nothing about insurance, let me point out what happens on a farm in Saskatchewan. I have accident and casualty insurance, automotive insurance for two trucks and a car, fire and wind insurance on farm buildings, and I contribute to crop insurance. In addition, as an individual I have a life insurance policy. As a buyer of this product, insurance, I suggest that the charges are too high. I suggest that it is in the interests of this particular businessman to get insurance at a cheaper rate, and that insurance companies should provide better service for the money they charge. In effect I say to them, "Your rates are too high. If you want to go into business in Canada you should give a more reasonable return."
I would like to ask some questions about this company. I am aware it is licensed in all the provinces of Canada, but where is the bulk of its cutomers? What special services is it offering to the Canadian people when it wishes to sell insurance to them? Does this company have any particular business with the government of Canada? This is one question in particular that should be answered. I know that I am covered by a health insurance policy, but I would like to know whether I am contributing as a member of parliament to this company. We are entitled to know whether this company does any business with the government of Canada.
What reason would an American company have for buying a Canadian subsidiary in the insurance field other than to make money? I can see this being done by American companies in the automobile or tractor businesses where larger markets help to increase profits, but is it necessary in the insurance field?
I would like to look now at the operations of the American big daddy in this case, the Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut. Just what does this company do? What service does it perform? What is its1 financial position? I have here a few figures taken from Moody's Bank and Finance Manual which show that in 1967 the total income of this big daddy was $1,638 million. The increase in its reserves in 1967 was $310
Private Bills
million, policy holder dividends were $28 million, and federal income taxes, that is, American income taxes, totalled $29 million. The net left after federal income tax was $38 million, and its surplus account as of January 1 was $335 million. Its net capital gain that year was $12 million, making a total surplus account of $393 million, almost $400 million. I suggest that this is pretty adequate and I wonder whether it is necessary that we as Canadians should contribute to the welfare of American policy holders by paying dividends to an American Caesar.
Years ago it used to be the case that Roman armies marched info a country and as a result its inhabitants had to pay tribute to Caesar. Now a different type of invasion takes place, the invasion of capital investment, but the country's inhabitants pay tribute just the same. Perhaps it is more dignified, and some of the people in the invaded country even think it is a good thing. That seems to be the case with the government.
To return to my original argument, as a consumer of insurance I object to paying such high rates to Canadian insurance companies. It hurts me even more to pay these high rates to an American company, particularly when that company ultimately pays taxes to the United States government rather than to the Canadian government. I challenge hon. members on the government benches to say whether this company receives any business from the Canadian federal government or its employees. This is a question that bothers me when I see a government sponsoring a bill of this nature. As there are other members who wish to contribute to the debate, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to for go any further comments on this occasion.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member asked me to answer several questions. With regard to the province in which the company is registered I presume, although this would be subject to check, it is registered in the provinces in which it carried on business. As I think I indicated when I introduced the bill the present company, the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company has claims offices located in Quebec City, Ottawa, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. The new company, of course, could not be registered in any province until it is actually incorporated and ready to carry on business.

March 27, 1969
Private Bills
I presume the question with regard to whether there are contracts with the government is directed also to the existing company, the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. I would be glad to obtain that information for the hon. member. I should say, however, that answers to all the questions he and others might have could be given most conveniently if he and his colleagues would permit this bill in the normal course to go to the committee where we would have before the committee the executive officers of the company to give complete answers to any questions any member of the house might have.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate this afternoon I should like to refer to the comments made in the other place with regard to Bill S-13, regarding the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, which is before us at this time. I should like to review some of the statements which have been made in' this regard and really bring us up to date concerning what is actually happening and the reason I have some doubts at this time in respect of the passage of this bill. I am sure many members of the house realize that the purpose of Bill S-13 is to convert the Excelsior Life Insurance Company from the status of a company with provincial incorporation to that of a company with federal incorporation. As such the purpose of the bill is exactly the same as that of many bills which have come before the committee of the other place in recent years. The main difference here is that this bill proposes a somewhat different procedure from that which has been traditional. This difference was referred to by the Superintendent of Insurance when he spoke to the committee of the other place. I should like to quote from page 1 of the evidence of the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce of the Senate for Wednesday, June 7, 1967. The Superintendent of Insurance said:
Honourable senators will recall that the usual practice in cases such as this is to incorporate a new company by special act and empower that company to take over the assets and the liabilities of the provincial company by agreement. That system works very well in small companies and we have used it very often. This case, however, is somewhat different, since Excelsior is a well established company with a large volume of business in force and a large volume of assets. The traditional method that we have used, involving a transfer from one corporate entity to another, would require a transfer of assets with the expense and difficulty of re-registering mortgages and securities and also involving the problem of transferring the contractual liabilities of the many
[Mr. Wahn.l
thousands of policies outstanding, from one corporate entity to another.
Therefore, this bill proposes a different procedure, one whereby Parliament would declare that the company is continued as a corporation in the same sense as if it had been a corporation incorporated by special act of Parliament; it would be clothed with all the powers of a federal company and subject to all the restrictions and obligations.
In dealing with this statement it should be recognized-and this information is available-that in the case of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company it is now a provineially incorporated company and is not subject to the provisions put in the Canadian and British Insurance Company's Act in 1965 to restrict the sale of shares to non-residents. Even if it becomes a federal company subject in all respects to that act, it will still have an exemption from this provision by virtue of the fact that more than 50 per cent of the shares are now held by one non-resident.
In dealing with the situation in respect of the incorporation of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company I should like to refer briefly to a statement made by the president of the Royal Bank of Canada. I believe it bears directly on the situation as we find it in this case. I shall quote from the Globe and Mail of Friday, March 21, 1969. The article refers to the comments of Mr. W. Earle McLaughlin, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, and states:
In a speech prepared for the American Club in Paris, Mr. McLaughlin said any effort to "buy Canada back" from U.S. investors would be self-defeating.
The article continues:
However, "there is at present a real danger that foreign-owned Canadian corporations may become subject to foreign laws or regulations that reach across the national boundary."
I suggest in respect of the first statement that the president of the Royal Bank of Canada is really suggesting that we should not be concerned about buying back Canada from other countries because it would be self-defeating. In his second statement he is suggesting there is a real danger that our friends across the line may impose their laws upon corporations which are doing business in Canada. I say with due respect that the president of the Royal Bank of Canada has most certainly been very evasive in his statements. Personally I do not find the two statements to be very meaningful in respect of what we are trying to bring about in Canada at this time. The article goes on to say:
The U.S. government may try to force Canadian subsidiaries of domestic companies to obey U.S.
March 27, 1969

regulations. "The subsidiary may then be denied the right to do something that is perfectly legal, even encouraged, by Canadian law and policy." This problem, he added, should be solved through inter-government consultation rather than restrictive legislation.
We have seen various areas-I might refer to the International Grains Arrangement- where we thought we had international governmental control and regulation but found that regulations really mean very little if those who are signatories to the document are not prepared to be honest and forthright in their dealings. I am frightened that the same thing could happen with insurance companies under our present system unless there are strong laws to govern them completely because the fact is they are not too concerned about regulations.
If another country were to enforce its regulations upon companies within our boundaries then I suggest that the intent of the president of the Royal Bank of Canada will never be fulfilled. I certainly appreciate his sincerity in this article when he says that the over-all situation might be improved through intergovernmental consultation rather than restrictive legislation. To date, however, we have not seen this type of intergovernmental regulation in the insurance field, particularly since the majority of the money is controlled across the line, and we really become subservient to that control in our society today.
Another matter which comes to my mind is related particularly to the article ini the Globe and Mail of March 21 where Mr. McLaughlin is reported to have said:
The case against the Buy Back Canada scheme is therefore overwhelming.
He is referring to the buying back of Canada about which we have read so much in various editorials and well documented articles. But here we have the president of the Royal Bank of Canada suggesting that there really is no case to present for our stand that we should buy back Canada or at least invest in Canada so that we can control our own destiny. The article continues:
-all discriminatory Canadian legislation should be repealed; and, most important of all, foreign law and regulation should stop at the border.
This point is very well taken, but we know that in actual practice many of these situations do not really materialize in the way in which all of us here in Canada would like. I have another article which I should like to refer to briefly. I believe we all realize that in
Private Bills
respect of the investigations that are going on by various Canadian corporations, labour unions, and so on it never happens that information is not reported in the papers. This is an article written by David Crane, a Globe and Mail reporter. It is headed, "Report Unravels Corporate Ties From 4,333 Holding Companies." I believe this is a fact that many members of the house have forgotten. These corporate ties have put this country in the position in which it is today. If we had the so-called free enterprise system about which so many hon. members speak, we would not have file corporate ties that are being unravelled at this time. This is demonstrated by the article in the Globe and Mail, which reads in part:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Important new information on the ownership of Canadian corporations-including the intriguing role of private investment trusts-is contained in a special report on inter-corporate ownership in Canada by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
The article continues:
The 834-page report contains details of 4,333 holding complexes, which have interests in more than 15,000 Canadian corporations. It is called Inter-Corporate Ownership and sells for $8.50.
I mention that in case anybody is interested in obtaining a copy. The article continues:
Although the web of interlocking holdings and the investment positions of the various private trusts and financial institutions are based on 1965 information collected by the Corporation and Labour Union Returns Act group, the report nonetheless sheds new light on the structure of ownership in Canada, and reveals to some extent who owns what.
The position has always been taken by our party that we are concerned about who owns what. I would like to refer to the bill now before us and indicate the situation as we find it. With regard to the bill immediately preceding Bill S-13, I understand its sponsor and the company officers have agreed that the company shall become Canadian-owned in ten years. Surely this is the least anyone in Canada can expect. I say this with due respect for the corporate enterprises we have in this country. The least we can expect is that they become Canadian-owned in a set number of years. To suggest that anyone in this house is out of order, in effect, in asking that such a provision be included in the bill is, I believe, losing touch with what Canada is all about.
This is the end result of the one-nation concept. We should be completely involved in this question and determined that we will

