1969-03-28

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKERS AND CLERKS OF PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLIES-ALSO MEMBERS OF ROOSEVELT CAMPOBELLO CAPITAL COMMISSION

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a group of distinguished Canadian parliamentarians, the Speakers and Clerks of the provincial assemblies. Our guests are in Ottawa to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Area Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. They will spend a few moments in the gallery and I am sure will be favourably impressed by the quiet efficiency and impeccable dignity of our deliberations.

In the name of my colleagues, I express the wish that our distinguished visitors will enjoy their stay in Ottawa and that their discussions will bear fruit.
I should have added, naturally, that our distinguished colleagues, the Speakers and Clerks of the provincial legislative assemblies are accompanied by their wives.

I should also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Senate gallery of American colleagues who are members of the Roosevelt Campobello Capital Commission.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Ottawa, March 28, 1969
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable J. R. Cartwright, P.C., M.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the
Senate Chamber today, the 28th March, at 4.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the final payment on wheat for the crop year ending July 31, 1968.
Producers delivered 464,608,153 bushels of wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1967-68 crop year, including 17,974,914 bushels of Durum wheat. The pool account for wheat was closed on February 28.
The amount of the final payment to be distributed to producers is $60,087,183, including $4,426,853 to be distributed to producers who delivered Durum wheat. This is not a payment by the government of Canada but represents the net returns of the Canadian Wheat Board in the marketing of western Canadian wheat for the 1967-68 crop year. It is additional to the initial payments for wheat which were increased at the beginning of the 196768 crop year, in the case of No. 1 Manitoba Northern, for example, by 20 cents per bushel from $1.50 to $1.70.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
The average final payment for wheat other than Durum is 12.462 cents per bushel. The average final payment for Durum wheat is 24.628 cents per bushel. The Canadian Wheat Board will begin mailing the final payment cheques on March 28, today.
I wish to inform the house of the total prices realized by producers, prior to the deduction of the 1 per cent Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy, on their deliveries of some of the more important grades of wheat. Farmers will receive a total per bushel, basis

March 28. 1969
Grain
in store at the Lakehead or Vancouver, of $1.81317 for No. 1 Northern; $1.78548 for No. 2 Northern, $1.76283 for No. 3 Northern, $1.71155 for No. 4 Northern and $1.68181 for No. 5 Wheat. The prices realized on the Durum grades total $1.92261 for No. 1 C.W. Amber Durum; $1.90211 for No. 2 and $1.87096 for No. 3.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister announced, the government will make to farmers a final payment for their wheat. In effect, the government will be returning to our farmers their own money. I am sure that the minister's statement will be read with shock and dismay by farmers in western Canada. Our grain handling system was in a complete mess during this past year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now the government is to make a final payment which will represent a reduction to the farmers of 17 cents per bushel for wheat sales ending in July, 1968. We must compare these payments with previous payments which were at least 20 cents higher than the present payments are to be. In previous years final payments have been 37 to 38 cents and 48 to 49 cents greater per bushel.
The reduction of 17 cents a bushel has been brought about, despite the government's announcement previously of the interim selling price guarantee. It has been estimated that it would cost $15 million to maintain even the interim selling price guarantee that was suggested. The minister shakes his head. We have seen no final figures. It seems that the $15 million was in the estimates and is included in the over-all sum to be paid to farmers. Despite that, they will suffer a loss of 17 cents a bushel.
I ask the minister, have these reductions been brought about because of high demurrage charges on ships at Vancouver? We asked the government to pay these demurrage charges, because bad weather and other emergency situations prevented the movement of wheat to that port. The government refused that. Western farmers are now afraid that the government will not be able to maintain initial payments at $1.70 a bushel. If there is to be a drop of 17 cents a bushel this year, even with the internal subsidy that has been applied, the farmers wonder whether the price may not drop, say, another 10 cents next year, because of no guarantee this year. They wonder what the initial payment for the coming year will be with respect to wheat. If