March 27. 1969
Private Bills
buy Canada back. In my opinion it does not really matter what the president of the Royal Bank of Canada has said in this regard, because I believe the case for buying Canada back has been well made. We can do this by the simple method of requiring these companies to become Canadian-owned in a set number of years. I could refer to various situations where this requirement has been very effective.
To confirm what I have just said I should like to refer to the committee report. There you will find set out the various transactions that took place, the various conversations and documented statements. The report refers in particular to what I have just mentioned. It suggests that the special feature of the bill is to be found in the clause in which the company undertakes that within five years at least 25 per cent of the stock will be made available to Canadian shareholders, and within ten years another 24 per cent will be available to them. So at the end of ten years the ownership of this corporation will be 49 per cent in the hands of Canadians. Surely everyone in this house would agree that this is a step in the right direction. I should like to read just one sentence of an article in the Globe and Mail of March 26:
Barely heard names crop up frequently in the special report by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on inter-corporate relationships in Canada.
This refers to what I mentioned a short while ago. Perhaps I might read further from this article:
The report contains many surprise connections in the corporate world, along with much information that has been made public previously.
I suggest that with what we have before us, together with the information anyone may obtain in any of Moody's banking and financial manuals, we know exactly where the corporate power lies. I think this house will be very remiss in its responsibility if it does not take action such as that taken with regard to Bill S-16 which has been stood. The bill before us1 concerns the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, but I must refer to the previous bill to substantiate what I am attempting to prove to the house. In the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee it was said:
We are quite conscious of the feeling of the Department of Insurance that shares should not go to the public until the company has been seasoned and has been established as being a success, if you will, a solid, stable, going organization, and I think we would be most reluctant to take shares
[Mr. Skoberg.j
to the public until we felt we had demonstrated that the company was a solid, going and well established organization. However, once that time is reached, certainly the public issue is one possibility.
I am sure we agree with that statement. We have heard of many cases of our senior people being fleeced by corporate enterprises in this country. We know of cases where widows who have accumulated a small amount of money have had the money taken from them without hesitation by these people. They go out and sell our people a bill of goods without being well seasoned, if I might use that expression. They have been able to sell these people a bill of goods and take away their entire earnings. The committee report continues in these words, and I quote them because I believe they are important:
Our hope, sir, would be that the public offering would be available. We feel that this best meets our objectives of providing the company with a true Canadian ownership.
That sentence indicates that without doubt we have in this country enterprises which will agree to becoming Canadian-owned. Only through the viligance of individual members of the House of Commons' can we provide for this very essence of Canadian ownership if we so desire. I am sure that if the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, with which we are dealing under Bill S-13, were to give an undertaking to the house that it, too, would agree to what we think is right so far as Canadian ownership is concerned, there would be very little hesitation in passing the bill on the part of the members of the party to which I have the privilege of belonging. The committee report continues as follows:
My only reservation is that you just cannot predict a public market five or ten years in advance, and if the market were thin or down and if people were not interested in buying securities, then I would think an investment banking house might well want to take them and hold them for a few years before it took them to the public. Certainly, ultimately the public should have these shares.
I believe this indicates some of the concern that has been expressed in many cases. This principle should be adopted by hon. members who have chosen to sponsor this type of bill. It is amazing that individuals are subjected to the whims of corporate power and come before this house and sponsor bills when they have not received from those who asked them to sponsor the bills an undertaking as to the company becoming Canadian-owned.
March 27, 1969

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I believe the onus lies on people sponsoring these bills to ask that question before they become pawns in the system in which we find ourselves at this time. Surely, this question must have been asked before the Excelsior Life Insurance Company was sponsored. I am sure that the answer was right. If the answer was in such language that the house could understand it and there was no hesitation on the part of the company in saying that they would become Canadian owned, then there would be very little debate on many of these bills.
I should like to continue with another section of this report. I have here a vast number of figures to show the corporate tie up of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company with other life and casualty, insurance companies. However, I will quote directly what was said in the committee:
We feel that the growth of the Canadian business, particularly in terms of numbers of people serviced through our group contracts, sir, warrant Canadian participation initially in and, ultimately, ownership of this company.
Once again, he comes directly back to the point, which is ownership of this company, which will ultimately be in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: do not often take part in a debate such as this, but the more I look at the order paper the more I am convinced I will do this more often. I do it without any apology. Some months ago I spoke during this hour on a bill concerning a company in an entirely different field from this one. I said at that time I felt quite sure that all members of my party in the house and most, if not all members and supporters of my party in this country, insist that we should not do anything in this house that will give aid, comfort or support to the continuation or extension of U.S. control of the Canadian economy; that we should under no circumstances, no matter how minor the bills may appear on the surface, pass any measures that will make more firm the present control of our economy by foreign corporations.
This bill has been before this house and the other place on previous occasions as well as in this session. The reasons for this bill being presented have remained the same. I want to say that the sponsor, the hon. member for
Private Bills
Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead), is a good member and a nice fellow. He is doing What he feels to be his public duty and in sponsoring this bill he feels he is performing his duty as a member of parliament. He has no intimate relationship with this company. So, the things I may say about this bill or this company are no reflection upon the sponsor of the bill. But may I urge upon him and upon every other hon. member that, from here on, no member of this house should ever again sponsor a private bill for a private company if the bill in any way contributes to the strengthening of U.S. ownership and control of the Canadian economy unless it is the belief of the sponsor that there is nothing wrong with the present level of U.S. control and ownership of our country. It seems to me that only a member who feels that way could feel free to sponsor such a bill. Any other hon. member would feel that he could not sponsor a measure of that nature in the best interest of our country.
The bill seeks to provide retroactively the federal incorporation of the company. We are told by the Superintendent of Insurance that the present situation has caused a great deal of difficulty and inconvenience to the company. All I can say is, isn't that just too bad! This company is 71 per cent owned and controlled by the Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, which in turn is owned and controlled by the Aetna Life and Casualty Company of Hartford, Connecticut. May I say as an aside that I wonder if a quick way of regaining a great deal of the economic control of our country would not be by negotiating with the United States for the purchase of the entire state of Connecticut, or at least of the city of Hartford, which seems to harbour most if not all the insurance companies which hold great interests in Canada. Perhaps in this manner we could simply and quickly return ownership and control of a large section of our economy, particularly in the financial field, to Canadian hands. I say this facetiously, but it is a little distressing when one sees bill after bill presented to the house year after year and always the address of Hartford, Connecticut crops up. It must be a place greatly liked by insurance companies in particular.
As I was saying, this bill is a measure to provide some convenience for the Excelsior Life Insurance Company. The Superintendent of Insurance has told the committee of the other place that this method is different from

March 27, 1969
Private Bills
the one usually practised for the federal incorporation of such companies as opposed to provincial incorporation. The implication in this1 procedure is that it will save the company a great deal of expense and trouble to which they would have to go if they went about the corporate change in the normal way. I must say that I am not particularly interested in saving this kind of company any difficulty or expense. It could be said that my attitude might cost the shareholders and the owners of this company some interest or some dividends. However, I suspect that most of the dividends are paid to the owners in the United States, and here again I cannot have too much sympathy if these people should happen, through my action, to receive a smaller amount of dividends or interest.
Bills such as this would be received with a great deal more sympathy in the house if these companies would present in writing or incorporate in bills which are presented to the house-although I would prefer it to be in the legislation-an irrevocable guarantee that the company would divest itself of at least 22 per cent of the present U.S. ownership and turn it over to Canadians.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Assuming 29 per cent is owned in Canada, and that this company could guarantee that within a few years it would divest itself of 22 per cent of ownership so that majority control would rest in Canadian hands, this bill might be received with greater sympathy than it is being received now, at least in this quarter of the house. However, I have yet to be assured that part at least of the 29 per cent I have mentioned is not owned in some other country, for example, in Europe. The company would then require to divest itself of a higher percentage than 22 per cent in order that the corporation might become owned and controlled by Canadians at least to the extent of 51 per cent. I, personally, feel that control to the extent of 51 per cent of a financial institution is not great enough, but it would certainly be better than the present 29-71 ratio.
Another thing which bothers me in connection with legislation of the kind we are considering is this: I have personal doubts about the quality of the Canadian corporate citizenship of such a corporation. I think it is a little much to expect that the directors and owners of this corporation in the United States would place Canadian public interest 'ahead of the corporate interest of Aetna Life Insurance,

Aetna Life and Casualty and, thus, of Excelsior Life and Casualty. I could not blame them for not doing so. It would be quite proper for them to place the interest of their private company before any public interest of the country in which it was operating. Again, if this corporation, or its sponsor, either in. writing or in the body of this legislation could guarantee that from here on its investment policies would place the Canadian public interest on a level with, or higher than the private interests of the corporation, this bill would be received with a great deal more-sympathy.
For example, if investment moneys in the mortgage field are available, as they -are year round from such a corporation, and if the company could guarantee that its investment policy would have some relation to public and social needs and that housing, for example, would take priority over the building of fancy service stations or fancy hotels, it would be much more deserving of consideration when it sought legislation either in this house or in the other place.
I hope hon. members in all parts of the house feel that the question of the extent of foreign ownership and control of Canada's economy is a serious one and that it should be dealt with without -delay. I am sure most hon. members feel this to be the case. Some of them are reluctant to say so, possibly because of the corner of the house in which they sit, but I do not think there can be any question about their concern. I trust that before this parliament goes on much longer other members in other parts of the house will express their views about the dangers to Canada's sovereignty and independence because of the extent of foreign ownership and control.
I hope, too, they will -agree that any legislation presented to the house in connection with the incorporation of insurance companies, particularly of the size and magnitude of the one we are considering, should not only be in the best interests of Canada but should be designed in such a way as to lessen the extent of foreign ownership and control of our economy. Surely, it is not too much to expect that these corporations should respect the opinion and feeling of this house and of the people of this country and be prepared gradually to make it possible for Canadians to take over a larger share and eventually total ownership of such corporations?
I hope all we have heard during the past year from members of all parties during and
March 27, 1969

after the election campaign about the independence of our country and about its future was more than just election talk, more than just political talk, more than just partisan talk. I hope it is something about which we all feel deeply and that hon. members are all anxious to see something take place to reverse what has been happening to us.
The passing of legislation to make it more *convenient for a private company, most of which is owned outside Canada, to operate more easily in this country is not in my opinion in the best interests of this nation.
May I now put forward a personal opinion, one which I hold strongly; I do not know that *our party has expressed any firm policy with regard to it. I note that a few years back this [DOT]company went into the field of health and accident insurance in addition to life insurance. It is my personal opinion, and I do not know whether anyone in this house agrees with me, that any private company or corporation which would make a profit from the misfortunes of others is immoral. I do not believe this is a proper field for private enterprise. I am sure that neither this1 company nor any other is in business in. order to break even, or to lose their money. These companies are in business to make profits and for no other reason. It seems to me this is an area in which the public as a whole should be engaged through their governments'. And again, I find it difficult to support legislation which would aid and abet private corporations in selling accident and health insurance.
I must confess my feelings are strong on this issue, probably because I have seen private corporations in the insurance field extend the most vicious kind of opposition to medicare and hospitalization plans in my own province. In view of what has been said so far, and partly, I hope, in view of what I have just said, I wish now to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Cleave):
That this bill S-8 be not now read the second time but that it be read this day six months hence.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: It is not very often in this house that we see very much interest shown in Canadianism or any indication given that there is or should be strong concern-


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe the motion referred to Bill S-8, whereas the bill now being dealt with is
Private Bills
Bill S-13. Therefore, I presume the present motion is out of order. Since I believe there are no further speakers available on the other side, perhaps the question on Bill S-13 should be put to a vote.


Frank Howard: That may well be the case, Mr. Speaker. I have just checked with my hon. friend for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and it is evident that the lad picked up the wrong piece of paper. I have the proper amendment here, which reads, "That this Bill", without the number of the bill. That is the proper motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is true that the motion refers to Bill S-8, but under the circumstances I think the house understood that it referred to the bill under study, which is Bill S-13.