the mess of the past year in wheat handling is to continue into the coming year, there will be no guarantee as to what the initial asking price for wheat may be. We, on this side of the house, urge the government immediately to put back into force its interim selling price guarantee, because that guarantee is needed if the confidence of western farmers is to be maintained.
The lowering of the final price will work great hardships on our farmers who already have difficulty in meeting their financial obligations because of poor wheat sales, and low prices for the wheat that has been sold.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for sending us notice of his statement. I think the real significance of the statement is that it shows that the drop in gross income with respect to this one product of farmers for the last crop year was approximately 9 per cent. This is what the task force that has been meeting in the Chateau Laurier for the past three or four days is all about. This morning we have the actual figures before us. We have a situation in this economy where inflation is continuing, wage rates and profits are going up and the farmer's gross income, and inevitably his net income, is going down.
This government cannot fail to discharge its responsibility to the grain farmers and the farm sector of this country. It was this government which negotiated the GATT agreement under the Kennedy round. They also negotiated the International Grains Arrangement. When other signatories undercut the price, we held an umbrella over the price arrangements for many months in the last crop year.
A significant factor not mentioned in this statement is the drop in the volume of sales which has occurred as a result of negotiations with respect to this agreement. Surely the government can do no less than discharge its responsibility by immediately setting a floor price to the Canadian producer at the minimum.
The government should seriously consider the representations of farm organizations, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union which made representations to it suggesting a floor price minimum of $2.12 and stating the need of domestic prices for wheat. If we are to avoid bankruptcy and real financial pressure in our farm economy, immediate steps must be taken in this field. This government cannot avoid taking the full responsibility which is
March 28, 1969

theirs in the international trade policies of this country.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I must follow in the footsteps of the other members and congratulate the minister on the announcement he has just made concerning western producers.
This announcement, which we expected as a matter of fact, is merely a repetition of his statement to the effect that he would soon be settling the question of final payments.
He is merely telling the western farmers that the Canadian Wheat Board will start mailing the cheques on March 28.
He said himself, a short while ago, that such a statement does not call for congratulations. But I suggest that it does to a certain extent, since a small payment is better than none. I can see that the western farmers are a little disappointed about the 9 per cent reduction which affects their product.
In his last statement in the house, the minister was saying that owing to the invasion of the market by the American government, farmers in the West would have to accept a reduction in the price of wheat. It already underwent a reduction last year.
I realize that the more the price of the production goes down, the more that of consumption increases. When the price paid to the producer goes down by 2 or 3 per cent, the business-man as he sends the product to the consumer must very often increase its price by 10 or 12 per cent.
There lies the paradox which is always obvious, and we wonder whether this year the producer in the West will once more be the loser.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
But the winner is still the businessman. In fact, in the province of Quebec, we shall pay even more than last year for the wheat that is already selling at a good price, and certainly i't is not the producer who will get a profit but indeed finance.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), to make the overdue inquiry into the trade of agricultural products.
The cause of the evil does not lie in production, or the weather, but indeed in high finance, that may, at its convenience, "swindle" the consumer, in selling at exaggerated prices, compared with those which are paid to the producer.
Canada Evidence Act
I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is full of good will, is at last going, as we have been asking him for six years, to make a probe into high finance. I believe that if he corrects the evil today, he will be in a position next year to announce a rise in the prices paid to the producer.