Frank Howard: I think my hon. friend for Regina-Lake Centre wanted to apologize for the error that was made, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, it is not very often that we find people in this house who are really concerned about the pride we should have in our own nation, in trying to become economically independent, in trying to exercise our political activities and jurisdiction to the point where we become masters in our own house.
I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. gentleman who just raised the point of order, but it is a fact that he has probably as many marks on his record of political activity in this house as anyone has when it comes to sponsoring bills promoting foreign-owned companies. I do not think that should be looked upon as any credit, though I do not say that unkindly of the hon. member fotr St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn).
What we should have, as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre pointed out, is a little more concern for what we as Canadians hope we can do to preserve our own economic and policital integrity. We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talk rather gloatingly about our sovereignty as a nation, our sovereignty in the Arctic, about being masters in our own house and the like. Yet, we see his own members year after year coming before this house pleading and begging that we give some favoured consideration to United States-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Would the hon. member kindly talk about Bill S-13.
7220	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I had just reached that stage. This bill is sponsored by a United States-owned company. It is regrettable that we have to go through this procedure time and time again because hon. members-I do not say this unkindly of them-are sponsoring bills that fall into this category and which are not Canadian in the full sense of the word.
This particular bill really seeks to do something that, I think, distorts history. It is asking this parliament to make a declaration that would rewrite the facts of the case. It is asking this parliament to say that this company shall be deemed to have been a federally incorporated company since May 4, 1910. Excelsior Life Insurance Company is asking us to reach into the past almost 60 years and rewrite the record. It is asking us to erase the situation that existed at that time and to say that, to all intents and purposes, this company shall be deemed to have existed as a federally incorporated company since May 4, 1910.
Throughout the bill there are references to an intention to continue just as if the period between had not intervened, which I think is stretching things quite a bit. I know similar provisions have been included in other bills and will probably appear in bills to come before us in the future. But I do not think the parliament of Canada should try to undo what has already been done and attempt to rewrite history as we know it.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-173, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto; Bill C-178, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
DEBATES	March 27, 1969


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, to summarize the points I was making with regard to the amendment, I say that before any compulsory licence for the manufacture of drugs is granted, the commissioner ought to consult the tribunal mentioned in the amendment. I submit also that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) ought to be a member of that tribunal since it seems that international patent rights are being arbitrarily abrogated. If that minister is on the tribunal, physicians will be encouraged to use, and patients will ask for, cheaper imported drugs. Therefore, the granting of a compulsory licence must be subject to the approval of the Food and Drug Directorate which ought to determine whether the product in question is the pharmaceutical and clinical equivalent of a drug that is established and produced in Canada. Only if there is such approval on the part of the Food and Drug Directorate can we expect doctors to prescribe new drugs. The minister has said over and over again that co-operation between his department and the directorate is essential if this legislation is to work. That co-operation would be in keeping with one of the first recommendations of the Harley report.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) must also be on the tribunal to advise the patent commissioner whether a new drug is good for the public. He must also advise whether admitting a new drug will stop research or slow it down. Will drug firms stop conducting research in this country, or will they conduct some of their research elsewhere? In short, what will be the economic effect on the public of introducing new drugs? I believe the Harley report touched on some of these points also.
March 27, 1969

Several hon. members were concerned about the fact, which was alluded to in committee when the bill was being studied, that no feasibility study in this entire area was undertaken. We have not had any report in this area from the Economic Council. That report, unfortunately, will not be available until the fall. As a matter of fact, after an hon. member sitting on the minister's side of the house asked whether a feasibility study in this entire area had been undertaken, the claim was made that such a study could be undertaken and that the report would be accurate to within 2 or 3 per cent.
The other point I wish to raise is, will not the budget of the Food and Drug Directorate be increased by millions of dollars as a result of setting up offices in Europe, employing inspectors and other personnel in Canada to carry out all the additional work that will be necessary. May the ultimate effect of this not be to increase instead of to decrease drug prices? When confronted with this question the patent commissioner was not certain how to answer; neither was the former minister.
The amendment directs that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) be a member of the tribunal. Clearly, he must be on the tribunal since it is his responsibility to protect the consumer and to advise the patent commissioner.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this amendment I urge the minister to accept the idea of a tribunal granting compulsory licences for the manufacture of drugs. It seems to me that a tribunal composed of the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Basford), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would be ideal to take care of all phases affecting the manufacture of drugs in Canada.
First of all, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would have a great deal to consider. This bill, in fact, wipes out all patent protection for drugs sold in Canada. This, of course, is an extension of what already was in force in that, while a compulsory licence could be issued for the manufacture of a drug in Canada, it could not be imported from abroad. Under this bill, it will be possible to import all drugs upon obtaining a compulsory licence, regardless of where they are manufactured, providing they meet the standards of the Food and Drug Directorate.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
9 (8:10 p.m.)
The abrogation of the right of patent protection, Mr. Speaker, is a serious step that has much wider implications than just the drug industry. It perhaps is foolish for a drug patent to last 17J years. It is not very practical for drugs to have protection this long, as the average drug is only on the market for approximately five years. The granting of compulsory licences on a large scale will cause considerable change in the industry and in the manufacture of drugs.
The drug industry is international in scope. Most major drug companies operating in Canada have manufacturing facilities in many countries. If competition is intense, the large companies will manufacture drugs in countries where labour costs are lower. The various drug manufacturing companies in Canada have large research facilities. It may be these research facilities would be phased out, which would be detrimental. It would be the duty of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ascertain if the granting of compulsory licences would do substantial damage to those segments of the industry that would be advantageous for our country to retain.
I am sure the minister will make every effort to maintain in Canada a high level of employment and research facilities in the interests of the community at large. Drug safety is the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his officials. All reports concerning this phase of the drug industry have stressed that competitive drugs be either manufactured in Canada or imported. The overriding factor in all cases, however, would be the safety factor.
The clinical efficacy of the drugs should be established in Canada so that physicians, pharmacists and patients would know that the quality of drugs was being maintained and that no sub-standard or relatively unsafe drugs would be allowed on the market. The Department of National Health and Welfare has greatly expanded in anticipation of an increase in varieties of drugs. This will cost some millions of dollars.
The department may find the cost of policing and insuring safety of a proposed drug might be greater than the savings effected. This would be a factor in their decision. This department has a good record with regard to drug safety. If the expected large volume of compulsory licencing materializes, the department will have a much greater duty.
7222	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should be a member of the proposed tribunal. It would be his duty to provide Canadians with drugs at the lowest possible price. I am sure the minister and his department would carry out this obligation in a worthy and dedicated manner.
This tribunal will be a very useful mechanism by which the various conflicting interests of Canadians in the drug industry and drug prices will be balanced. This will be a good mechanism to carry out compulsory licencing and all phases of the drug industry will be considered.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I wish to state for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I oppose this amendment. It was very carefully considered in previous debates and was moved by the opposition during the debate on Bill C-190. The Harley committee did not recommend that compulsory licences be granted on the basis of advice by a tribunal.
Granting of compulsory licences involves issues which should be determined by the Patent Commissioner. This will continue to be the situation after this bill carries. The Patent Commissioner is responsible for the administration of this act. He knows the act. He has been appointed on the basis1 of his knowledge and ability to administer the act. The patent commissioner is in as good a position as a tribunal to make a decision whether a compulsory licence should be granted.
The second reason such an amendment should be opposed is that it confuses the jurisdiction between the Commissioner of Patents, who is responsible for the administration of the Patent Act, and the administration of the Food and Drug Directorate which is responsible for the safety of drugs, licencing of drugs and enforcement of all regulations of the Food and Drugs Act. It would be unwise to confuse the functions of the Commissioner of Patents in the granting of patents and the director of the Food and Drug Directorate in policing the safety of drugs.
The third reason suggested as to why this amendment should be accepted would cause unnecessary and undesirable delays in the granting of compulsory licences. The Harley committee recommended that under no circumstances should the general policy be eliminated with respect to permitting compulsory licence applications for patents relating to foods and medicines. They recommended ways of avoiding delays.

DEBATES	March 27, 1969
To establish a tribunal consisting of three ministers would result in a great deal of delay. The commissioner recently heard one application. It involved four days. It would be extremely difficult to get three cabinet ministers together to sit as a panel for three or four days to deal with one application for a compulsory licence. It would be extremely difficult to get the tribunal together, with the result that very few licences would be issued.
In considering this bill and the granting of licences, the opposition continuously overlook the fact that the procedure before the Commissioner of Patents on an application for granting a compulsory licence is what is called in law an adversary procedure. Involved would be the applicant for the compulsory licence, the person referred to as "the copier", and the owner of the patent opposing the application. While I am a young man, I have some experience in the law. I think it can be1 taken for granted that the patent owner and the person opposing the granting of this compulsory licence would bring before the commissioner every possible scintilla of evidence and argument to oppose the granting of the compulsory licence.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when hearing an application for granting of a compulsory licence the Commissioner of Patents would have all of the facts and considerations before him. There will be those in front of him arguing against the granting of that application. I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that under the act if he feels he requires some advice, technical advice or any other kind of advice, the commissioner has the full authority under section 5 of the Patent Act to commission that advice or evidence.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me rather inappropriate that three ministers act as a panel exercising what really is a judicial function and whose decision could be appealed to the courts. It seems to me that the duty of ministers is an administrative and not a judicial one, and it would be rather unwise to confuse those two functions. The Commissioner of Patents is selected on his ability to conduct a judicial or quasi judicial type of hearing, and his decisions are appealable to the courts. It would seem to me unwise to interpose a tribunal of three ministers exercising not an administrative but a judicial function. For these reasons, I feel I must oppose the amendment.
March 27, 1969


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask
the minister one question, Mr. Speaker. Take the case of a patent holder who is appearing before the commissioner to resist the application that has been made by the "copier"-and I put that in quotation marks. If the application fails, are costs awarded to the patent holder, or is this to be an ordinary expense of business to defend his patent against any and all comers? I do not think it would be fair that a man who has worked for something, who has a patent for it and has a proprietary right should be, shall we say, assaulted from all sides and have to bear the cost of defending his patent.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Subject to whatever advice I may receive, and I am not an expert on the particular matter that the hon. member raises, I point out that the Patent Act establishes private rights of ownersship. It is the duty of the owner of those rights, to protect them at his cost. This is true of the Patent Act, the copyright Act and the Industrial Design Act. The government, or our society if you wish, provides the machinery for registering the ownership of patents, copyrights or industrial designs, and it is up to the owner to protect them at his cost.
The hon. member has a much greater knowledge of the Income Tax Act than I do, but I believe that the patent holder in such a case would be entitled to deduct that cost as an expense of doing business.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But at no
point in any of our legislation do we extend an overt invitation to the public to attack a patent, as we do in the principle of these amendments.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The overt invitation that the hon. member speaks of has been in the act since 1923.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a lot of nonsense.


William Gordon Ritchie: I would like to ask the minister how many compulsory licences for drugs have been refused?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member asked that question during the committee hearings1 and received an answer. I forget the answer myself, as perhaps does the hon. member.


Philip Bernard Rynard: As I understood the minister, he said that the Patent Commissioner can ask the Food and Drug Directorate for directions.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act All we are seeking is that this be made statutory. Why would the minister object to that? I do not think there would be any difficulty with communications because they are all working here on Parliament Hill, and in any case a compulsory licence usually is not granted for months. What we are asking here is that what is done in principle be made statutory.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The amendment that I am introducing provides that the commissioner shall give notice to the Department of National Health and Welfare of an application for the granting of a compulsory licence. Therefore, if the Department of National Health and Welfare or its specific agency, the Food and Drug Directorate, feels it should make some observations, comments or arguments to the Commissioner of Patents, it has notice of the application and is free to make the arguments or comments it wishes.
Second, and I think this is the main reason, is the fact that the Food and Drug Directorate is concerned with the safety of drugs, all drugs whether they be patented or not. Therefore, this is where their jurisdiction is; it is over all drugs and the hon. member, who is a doctor, knows that there are all sorts of drugs on the market, some of which are patented and some of which are not patented, but both of which classes are within the full jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Directorate to assure the safety of the drugs and to assure the protection of the Canadian public. The Food and Drug Directorate should not be involved in the granting of patents. It should be involved, as- at present, in the sale of those drugs, or in the importation of those drugs, and should be unrelated to the patenting thereof.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I will not press my point further except to say that I think it would be a little more definite if it were made statutory. Then, we would know that the Food and Drug Directorate would have to get in touch with the Patent Commissioner and there would be no slip up. That is all I am asking, but I am not going to press the point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
March 27, 19G9

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated-


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Monteith) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the house will now revert to the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin).


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That Bill C-102, An Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, be amended by inserting in Clause 1 (4) after the word "medicine" on line 2, page 1, the following words:
"but valid for only five years or more after the granting of such patent."
Mr. Speaker, this amendment should apply to patents granted five years ago or more.
Here is what the Harley committee of 196667 reports, and I quote:
There is no doubt whatsoever that the manufacturer who introduces a new drug should be allowed certain time to promote the drug and establish his position in the market following appropriate clinical testing and satisfying the requirements of the Food and Drug Directorate, so that for a period of time at least he retains his monopoly position. There is no doubt also that the introducer of the drug had need of recouping research expenses not incurred by his licensee competitor. What length of time a patentee should be allowed to retain his monopoly is arbitrary. The committee had considered a length of time dating from the time of application for the patent of the particular drug involved, or a term of years following the date the patent issues. In either case, difficulties can be anticipated from artificial delays that may be introduced by the patentee during the course of prosecution of the application which could lengthen enormously the period between date of application and the date the patent issues. The monetary rewards to a patentee as a result of delaying a compulsory licence application can be substantial.
After full considertion, your committee is of the opinion that under the present system, the patentee has ample time to establish and consolidate his position in the market (and thereby recoup his research costs) by virtue of the fact that it takes some 4 to 5 years for the drug to lose its "new drug" status as determined by the Food and Drug Directorate. As explained earlier it is most unlikely that a compulsory licence will be sought prior to the date that the drug loses its status as a "new drug".
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.!
Mr. Speaker, under section 67 of the old legislation, the patent holders must establish manufactures in Canada under penalty of losing their exclusive rights. After the passing of this legislation, parliament will have to see to the protection of the companies which have established manufactures in our country. This drastic change in government policy affects the group that was the most co-operative when the old legislation was in effect by making it impossible for it to compete with the importers because of the higher salaries paid to Canadians and because of the manufactures which were built in Canada with complete confidence.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to this amendment. I have received a good many representations over the past eight months since I have been in the ministry to the effect that this five year moratorium under the act should be allowed. I have not accepted the representations made to me. It is the position of the government that, in effect, due to the new drug regulations there is under the Food and Drug Directorate on average an effective five year period of protection. However, we do not feel this should be provided as a statutory right. I have explained that this just happens to be the result of the new drug regulations and is likely to continue for the forseeable future. The fact is that the new drug regulations provide to manufacturers of new inventions and new patented processes an effective, on the average, five year protection period. This is like the tariff; it is simply another remaining element of protection the industry has.
In fact, the full impact of this bill would seem to provide a moratorium for this period. However, I believe the acceptance of this amendment would have an adverse effect on the program of the government and on this bill, which is to change the industry in such a way as to result in lower drug prices for the people of Canada who buy prescription drugs. In the third place, it seems to me it would be contrary to what the hon. member says concerning what has gone on since 1923. This amendment would be really a very, very substantial departure from the principle which has been embodied in the Patent Act since 1923 relating to patents on food and drug processes. The present provisions in the bill relating to domestic manufacture really make no change in the substantive law. They are designed solely to clarify the present powers
March 27. 1S69

[DOT]of the Commissioner of Patents and, to some extent, to provide an extension of those powers within the existing principles of compulsory licensing which have existed in the act since 1923.
The amendment to provide a positive five .year period would be, as I say, a very substantial departure from that principle which we put in our law in 1923. Finally, in registering my opposition, I might point out, that the Economic Council of Canada, at the request of the government, is studying the whole question of patents. Should this bill with which we are dealing now prove to be damaging to the industry in the way in which the hon. member has suggested, I think I can say we can expect that the Economic Council would comment on it. The report of the Economic Council when received will result in my introducing a complete revision of the Patent Act. Therefore, if the fears of the hon. member are real fears, which I suspect they are not, we will have an opportunity at that time to correct the situation. For those reasons, therefore, I oppose the amendment.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly in favour of this amendment. Although I should like to see a provision that it be mandatory that a new drug should remain under the protection of the Food and Drug Directorate for a period of five years, this is an acceptable alternative. I have some doubt of fear that this legislation may well prevent the introduction of new drugs in Canada. Since most of the new drugs are likely to be manufactured in other parts of the world by international drug companies, I think it is of some importance to us that these new drugs be introduced to the Canadian market within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, I believe there must be some incentive for these drug manufacturing companies to introduce their drugs. The Minister has stated quite rightly that most of these drugs would remain under the protection of the Food and Drug Directorate for five years. Indeed, a drug that was not widely used could remain there much longer. If it were to remain there by statute, I feel this would be an incentive for the company to market the drug and promote it energetically, because they would know that for five years they would have a monopoly control over this drug. This would repay them for their research and effort.
If these companies do not have that protection, they could ensure that a new drug
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act would remain under the control of the Food and Drug Directorate by reporting it to the Food and Drug Directorate as being a drug that has serious side effects. They could also reduce the promotion so that the drug would not be widely used, and therefore would not be of interest to other concerns which might be interested in compulsory licensing. I feel that if this amendment were to be adopted there would be much more likelihood of new drugs coming along and being widely disseminated in the market. Otherwise, it is almost certain that the introduction of new drugs might be, to some extent, slow.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the concern of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) about providing an incentive, I think he said, for the companies to develop new drugs. I would suggest to the hon. member that he read an article written by James Goddard, former director of the Food and Drug Administration of the United States. This article appeared in Esquire magazine of March 1969. Dr. Goddard gives some very interesting figures which, if the hon. member for Dauhin really wants to see the facts, will demonstrate completely that he does not have to worry at all about the incentives for these international drug companies about whom he is so concerned. The fact is that they are doing very well. Dr. Goddard puts the figures on the record. He starts at one point by discussing a drug that is quite widely used, a relatively new drug called prednisone. Senator Nelson was discussing with the president of Schering Corporation, which puts out this drug, their product Meticorten. He asked the president of Schering Corporation why that company charged $170 per thousand for the drug when another reputable brand name company, Upjohn, charged only $4.53 per thousand. Schering is charging 40 times as much.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The government of the United States, and New York city, are buying this drug for $4.58 a thousand. They are using it in government hospitals, veterans' hospitals and hospitals run by the city of New York, in the tens of thousands of doses. There is not the slightest evidence that the product they are using is any less effective than the one which Schering sells for $170 a thousand.
Dr. Goddard goes on to talk about those companies about which the hon. member for Dauphin is concerned because they may not have any incentive if we do not give them

March 27, 1969
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act these five extra years to make a killing. I bring these facts to the attention of the hon. member for Dauphin. If he does not want to listen to me now, he can read them in Hansard tomorrow. This is what Dr. Goddard says about drug companies, and I quote just one paragraph:
The climate is healthy enough;-
He is talking about the economic climate in these companies.
The climate is healthy enough; no one will dispute that. Annual reports lor 1967 lor just a lew Establishment companies reveal the state ol the industry's health: Merck & Co. had sales ol $528 million, a net profit ol $89 million on an investment ol $25.4 per cent; Smith KUne & French had sales ol $260 million, a net profit ol $42 million and a return ol 26.9 per cent; Eli Lilly & Co. had sales ol $408 million, a net profit ol $54 million, and a return ol 19.2 per cent; and G. D. Searle had sales ol $133 million, a net profit ol $27 million, and a return ol 28.5 per cent.
That was on invested capital. These figures indicate, just as the studies carried out in Canada by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Royal Commission on Health Services and all the accountants hired by the drug committee of which some of us were members indicated, that the drug companies are making a profit on their investment of twice as much as most other manufacturing companies in this country. This is true of the United States and everywhere in the world where you have the so-called free enterprise system. It is time we stopped worrying about the drug companies; they are doing very well for themselves and do not need the untoward concern which seems to be expressed by some members of this house.


Mr. Nowlan:: We need a lot of drugs after you speak.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost, on division.
Amendment (Mr. Beaudoin) negatived.


Bernard Dumont: I move:
That Bill C-102, an act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, be amended by inserting in clause 1 (4) after the word "licence" on line 19, page 2, the following words;
"and, in the case of an import licence, such licence shall be declared by the Commissioner to be in the public interest and the foreign manufacturing plants shall be opened for inspection".

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), who will be in the hospital for a few days only, due to a slight indisposition, has been replaced by the hon. member for Frontenac. Therefore, I shall take the liberty of explaining the amendment which was read earlier.
While I take part in the debate on Bill C-102 entitled "An act to amend the Patent Act, the Trademarks Act and the Food and Drugs Act", I just want to express the viewpoint shared by a good number of low income people who are obliged to buy drugs because of their health.
It is generally recognized that the price of drugs' in Canada is much too high and therefore that the public cannot always afford them, especially those who sometimes need them most. I am thinking in particular of the old people whose only income is the old age pension and: all the other people who simply get a social welfare allowance or some other kind of allowance, and also the low wage earners and the farmers who often get starvation wages.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act has conducted an inquiry the findings of which clearly indicate that the price of drugs in Canada seems unaccountably high.
One of them was to the effect that the prices of drugs in Canada are among the highest in the world. Moreover, the special committee of the house, responsible for studying the price and cost of drugs confirms the results already attained by other public inquiries.
It comes to the conclusion that the prices of drugs in Canada are indeed very high and that some appropriate steps should be taken to bring them down. I quote from the report of the committee, at page 17:
The physician is the person who has most control over the purchase of drugs, in an indirect but absolute way. The doctor writes his prescription for the drug and the pharmacist has no choice but
March 27, 1969

to fill this prescription as written (except in Alberta where substitution is allowed). In the hospital the doctor still has this role and in addition may play a large part as a member of the pharmacy committee in the purchase of drugs for hospital use. In addition to this, the rural practitioner whose practice is in a remote area, often serves as the pharmacist and is involved in the direct purchase and re-sale of drugs to his patient.
The members of the committee believe that this report would be helpful, in- the first place, to the doctors, but they realize that very few doctors will actually read it. The doctor's time is scarce. Useful as part of the publicity material of drug firms may be, a fair amount of this information goes unnoticed and is therefore sheer waste.
Advertisements in periodicals are not read-


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the hon. member's speech for the past few minutes, and I do not see how the remarks he is making are relative to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might make an observation at this point. I was following the remarks made by the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Dumont) very closely and I must say that I have the same misgivings as the Parliamentary Secretary. The Standing Order relative to the proceedings of the house at the report stage provides that the debate should be strictly relevant to the amendment. I, therefore, ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks specifically to the amendment. Unless I misunderstood what he attempted to say-and I would not like to prejudge his remarks-I make this1 suggestion to him.