CRIMINAL CODE-CANADA EVIDENCE ACT AMENDMENT EXPUNGING CRIMINAL RECORDS OF MINOR OFFENDERS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-186, to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act (Expunging of Criminal Records).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to expunge the criminal records of persons who have committed a minor offence three years after the serving of a sentence or the payment of the fine, and to do likewise after a period of five years for a more serious offence. The expungement will not be automatic. The power to expunge a criminal record would be vested in a Board of Corrections Review which would determine whether there has been reformation and rehabilitation of the applicant in determining the application for expungement.
A short time ago I introduced a bill for the abolition of corporal punishment. This bill for the expungement of criminal records is another step in fully restoring the social status of reformed offenders, and to move more closely to the development of a civilized society.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that his explanation should be brief at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-187, respecting the
March 28, 1969
7248	COMMONS
Location of new International Airport protection of records of Canadian business concerns.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is set forth in the brief explanatory note, from which I shall quote:
One of the recommendations of the Watkins Report was that the Parliament of Canada enact legislation to prohibit removal of commercial records and data from business concerns within federal jurisdiction by reason of a foreign court order.
This bill with its four clauses would provide such legislation and to that extent enable firms in Canada to be free from foreign court orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time, and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct this question to the Minister of Transport, because even though I do not agree with the procedure, it is his day to be in the house, according to the roster. In view of the fact that he is not here and it is such a serious question I would direct it to the Prime Minister.
Did the Minister of Transport pre-tape the announcement concerning the site of the new Montreal International Airport at a certain Ottawa TV studio or anywhere else Saturday, March 22 or any other date prior to his announcement of the same in the house yesterday?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am sorry I do not know the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. The minister will be glad to answer it when he is here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He was supposed to be here today.


An hon. Member:: Many of your people are not here today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In a few years we will be the government; don't worry. May I put this question to the Prime Minister. Did the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development pre-tape the announcement concerning the site of the new Montreal International Airport at a certain Ottawa TV studio or anywhere else on Sunday March 23 or any other date prior to the announcement yesterday in the house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that minister is not supposed to be here today; but where is the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I respectfully suggest to hon. members that we never achieve very much by referring to our respective attendances and absences.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very serious question of privilege. My question of privilege arises at this moment as a result of questions I put to the Prime Minister and as a result of questions I was prepared to ask ministers, one of whom even according to the Prime Minister was supposed to be here. The answer I received with reference to those questions is nothing. My question of privilege is based on the information I did not get from the ministers or from the Prime Minister. I might mention that a news release this morning over CKGM Montreal and CKEY Toronto said in brief that the Ottawa bureau has learned that information concerning the exact location of the new Montreal International Airport near or at St. Jerome was leaked by cabinet sources five days before the announcement was made to the Commons.
The Minister of Transport stated in the house yesterday that this was a carefully guarded secret. Yet, says the news release, a studio and four technicians knew of the information and were not sworn to any secrecy, although they were closely guarded by two R.C.M.P. officers. This is a most serious matter so far as government and cabinet secrets are concerned and I suggest, if this news release is true, this is as serious a matter as a budget leak and, if the facts are correct, would call for the resignations of those ministers involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They laugh, Mr. Speaker, but I will read some precedents. They may laugh today but they will cry tomorrow.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Mr. Baldwin:: They do not know how to cry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is my intention at the end of my comments on this important and serious question of privilege to move a motion. The question of privilege is based on two propositions: First, that if in fact secret cabinet information was placed on a video tape and recorded by radio personnel prior to