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to it.
What I meant a while ago is that if there is no control by means of a license granted after an examination, it will surely be difficult to make the price of products go down. I was precisely saying that the druggist has no alternative when a customer comes in with a prescription specifying a special type of drug.
If, through the amendment under consideration, we hope to be able to provide the necessary inspection, this should have been specified in the detailed way I just mentioned.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
Besides, the Harley report recommends that section 41(3) of the Patent Act be amended to include applications for compulsory licenses to import drug products in all forms, subject to inspection of manufacturing facilities by the Food and Drug Directorate and provided such importation is in the public interest as may be determined by the Commissioner. And to this end, the committee recommends that the rules under the Patent Act be amended to permit the Commissioner to seek and receive outside independent expert advice in the determination of this question.
In its fifth report, the committee states that it studied thoroughly the question of granting licences or of registration, in order to determine whether this procedure should be applied.
The main concern of the committee is to provide the safest drugs to Canadians. It feels that licences or registration should be granted only if they result in increasing the safety of drugs.
Always according to the same committee, the Commissioner should only exert its discretionary powers, in the case of compulsory importation licences, when the interests of the public are at stake. "Public interest" means that the necessity to lower the price of the drug for consumers is weighted against the effect the importation licence could have on the Canadian manufacturer involved.
The distinction between the two types of compulsory licences should be maintained. "Unless he sees good reason to the contrary" carries only a discretionary power on the part of the Commissioner and, in that case, "public interest" may or may not be taken in consideration. When a compulsory importation licence is in question, "public interest" is the one and only consideration.
The committee considers that safety must be of paramount importance. The compulsory importation licence should not be granted unless the Food and Drug Directorate has inspected at leisure the manufacturing plants in the exporting country, and has applied the same regulations in force for the Canadian manufacturers of pharmaceuticals.
The committee remained fully conscious of the fact that his responsibilities extend beyond those of the Commissions, because its conclusions must be such that if one of its recommendations were adopted, appropriate balance should be maintained between industry and consumer, and the importance of a
March 27, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act continued increase in scientific research in Canada should be considered.
Therefore, it is in the public interest, as defined in the Harley committee, that the objective should be good quality medicine, but at a price which our less fortunate people can afford.
Consequently, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That clause 1 (4) be amended by inserting after the word "licence", on line 19, page 2, the following words:
"and, in the case of an import licence, such licence shall be declared by the Commissioner to be in the public interest and the foreign manufacturing plants shall be opened for inspection.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the mover of this amendment is in hospital, and I am sure that all members of the house join with me in wishing him a speedy recovery. I hope that his condition is not serious. I would have hoped also that before he went to the hospital this bill could have become law so that during his stay in the hospital he could have received his drugs at a cheaper price than he gets them now.
I am in complete agreement with the hon. member who spoke in support of this amendment that the paramount consideration must be the safety of drugs that are available to the Canadian public. This has been the position of this government ever since we introduced this legislation. However, while I am in agreement on that paramount consideration, I must say that this amendment is directed toward ensuring that the manufacturing plants of the imported drugs are inspected by the Food and Drug Directorate.
I consider that this amendment is quite unnecessary because of the powers given to the Food and Drug Directorate under clause 5 of this bill, part of which reads as follows:
-the Governor In Council may make such regulations governing, regulating or prohibiting
(a)	the importation into Canada of any drug or class of drugs manufactured outside Canada, or
(b)	the distribution or sale in Canada or the offering, exposing or having in possession for sale in Canada, of any drug or class of drugs manufactured outside Canada,
I also refer the hon. member to the existing regulations which were passed by the Governor in Council in May of 1968, namely regulations C-01055 and C-01056 governing the importation of drugs and the inspection of manufacturing plants abroad.

So, while I am in complete agreement with the hon. member that the safety of these drugs is paramount and that the authority and power of the Food Drug Directorate to control the importation must be complete, I think the amendment is unnecessary because this power is already contained in the Food and Drugs Act as amended by this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost, on division.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert, Bellechasse) negatived.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), I move:
That Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Pood and Drugs Act be amended by Inserting in clause 1 (4), after the word "licence" on line 19, page 2, the following words:
"and subject to a report from the Food and Drugs Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare that the applicant has complied with all the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and that the medicine manufactured under such patent has the therapeutic and pharmaceutical equivalence of the standard product accepted in Canada".
Mr. Speaker, I moved that amendment to Bill C-102 in order to make manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, in Canada and abroad, supply quality products the safety of which could be the therapeutic and pharmaceutical equivalence of the standard products accepted in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to waste the time of the house but I do wish to direct some very simple and important remarks to my hon. colleagues on that particular point.
Several commissions have investigated the problem of food and drugs in Canada. Those commissions were set up by the government and the industry in order to draft a food and drugs legislation the regulations of which could cope with modem society and ensure
March 27, 1969

that the food consumed by Canadians is really safe and will not harm (them
Mr. Speaker, I have already told the house that the problem was very simple. During our lifetime, however rich or poor we may be, we must a't a given time, and because we are not in good health, see a qualified doctor, who of course recommends this or that pharmaceutical product.
The patient who very often does not know anything about the quality and safety of those drugs, simply goes to the drugstore and pays prohibitive prices for drugs without being sure of their quality and 'their safety. He pays for his drugs and returns home.
Here is where the problem lies, Mr. Speaker. First, we are not sure of the quality of those drugs.
Secondly, their cost is too high, even prohibitive, and I know many people in my constituency and in other Liberal constituencies, whose members refrain from speaking on this matter, who cannot afford some expensive drugs that could cure their illness in a very short time.
Bill C-102 is specifically designed to provide a solution to that problem. The government passed some pieces of legislation. For instance, it has done away with the 11 per cent sales tax in order to reduce the price of drugs. The excise tax on imported drugs has also been removed. However, those two measures have proved inadequate.
As a result, we are still in the same situation, and we are still hoping for lower drug prices.
Mr. Speaker, when the committee on health, welfare and social affairs was considering bill C-102, I had the privilege of asking the minister general questions about the possible economic impact of the enactment of BiU C-102.
Among other things, I asked him what would be the economic impact of his bill. The hon. minister simply answered: I must tell the hon. member that we do not know.
I also asked him if studies had been made with a view to ensuring that the measures he proposed would actually bring about a reduction in drug prices. The minister answered: We do not know, studies have not yet been made. But we do hope so.
Mr. Speaker, I feel we are about to take a step that we will regret later on, if we pass this bill without amendment.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
That is what happened in the committee because of the dictatorial system of this government. In fact, we have not been able to move any amendment to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, at the report stage, more than 13 amendments have been moved by hon. members since the committee itself was unable to make any amendment, because proceedings were conducted in a dictatorial manner.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to stress the most is the necessity to protect Canadian enterprise as far as the cost of manufacturing drugs is concerned. Moreover, we are not at all certain that this bill will bring about the benefits expected by the minister since he told me himself that no study had been made in that field, that no effort had been made to forecast the economic consequences of the bill, and determine whether it would benefit the Canadian industry or the foreign industry. That is our greatest apprehension.
We are told about compulsory licences for the manufacture of products and of a lot of other factors to be taken into consideration. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am extremely pessimistic, not only about the future of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada, but also about the quality of the products which will be imported. Mr. Speaker, when I realized that the dictatorial attitude of the present government made it impossible for us to bring forward amendments liable to be accepted by the committee, I told myself that if we could not do more to protect the Canadian industry, we should at least make sure that imported products are similar in quality to the Canadian products and that the safety of drugs is guaranteed on the Canadian market in order to protect the interests of consumers.
That is why I dealt with that aspect of the question, since I felt it was impossible, due to certain measures and to the procedure, to protect the Canadian industry to a greater extent. After having studied the problem of quality of products, I moved' the amendment that was read a minute ago and from which I shall quote an extract:
-the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare-
This body must make a report on all applications from foreign industries after consideration.
I continue to read further:
-that the applicant-
March 27, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act that is, the foreign.' industry, be it American, European or otherwise.
-has complied with all the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act-
Needless to say that I am referring to the Canadian act. The medicine being offerred us and which will enter into Competition with the Canadian product must comply
-with all the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act-
-and even compare with the Canadian medicine patented in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why I believe that such an amendment is most acceptable to the house, since it has only an economic impact and, above all, is designed to protect the Canadian consumer as regards the quality of the product.
I take the liberty, at this stage, to quote a recommendation from the Boyd Committee, that bears out my contention. Besides, I drew my inspiration from it while preparing my motion, a very acceptable one, I believe.
Therefore, I shall quote the said recommendation from the Boyd Committee:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

In Canada, the majority of these drugs are no longer subject to the "new drug" regulations and there is no obvious way that this essential evidence for therapeutic equivalency can be required. The Boyd Committee, therefore, recommended "... that when a new drug is manufactured and sold by a manufacturer other than the original manufacturer whose new drug submission has been processed in the usual way, the products of the second and subsequent manufacturer should each be considered as new drugs and should each be required to meet the regulations on new drugs." Without implementation of the recommendations of the Boyd and Hilliard Committees, Canadian physicians will lack the assurance that the "licensed" products will produce the desired clinical effects.

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to say more about such an important matter. I could quote throughout the evening and tomorrow the recommendations of the Boyd committee, the Harley committee and those of other committees which have dealt with the food and drugs question.
In my opinion, this is a basic point in the debate on Bill C-102. We must make sure- and the minister will agree-that the quality of imported products will be equivalent to that of the products already on the Canadian market.


I think that this is the least we can demand from foreign industry. It must assure us that the products it will put on the Canadian market will be of the highest quality or at least of equivalent quality to the ones already on the market.
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot prevent foreign competition from destroying Canadian pharmaceutical companies, since the minister is friendly with foreigners and the opponent of Canadians, let us ensure at least the quality and the safety of the product in order to protect the Canadian consumer.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I act as the spokesman of Canadians who cannot afford to buy expensive drug and who will have to be content with the first drug they find at the drugstore.
Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that Canadian consumers will be protected and will be in a position to buy quality products.
For that purpose, the bill must clearly state that imported drugs have the same therapeutic properties as similar Canadian drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to extend the debate unduly, because I would like to enable other members the opportunity to state their views. But I would really be pleased if the minister would look favourably upon this motion, not only to make sure that Canadians will be protected, but also that the products themselves will be of a good quality. In fact, the bill does not guarantee that imported products will have the same therapeutic properties as similar Canadian products.


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put to the house, I would like to point out how serious is the matter which the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has just raised.
In my opinion, such questions should not be taken lightly, and I think the house would act in earnest by giving special consideration to the proposed amendment.
I would feel extremely disappointed if it were disposed of hastily as other previous amendments have been, and if the government, relying on its majority, simply decided not to accept it.
I believe the remarks of the hon. member about the Canadian drug industry and everything that is involved should prompt the house to give serious consideration to the possibility of passing this amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words on
March 27, 1969

the subject of clinical equivalency in support of this amendment. First of all, the minister has ignored entirely the Hilliard and Boyd committee reports and also the report by the Harley committee. Notwithstanding that, this is a very important point. When the federal department of consumer affairs proposed this legislation there was well documented evidence that this sort of thing could have a serious impact on the practise of medicine. A physician's primary concern is always with the quality of the product he is using and its clinical efficiency, or its clinical equivalency which is the same thing. This is especially true of new drug discoveries.
It seems to me that in this bill the minister has ignored entirely or has strangely discounted therapeutic equivalency. He has ignored the publications of the Food and Drug Directorate scientific staff, as well as the recommendations of the Hilliard and Boyd committees.
Even though a drug may have quality and safety, it may not have clinical equivalency. That point was brought out in the committee. In this regard one drug that was referred to was Chloromycetin, but there are many others. Dr. Goddard, of whom mention was made tonight by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), put on the record the fact that there are something like 24 drugs which are quite similar in quality and safety. But the Food and Drug Directorate has informed us it does not propose to make any additional tests over and above a chemical analysis. Many of these 24 drugs are antibiotics. I put some of them on the record this afternoon and I am not going to repeat them, but it does appear to me that the minister has brushed off the importance of this matter.
The minister indicated that lack of therapeutic equivalency among certain types of drugs was grossly exaggerated, but when somebody's life is at stake gross exaggeration can get you into a lot of trouble. Some of these drugs are used in cases where time is of the essence and you have to be sure the drug you are using will maintain proper blood levels and possesses the therapeutic equivalency that you expect of it. Physicians are being encouraged by Bill C-102 to use cheaper drugs, and without this assurance I fail to see where we are making progress. The public will be asking for cheaper drugs and how in the world are physicians to be sure those drugs are safe? That is the crux of my point. Any bulletin that shows merely the results of the chemical analysis of a drug will not show whether that drug is clinically effective and 29180-458
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act fulfils all necessary requirements. Therefore, I submit that the amendment before the house is a good amendment and ought to be accepted.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us is more important than some may believe. It does not deserve to be passed in a hurry, for a very important reason: we must realize that an imported product is not necessarily one of quality even if it bears the same number or the same name as the similar product made in Canada.
The amendment of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) simply asks for a serious investigation on drugs to determine whether a product made under a patent has the same therapeutic and pharmaceutical properties as the standard product approved in Canada.
In my opinion, we must insist-and that is why I support the amendment-without reservation-before approving the import of a product, that it is carefully analysed to ascertain that in every respect it is the equivalent of the similar Canadian product.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I moved for the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who will, we hope, be given good brand name drugs in order to return Monday in good health, has been defeated. I believe the minister should give careful consideration to the amendment moved by the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who was a member of the committee and who stated that all amendments moved in the committee had been defeated by most of the members of an intransigent government. I cannot believe that in this house tonight the Creditiste members and the Conservative member who just spoke are the only ones in favour of this amendment.
Here is the wording of the amendment, and I quote:
"and subject to a report irom the Food and Drugs Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare that the applicant has complied with all the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and that the medicine manufactured under such patent has the therapeutic and pharmaceutical equivalence of the standard product accepted in Canada,"
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that such an amendment deserves the full attention of the minister and an expression of his opinion.
March 27, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
The amendment I moved earlier on behalf of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), and which I had requested, is authorized under the law. I would like at least the minister to give us a good reason for refusing an amendment which I find so reasonable.
Therefore I ask members of the opposition to consider this amendment seriously, express their opinion and support the stand taken by the Ralliement creditiste.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in dealing with this very important subject. Everyone of us has been ill at one time in his life. Everyone wants to be in good health but from time to time, we have to resort to medicine to regain health.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is perfectly logical since the hon. member demands that imported medicine be equal in quality to Canadian products.
This amendment speaks by itself, as it is my opinion, and the reports and briefs which have already been tabled in Parliament will testify to this, the federal government has always been too generous in this field..
The complaints we have received indicate that this sector of industry has been poorly supervised. In fact, when a similar product is introduced under a different name, the regulations do not apply any longer.
The same situation prevails in the field of food. For instance, very often the container will bear an inscription that says the minimum weight of the product must at least be mentioned.
The federal government does not control strictly enough imported drugs or food.
Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment moved by the hon, member for Lotbiniere should pass and all the more so since we can read in the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, Proceedings No. 39, dated March 21, 1967, at page 3313, in a brief presented on February 7, 1967 to the Prairie Provinces Commission on cost prices by Mrs. Florence Elgaard, President of the Provincial Association of Alberta, affiliated with the Consumers Association of Canada, the following recommendation made to the Consumer Credit Committee: protect the consumers. This is our role as members of parliament. We should, therefore, begin by protecting the Canadian manufacturers, so that they do not have to meet the competition

of other products that are not of the same quality and do not offer the same protection to the consumer.
Speaking of the consumer's rights, in this brief presented on February 7, ilt says that the consumer is entitled to: First, security when he buys a product; then, that he must be informed on the quality of the products. He has the right to choose the quality of various products.
And here we find the following recommendations: That the consumer has the right to have proper labelling on different drugs concerning toxic substances that these drugs, imported or not contain; that the consumer has the right to demand clearer indications about the quantity of the ingredients contained in the various drugs imported or made in Canada; that the consumer has the right to know the source of these products; that he also has the right to be protected as far as to the future use of the drugs he must buy and the weight and other measures that are put on the various containers.
Later on, on page 3133, in the same submission, are quoted instances of the conditions that the committee could or could not ascertain at various stages of its enquiry and in different provinces concerning some products. The articles in question are mostly food products, and I quote from the said submission:
We refer also to Nabisco Shredded Wheat. It happens to be a timely and available example of a common practice by industries, and we review it in some detail. This product has been around for a long, long time, and packaged in quantities of 12 and 18 one-ounce biscuits. The price of this package was 43 cents, purchased in 1967. The previous 18 biscuit package was also 43 cents. However, this latest purchase contains 15] ounces, while the previous 18 biscuits package held 18 ounces. In the 18-oz. package the product cost 2.38 cents per ounce, in the 15] package the product costs 2.73 cents per ounce. At the earlier price rate of 2.38 cents per ounce, 15] ounces should cost 38.64 cents or 39 cents.
What does the customer receive for this 4 cents price differential? There is, on the new package, information that the customer can obtain a handy "Space Saver" for $2.00 and 2 boxtops, mailed to a Toronto address.
Now, all along that submission, it was demonstrated that still the Canadian consumer is not protected for quality, identification, weight and quantity of the product, and that is the reason why the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is perfectly in order considering that we have been elected to protect the Canadian consumer rather than the importers or the Canadian or foreign manufacturers.
March 27, 19S9

We should first protect the Canadian consumer, and next, the Canadian manufacturer. Given that protection we owe to the Canadian people, we must see to it that the drugs imported have the therapeutic and pharmaceutical equivalence of the standard products accepted in Canada.
I would finally ask the minister to pass legislation as was done in England in 1968 as reported by "the Foreign Trade" of April 27, 1968. In fact, Great Britain has voted regulations similar to the ones proposed to-night by the member for Lotbiniere and I quote from "the Foreign Trade":
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

Misleading claims and descriptions of composition and additives. In this field the main instrument is the Food and Drugs Act 1955. This deals broadly with prohibition of the use of any injurious additives and the sale of unsound food and gives local inspectors powers to prosecute sellers or packers of food "which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded".

Mr. Speaker, England has voted on food and drugs regulations quite similar to the ones suggested by the honourable member for Lotbiniere in order to protect Canadian consumers and manufacturers and to make sure that the imported products will be of the same quality as the Canadian products.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to ask a little more justice for Canadians.
Having studied the documentation available on food and drugs, I think that such a matter deserves consideration and that we must stand up for the Canadian consumer.
I think that the increase in the volume of imported food and drugs and the reduction of their quality authorize us to state our views and compel us to assume our responsibilities.
In my opinion, the Canadian citizens are insufficiently protected, but the government seems reluctant to take the necessary steps.
We must admit that the situation is of the utmost importance and that the amendment of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is not only logical but should be adopted because not only would it not do any harm to anyone but it would also protect somewhat the Canadian consumer who has not enough purchasing power to buy the products.
Moreover, the consumer is the victim of the price increases and loss in product quality.
7233
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act The minister concerned should help us get the amendment adopted.
Not one of the amendments proposed until now has been adopted because we are under the government's dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, those in the house who say they are anxious to help society should support the amendment which would serve the interests of all Canadian taxpayers.

Is the house ready to accept this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Amendment (Mr. Fortin) negatived.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I move:
That Bill C-102, an act to amend the Patent Act,, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, be amended by deleting in Clause 1 the words "invention and for such other factors as may be prescribed." On lines 28 and 29 on page 2 of the bill and substituting therefor:
"invention with due regard for the cost of information to the professions by the patentee; with due regard to the cost of new drug submissions to the Food and Drug directorate by the patentee; with due regard for the expense of drug systems recall and continuing information to the professions and for such other factors as may be determined."