March 28, 1969

the announcement it could lead to land speculation and a possible enrichment of people who are "in the know", at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. This affects the responsibility and obligations of every member of parliament and is at the very root of the oath of office taken by Privy Councillors. Therefore it calls for close investigation.
This first fact establishes a reasonable prima facie case for examination and review. It arises because this matter was dealt with in the house yesterday and questions were put to the Prime Minister today.
Second, there has been a breach of the privileges of this house in that cabinet secrets have been divulged in a video production centre contrary to the rules governing parliament. I will say at this point that I have information that this news was video taped and that the tapes were carried by a Montreal commercial enterprise. So there was no chance of keeping this information secret, if these people wanted to use that information. This method of disseminating news is a breach of the privileges of the house and of every hon. member here, and indeed is contrary to all the fundamental principles of a democratic Cabinet government.
Therefore parliament, which is the highest court of the land, is entitled to know by examination and review whether this method of disseminating the news was used by any members of the government. One must be fair in these matters, and that is why I call for an examination and review. Proof of the leak of information can only be determined by an inquiry at which ministers and witnesses can be examined and tapes and documents can be checked. I hope they will not be destroyed, as they were on one other occasion. Documents can be checked, and if it is determined immediately that there is no foundation to the allegation that this method of disseminating the news has been used, we will all be happy that truth has1 prevailed. However, if on the other hand such an inquiry should disclose other facts, then proper steps will have to be taken by the government and by those involved.
My question of privilege is that if this information has been put on video tapes which were carried across the nation by a commercial enterprise, and if the people who made those tapes were not put under an oath of secrecy, then this is what I would call a cabinet leak and it is equal to a budget leak. I need not bring to Your Honour's attention the two famous cases in the history of political
Location of new International Airport science. One was of the Hon. Mr. Thomas, Colonial Secretary in Great Britain, who made a statement to another member of parliament, Mr. Butt, with reference to the price of beer being affected by the budget. He resigned because of this indiscretion. That was in 1936. Then we also have the famous Dalton case in which the Hon. Sir Hugh Dalton, on entering the chamber with a budget speech, spoke to John Carvel, correspondent of a newspaper called the "Star". Apparently the news release went out prior to the completion of the budgetary speech by Sir Hugh Dalton. He resigned because of his indiscretion.
We tried to solicit information from the cabinet today and particularly from a minister who, according to the roster, should be here today. This is the news that went across the land this morning:
CKCM's and CKEY's Ottawa bureau has learned that information concerning the exact location of Montreal's new international airport was leaked by cabinet sources five days before the announcement was made in the House of Commons.
Montreal's new international airport is to be located 26 miles north of the city near St. Jerome. Transport Minister Paul Hellyer made that announcement yesterday following months of intense secrecy.
What kind of secrecy?
The project is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Newsradio has learned that both Mr. Hellyer and Regional Expansion Minister, Mr. Marchand, last Saturday and Sunday went to an Ottawa TV studio to pre-tape the announcement. The audio and video tapes were to be released to radio and TV stations as the announcement was being made in the Commons. It has further been learned that the ministers did not take the precaution of swearing the studio technicians to secrecy even though they did have two R.C.M.P. officers guarding the studio. Nor were the technicians sworn not to make attempts to use the valuable information for personal gain. Oddly enough, however, most other members of the studio staff were given the impression oaths of secrecy had been signed.
Even if the oaths of secrecy had been taken, which was not the case according to my information, this would not remedy the situation and the question of privilege would still exist.
So I say that we have a prima facie case. In view of the fact that this leak is as serious as a budget leak, I say that the time has now come for the Prime Minister and his government to measure up to their responsibility and to take parliament into their confidence. This is one breach of privilege. Another breach of privilege is against every member of the House of Commons, that is the leak. We speak for the people and we speak for the
March 28, 1969
7248	COMMONS
Location of new International Airport Canadian taxpayers. How many more leaks, how much land speculation and what kind of nonsense will we allow to go on if this continues?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that I made out a prima facie case if there ever was a prima facie case set out in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear these barks in the distance, but you will be howling soon.
I make the following motion:
That the question of information of the announcement of the new Montreal international airport at or near St. Jerome, Quebec, having been given prior to the said announcement by the government in the House of Commons and including all the circumstances under which the allegation is made, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the house, so that a full inquiry and investigation may be made, and that the said committee be empowered to examine all persons and papers material to the matter in question.