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Gordon Ritchie: There has long been considerable dispute with respect to royalties awarded for a compulsory licence. It was argued that the royalties awarded by the Commissioner of Patents bore no real relation to the cost of research, promotion and other factors affecting the sale of drugs. I would like to point out that there will be no desire by any drug copier to seek a compulsory licence for a drug unless it has already received wide acceptance and it is profitable for him to do so.
In addition to the matter of research, the cost factor of information to physicians, new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Directorate and drug system recall should all be considered in the matter of royalties. The bill makes provision in the royalty award for
March 27, 1989

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act research. However, this will be very difficult to arrive at with any degree of fairness because most of this drug research is international, and because a drug company investigates many thousands of compounds. The claim of the industry is that only one in every 7,000 compounds yields a useful drug. As about 90 per cent of the new drugs come from laboratories of the pharmaceutical industry it is very important that research be rewarded in some way and this, as I say, will be very difficult.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
On my second point of drug information to physicians, pharmacists and the general public, there is an idea abroad in lay circles, and I am afraid sometimes in the Department of National Health and Welfare, that all drugs are immediately picked up by physicians and immediately gain wide use when their therapeutic value is ascertained. However, for nearly all drugs this is not so. It requires a great deal of promotion, effort and expense for a new drug to be accepted by the physician and the public.
Unless this promotion is to a level that gains the drug a wide acceptance, there will be no requests for a compulsory licence because the copy houses will have no reason or wish to invest any money in promotion on their own. Therefore, in any rewarding royalty, particularly in a country like Canada where we have very little original research, I think that the cost of this promotion should be carefully assessed.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the cost of promotion and advertising of drugs, and there is widespread feeling this cost is too high. Here again I think the minister will agree that it is wise not to generalize, and that each case will have to be taken on its own merits.
Pravda, in an article concerning information on new drugs, has said:
Meanwhile, the few new drugs on the market are not widely used because either the workers in the medical field and the doctors do not even know of their existence, or have only a very faint knowledge of their possible uses.
So, we can see that even in Russia, where the pharmaceutical industry cannot be accused of being profit minded, they find it necessary to promote drugs. With this in mind, I believe that each individual drug will have to carry a different degree of importance.
In the area of the cost of submission of a new drug to the Food and Drug Directorate,

this also should be considered, particularly if a new drug has just been removed from this classification. It seems to me in that case the copier should pay something towards the cost that was necessary for the drug to be inspected by the Food and Drug Directorate, as otherwise the copier will not have this expense.
As is probably well known and recognized, new drugs are carefully "vetted" by the Food and Drug Directorate as to their safety, but the onus to prove that a drug is safe is on the manufacturing company. This involves an enormous amount of effort on the part of the drug company, more of course for some drugs than for others. It takes years of animal and clinical research on the part of a drug manufacturing company to prove that its drug is safe and useful. Indeed, the scientific information on a single drug may fill many books the size of large telephone directories.
Even if a drug has been O.K.'ed by the Food and Drug Directorate, the directorate requires a careful and continuous reporting of its side effects because many drugs that seem to be quite safe are in time found to be not quite so safe. Most of the expense of this falls on the drug companies, and therefore I feel this could well be considered in the royalty set out by the Patent Commission.
Finally, I wish to mention the matter of the drug recall systems that must be set up by a company in order to make certain that if any drug is found deficient it can be immediately recalled with some degree of accuracy. The Company must make sure that even two dozen pills found in a physician's desk in the far corners of our country or in a remote drug store will be returned on short notice. Unfortunately, this is expensive. It is a problem that has existed and which has been a considerable disadvantage to small drug companies having limited resources.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the Manual of Office Practice Patents published by the Patent Office of Great Britain. Section 3737 gives a suggested course for making up the royalty. I believe that the points outlined would be useful, and would make la royalty on a compulsory licence fairer. The British experience with compulsory licences is that the royalty has been set very much higher than in Canada, and this actually encourages competition between drug companies to a greater extent than setting a royalty at almost a give-away point as seems to be the case in Canada at present. I would commend this to
March 27, 1969

the minister as a directive to the Patent Commissioner in the setting of a royalty for the compulsory licensing of drugs.


Mr. Salisman:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he suggesting that all expenditures on the cost of information, regardless of how extravagant and unnecessary they may be, be reimbursed?


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I feel each drug has to, shall we say, carry its own weight. If it is felt that the promotion is over expensive, then the Commissioner would cut back the amount allowed. I think we have to take into account and give some weight to this factor in awarding the royalty.


Max Saltsman: As a further question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking questions. I wonder if the hon. member for Dauphin is prepared to receive questions after he has completed his contribution to the debate.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I will answer this question also, if I can.


Max Saltsman: I wonder if the hon. member has some suggestion for the establishment of criteria of what constitutes a fair selling price and a fair cost of providing information?


William Gordon Ritchie: I have no real percentage formula. As I say again, it will have to depend on the individual case, but I bring this forward as I think promotion is necessary. I think the hon. gentleman would agree with this, and it should be given some weight in the awarding of this royalty.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Monteith) negatived.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford) I move:
That Bill C-102, an act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act be amended by inserting in Clause 1 (4) after the word "prescribed" on line 29, page 2, the following words:
"that the Commissioner may at any time revoke such a licence, where the terms specified in the application are not complied with."

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the amendment is very important. In fact, it is predicated upon the same principle, that is the protection of the consumer.
It reads as follows:
-that the Commissioner may at any time revoke such a licence, where the terms specified in the application are not complied with.
The same problem always arises. We have read numerous briefs presented to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) and there is not yet a code to protect the consumers.
A code should have been adopted under which rules would have been clearly defined so that consumers could be properly protected. At present, many companies delight in putting on the market toxic chemicals that are health hazards.
Many companies are happy to sell "scrap" and I am shocked to see tonight that the government wants those products to remain on the shelves. Perhaps we asked ourselves: Do we have a "scrap" government?
We should like the Canadian consumer, who must pay high prices for his drugs, to be able to get quality products, and so be able to differentiate between quality products and "scrap" products by means of a code or regulations established in his favour.
A few years back, that is in 1967, an important committee has studied all the aspects of the manufacturing and sale of different products. Briefs were submitted by consumers associations from all the provinces. Some manufacturers complained that they had to meet the unfair competition from other unscrupulous companies which would put anything on the market and use packaging system designed to deceive the public. Prices were not correct considering the weight, the measure, the quantity, and the quality indicated on the label.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. While undoubtedly the hon.
March 27, 1S69

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act member's remarks are oi great interest, I question their relevancy to the amendment before the house.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I will listen a little more carefully to the hon. member and I will be able to determine if he remains within the ambit of the amendment under consideration.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: 
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order really because it is a few minutes to ten o'clock and I wish to rise before it is ten o'clock. There have been some

discussions. I am not quite sure of the nature of those discussions, but we are making very good progress on this bill and I am wondering whether it is the feeling of the house that we should sit until eleven o'clock to deal with these amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough of these late nights. If for no reason other than the sake of the staff, I would say no.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister would like to speed up the House's business by having this bill passed tonight; personally I would like us to make some progress after the bill has been adopted. Whether we pass it tonight or not, does not make much difference. That is why I moved this amendment. I wish the minister would sleep oni it, and on these words, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is now 10 o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, since it is ten o'clock, may I ask the acting house leader whether it would be the intention of the government to return to this bill tomorrow in the hope that, after he has had a good night's sleep, he might be more amenable toward the amendments, or are we to go on to the item in respect of the hazardous products.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We will be proceeding with this bill tomorrow, which I would hope we could complete, and also the bill in respect of hazardous products.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Ordier 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be necessary for me to take my full time tonight. I wish to
March 27, 1969

allow the minister time for a complete answer. I do not see him here, but perhaps his parliamentary secretary is here and ready to reply.
I should like briefly to review the history of my question for the house. First, I asked a question on March 12 and Your Honour at that time ruled my question out of order as being more appropriate for a statement on motions. I therefore spoke on the matter again during the adjournment debate on March 17 and much to my surprise there was no one present on the government side to reply to my question. Neither the Minister nor his parliamentary secretary were present at that time. Accordingly, I rose the next day, Tuesday March 18, on a question of privilege and protested as vigorously as I could about the spurned fate of my question. At this point there was still no notice by the government. All remained calm and serene, so again I found myself unrequited. It has been said that hell has no fury like a lover spurned, so I was furious on Tuesday and remained so on Wednesday the 19th, whereupon I rose during the question period and asked the identical question I had on March 12. I was therefore mot surprised, because of the consistency shown by Your Honour toward this type of question, to be ruled out of order again.
Again, I posted the question for debate for last Thursday night. The question then became, at least to me, a "cause celebre", but before I could "celebre" my cause I received a call from the Minister's office explaining the Minister was hors de combat and would I please postpone my question in order to allow the Minister to prepare what was termed at the time of the phone call to be a good answer. I really do not know what that means, but I am looking forward to hearing it. This I readily agreed to do and that is the reason I am here tonight. I should like to read my original question, which was asked on March 12:
Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the critical unemployment situation, and recent reports to the government by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. Has the government any alternatives to recommend in respect of the unilateral cancellation of winter works projects in order to assist municipalities in the area of water utility pollution control and housing projects?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
During the debate which followed on March 17, I cited the following matters: various protests from the municipalities that I represent over the unilateral cancellation of the winter works program; mounting welfare
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion roles in the municipality in which I live, Coquitlam; severe unemployment in British Columbia of 6.6 per cent, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures of March 13, and the apparent contradiction between the cancellation of the winter works program and the recommendations of the task force on housing for municipal servicing of land. It seemed to me a contradiction that we would cancel the program that would provide the very things which the task force recommended.
I shall not elaborate on these matters, because I have done so on earlier occasions. But I would like the minister to consider a further matter. We know there is high unemployment generally. We are aware of the problem facing university students with regard to summer jobs. We know that university students compete for job opportunities with the regular work force ini the summertime, even though there are then expanded job opportunities. The situation will probably be of increasing concern as we proceed through the years.
Therefore, I ask the minister whether he has considered consulting the provinces with a view to providing some kind of assistance with regard to the fee structure and living and travel allowances of university students, so they will not be required to compete with heads of families. This situation should not be allowed to exist, because of the very nature of our economic forces. I believe the first priority of students is to study. As long as this situation persists, we will have this constant conflict.
I think we all agree that because of dissent, and all the rest of it, the image of university-students is not at its highest point. I think we are moving into the situation where we shall have to provide free tuition and other amenities for university students so they will not need to compete with the regular work force, especially during times of high unemployment. I ask the government to outline with all possible speed, either this evening or later in a statement on motions, specifically what program it has in mind to assist municipalities with capital works in order to overcome the current crisis in Canadian employment.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to offer an apology to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) for the fact that he did not receive an immediate reply the first time he raised his question on the adjourn-
March 27, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment debate of March 17. The reason he did not receive a reply at that time was that the question was referred to the wrong department, and it was not noticed until afterwards that his question was addressed to this department. I think the hon. member will agree that after someone from the department spoke to him it was decided that we should give an answer, but then he had to go to his riding. Only since that time have we had an opportunity to consider this matter. The hon. member may consider himself very lucky in that he has raised this subject four times. That is quite a record.
I hope to make amends by convincing the hon. member and the house of the wisdom of the government's decision not to renew the municipal winter works program in 1968-69. The program was becoming less and less effective and inevitably inefficient, and even abuses, were cropping up. The many examples of abuse quoted by both provincial and federal auditors are well known to the public. During the last few years, attempts were made to salvage the program as an effective economic tool. The last attempt was made in the fall of 1967 at the federal-provincial meeting of the ministers concerned. The provinces were invited to suggest viable alternatives but none came forward.
It also became quite evident that municipalities had fewer useful projects to propose for federal assistance under the program. If the hon. member has any doubts about this trend, I would remind him that last winter, 1967-68, only 6,532 workers were hired for winter works in the hon. member's own province of British Columbia. This was almost exactly half the 12,944 workers so employed in 1963-64.
The hon. member referred to his home municipality, the district of Coquitlam. Our records indicate that in 1964-65, approved winter works projects resulted in 590 additional jobs. Last winter, that is in 1967-68, the comparable figure was 170 jobs. For the city of Port Coquitlam, the corresponding figures were 189 in 1964-65, and 23 in 1967-68. It is1 quite clear, therefore, that the municipal winter works incentive program was no longer as effective as it might be.
When the municipal winter works program was introduced in 1958, there was no other national program of any significance designed to cope with seasonal unemployment. In that year, the federal government subsidized the training of only 3,500 unemployed persons, with a total expenditure of half a million
[Mr. Loiselle.l
dollars. Since that time, the retraining of adult members of the labour force has become a major economic tool of the federal government. In the current fiscal year, the federal government will finance the training and retraining of some 300,000 adult workers, the great majority of them during the winter months, with a cost to the federal treasury of $200 million.
In the winter or 1967-68 the federal government spent some $25 million on the municipal winter works program. This amount is not forthcoming to the provinces and municipalities during the current winter. But in its place, the federal government is spending $50 million more on training of adult workers, a substantial proportion of them being unemployed in the winter months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-EFFECT OF INCREASED RATES ON PRINTING INDUSTRY

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question was based on the submission by the Graphic Arts Industries Association, an organization representing 525 producing companies. This is the most serious analysis of some of the damaging fallout from the Postmaster General's (Mr. Keirans) actions; and decisions. It is also a warning, and a cry for help. It sets out a painful litany of the economic and social damage consequent upon the stiff hikes in postal rates and the processes of reclassification. This is a statement from people in the industry, people who should know.
For a long time, the minister told us how happy the letter carriers were with the new sorting procedures. Even when their spokesmen were proclaiming publicly that they were not satisfied, we were told that the measures really were popular. It appears now that the minister knows that not all is rosy in the garden. We have been told for a long time how slight the effects on publications will be. The minister told us this. But those in the publishing business have an entirely different story. Again I say, perhaps they might know. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is interested in the encouragement of industrial growth and the preservation of existing industry. What will happen to all sorts of allied industries, from pulp to machine parts, if there is a decline in the
March 27, 1969

important printing industry? There is little use in the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) setting up new job hunting offices if, through the actions of the Postmaster General many skilled workers are thrown out of employment. The minister, of course, has responsibility for his department. He seeks to make it efficient, and so he should, but he cannot disassociate himself from his collegiate responsibility as a member of a government which should have the economic well being of all Canadians on its mind.
There seems to be a growing development of administrative separatism in this government. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) rightly suggests that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials should be removed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has different ideas. The printing trade goes to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for redress from a situation resultant from actions of the minister's colleague, the Postmaster General. It is my hope that both ministers will heed this call for help and that we will not have to produce a lengthy casualty list of extinct publications at some future date to convince the minister that he did not in fact give sufficient thought to the consequences of his drive to make the Post Office patrons put that department in the black. He should have listened to these people. Printers should have been given a chance to air their views and present their information before a house committee.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Things are so serious that the spokesmen for the industry should still be called before a committee before it is1 too late. The Post Office has been running into trouble for months. Large and important sectors of society are fearful of the results of the new rate. The communication of ideas from Canadians to Canadians is in real jeopardy. The threat from United States competition, always great, has vastly increased. The whole problem should be thoroughly reviewed before it is too late. It is not enough for the minister to say he knows better. The dismal facts are given in this brief. Publications will die. Unemployment has already been caused across the country, and more will follow. Some trade unions have already indicated their intention to mail from the United States, to Canadian addresses meaning that the Canadian Post Office would have to deliver their publications without a cent of postage revenue. We have the story now from various places in the country and the record is not a very happy 29180-459

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion one. One medium-sized company reports its postage costs up by 257 per cent. Three magazines have been eliminated and three others cut down; there have been staff reductions.
The United Church Publishing House reports postage costs up from $40,000 to $170,000, a loss of advertising revenue, and lay-offs affecting staff. We find that in British Columbia a small printer reports postage costs up from $5,613 to $18,547. Two publications have been killed and employees laid off. The War Amputations Association of Canada, a most wonderful organization well known for its key tag service, reports an estimated increase of $90,000. The future of 42 war amputees is jeopardized.
So, it goes on down the line. I read in the Globe and Mail of March 26 that a magazine established in 1935 and having a circulation of 4,600 is folding up because of the massive increase in the postal rate. Another article carried the heading:	"Canadian Journals
forced into U.S.?" This is a serious situation, and in this context the document to which I have referred is a most valuable one. It is not a happy document but it is one to which heed should be paid very soon before we get into real trouble.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: I always enjoy the Cassandra-like remarks of the hon. gentleman1. I think the members of the Graphic Arts1 Industries Association, the printers, the artists, the designers who are all part of that organization, charge all their costs to their clients. They charge even more than their costs; they add an amount for a profit. But apparently they are not ready to admit that the letter carriers, the sorters, all those 48,000 people who work in the Post Office, should also be paid for their work and should be paid in accordance with the cost of carrying out their duties, and not be a burden upon the general taxpayer.
All these people claim they have a particular right to dig into the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer. They are unwilling to concede that the costs of the Post Office can be legitimately charged for and legitimately priced. They prefer that these subsidies should be hidden, that the taxpayer should pay. And the taxpayer himself is the vulnerable person here. He has no organization as have the members of the Graphic Arts Industries Association or the publishing industry, all of whom I have been prepared to see, and have seen. I have listened to them and talked to them. I have read the report, although, as the hon. gentleman suggested, it was sent not
7240	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to me but directly to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I recall that litany and say it is greatly exaggerated but the hon. gentleman this evening has exaggerated it even more.
I might remind the hon. member that the direct mail printing industry, having repeated all these complaints last October and November, now admit they foresee a 10 per cent increase in direct mail usage next year, not a decline. Perhaps people in the direct mail industry will go out of business, perhaps there will be a reorganization, I do not know; but as I say, the industry foresees a 10 per cent increase in printed material sent by direct mail despite increased costs.
The hon. member is really asking me to accept an increase in the deficit of the post office of $20 million, $30 million or $40 million. When he asks me to do that, I suggest he should also make clear his position on whether we should reduce by a similar amount equalization payments to the provinces, subsidies to farmers, aid to Prince Edward Island, or aid to education, to health or to welfare. Because the same $20 million will not cover all these fields.



FISHERIES-SEALS-DISPOSAL OF NORWEGIAN SHIP UNDER SEIZURE

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when I set this question down for an adjournment conversation I did not realize that the fisheries and forestry committee were scheduled to meet this evening, otherwise I might have been able to deal with the matter there. However, the other day, in inquiring about the seizure or arrest of a Norwegian sealer, I asked in a supplemental way whether the government would be a bit more severe in prosecuting this case than it was in the case of the Japanese fishing vessel arrested off the west coast a short while ago.
In the case of this Japanese fishing vessel, I am given to understand that there were two ways of proceeding against the owners. One was by way of indictment, which carried with it a maximum fine on conviction of $25,000. The other way was by summary conviction, which carried with it on conviction a maximum fine of $5,000 plus the possible seizure of the vessel, its gear and the like. I am told the proceedings were by way of summary conviction, and that the prosecutor on behalf of the Crown indicated to the court it was sufficient simply to ask for a $1,000 fine, the boat having been found inside the 12-mile fishing zone some two and a half miles.

DEBATES	March 27, 1969
The magistrate did not agree with that and levied a fine of $2,500, but even so I think this amounted to nothing more than the charging of what might be called a licence fee to a foreign fishing vessel to poach in our waters. Everybody on the west coast has heard of many cases of fisheries officers proceeding against native Indian people fishing for food by way of taking possession of and actually cutting up and burning their nets, by seizing their boats and by restricting them to fishing at certain periods of time. In other words, the penalty imposed upon our own Canadian people is far greater in severity when compared with that imposed upon this massive Japanese fishing company.
I am sure many west coast fishermen will have communicated to the department the fact that certain foreign fishing vessels on the west coast, both from Japan and the Soviet Union, do follow the practice of moving in to within a mile or a mile and a half of our shores at night, without running lights or any lights whatsoever, dropping their gear and dragging it out beyond the 12-mile limit. In other words, they are deliberately and consciously fishing inside our fishing zone, indeed, inside our territorial seas. They are doing so contrary to standard safety practices at sea by running at night without any lights visible, and so on. These boats have been seen engaging in this sort of practice by trawlers on the west coast. I submit that we should prosecute the Japanese fishing vessel and the Norwegian sealer that was apprehended to the fullest extent of the law, to indicate to other nations and captains of foreign fishing vessels in our waters that we intend to assert our economic rights. The penalty ought to be severe enough to deter others from indulging in similar practices.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
In this regard our fisheries protection vessels, either because the ships are too small or because of the temerity of their captains, are not doing an adequate job. Perhaps we ought to use the navy to enforce our rights; the navy seems to be doing little that is useful, and it might be wise to use naval ships to protect our fisheries. We must enforce our fisheries regulations with the greatest severity in an effort, hopefully, to deter others have no right to be there from fishing in our waters.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will recognize that we
March 27, 1369	COMMONS
are now taking a much tougher line in enforcing fishing regulations, not only within Canada but also with regard to our exclusive fishing zones and the operations of foreign fishing vessels within those zones. As the hon. member knows, in the case of the Japanese fishing vessel he mentioned, this is the first time that vessel has been encountered by one of our fisheries protection vessels. In fact, this is the first instance of a Japanese fishing vessel ever having been apprehended by one of our fisheries protection vessels. This is, therefore, a first case. It is not a case where vessels, even Japanese fishing vessels, have been warned on previous occasions by our fisheries protection service. He can rest assured that if we run into a series of incidents involving warnings or apprehensions, the penalty will escalate in ratio with the provocation.
I have heard of instances, as undoubtedly the hon. member has1-fortunately they are not all that numerous-where foreign fishing vessels have been within our territorial waters and it has not been possible for our fisheries protection service to go out to the vessel in question and apprehend it. Although the number of such incidents has been exaggerated, undoubtedly they have occurred.
DEBATES	7241
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Undoubtedly, our fishermen have had reasons to be provoked.
Our fisheries protection service now is better equipped than it ever was before. The Canadian fisheries vessel Tanu, which intercepted the Japanese ship, was launched only last September and is one of the first fishery vessels on the west coast capable of going out any distance in any kind of weather. We have lacked such capability in the past.
As the hon. member knows, the air force is assisting with over-flight surveillance. We have also been assisted by the coast-guard and the navy. In fact, it was a coast guard icebreaker that picked up the Norwegian vessel. Our fisheries ship could not go out to her because of ice conditions.
We are taking a tougher line and to enforce the law we need more equipment. I contest the hon. member's statement that our captains or officers of our fishery ships lack the orders or the courage to pick up foreign vessels inside our fishing limits. I think our men are dying to show their mettle and to show their determination, as recently demonstrated, to protect our fishing zones more adequately than was possible in the past.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
29180-459J

Friday, March 28, 1969