Mr. Speaker:: The decision which the Chair has to make before putting the motion proposed by the hon. member is to determine whether there is a prima facie case. However, before doing so it would be normal for the house to hear the ministers to whom the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) referred. It is obviously impossible for the Chair to make this kind of decision without hearing the views and comments of the ministers to whom the hon. member referred in his statement.
I doubt very much whether there is any point in pursuing the matter further at this time. I realize that the Prime Minister might want to take part in the discussion, but if we have a debate at this time I would still be unable to make a decision now. So if hon. members agree with my suggestion, we should hold the matter in abeyance because I cannot be placed in the position of ruling on the question of a prima facie aspect of the allegation now.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can well appreciate the position in which Your Honour finds yourself, in that you cannot give a decision on the prima facie aspect of the question of privilege in the absence of the ministers. May I respectfully suggest that Your Honour consider requesting that those ministers come into the chamber, assuming that they are in town, so that the matter can be dealt with now instead of awaiting their convenience.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to speak on the point of order, Mr. Sneaker. I feel I may be able to say a few things which might assist you in deciding whether or not there is a prima facie case. Some of the facts are relevant to this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister should address himself to the point of order raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall address myself to this point of order. I should like to say first that it is impossible for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) to be here because he is in Toronto now. The other minister could be here, but I can tell the house the facts which he would state. This may help you in the decision concerning the airport which was announced yesterday afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister that although he feels he should make a statement which might help to clarify the situation I feel very strongly that the matter should be held in abeyance until statements can be made which might assist the Chair in making a final decision on the prima facie aspect of the proposed motion.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for York South, could this matter be suspended until after the noon recess, so that every effort could be made to not only bring the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development back here, but also the Minister of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is the weekend. This matter is very important, and I assume it is also important to the ministers concerned. Surely its importance justifies every effort being made to bring them back. It may well be that by two o'clock Your Honour may have heard from the Prime Minister that the ministers will be back here this afternoon in order that Your Honour may deal with the preliminary matter of a prima facie case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the point of order raised by
March 28, 1969

the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), we contend that if we wait too long before reaching a decision in that respect, it will allow some ministers who would foresee that controversial matters could be raised to be absent from the house, thus preventing hon. members from discussing the question.
But in the opinion of the members of the Ralliement Creditiste, the proposal of the hon. member for York South to have the minister back in the house as soon as possible is an excellent one, and we support it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are obviously going to get into a debate over the matter. I suggest that it would be very unfair and unwise to proceed in this way. It is certainly not within the responsibility of the Chair to call for the attendance of individual members in the circumstances. If hon. members agree between themselves, and if there is agreement among the house leaders, that we resume discussion of the proposed motion of the hon. member for Calgary North, of course the Speaker is the servant of the house and I will be here at that time, every moment of the day, to hear the matter if it is taken up later in the day.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North asked two pertinent questions. He asked whether this matter was pre-taped on television; whether a video tape was made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the ministers were brought in-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made my ruling. The hon. member is obviously trying to have a debate. I have just said there cannot be a debate at this time. The hon. member says that questions have been asked. The hon. member may wish to have the right to ask questions. If the hon. member, outside of this question of privilege, wants to ask supplementary questions of the Prime Minister, that of course is a different matter. But in so far as the proposed motion and question of privilege is concerned, the matter has been allowed to stand.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the pertinent fact is that we do not know whether there was a cabinet leak. But if the Prime Minister would bring his ministers here-
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Ask him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Calgary North did ask the Prime Minister. He said he did not know. If the Prime Minister would bring his ministers into the house later this day, the whole question may be cleared up immediately. Therefore I think it is very important that we have these ministers before us today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ask me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We did.


Gerald William Baldwin: None of you know anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I gather that you have ruled that the subject we have been dealing with has ended. May I now direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the denial reportedly made by the Prime Minister of Quebec that any authority of that government had requested assistance from any federal authority in connection with the widely publicized march on McGill University today, would the Solicitor General inform the house what the situation is with respect to this matter, particularly as it concerns the Royal Canadian Mounted' Police?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand1 the hon. member really to be asking me whether a request for assistance was made by the authorities in Quebec, the Attorney General or the Prime Minister. No such request has been made.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for clarification. I was unfortunately out of the house yesterday, in another city. However, I understand that the Minister of Justice said that such a request had been made. Is the Solicitor General saying it was not made to his department, or was not made to any authority in the federal government?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the question and answer given in the House of Commons yesterday appear in Hansard. I do not think they should be paraphrased in the way it has

March 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry been done by the hon. member. I do not interpret the answer of the Minister of Justice as saying there was a request.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Solicitor General has said this morning in reply to my question, may I ask him this: When the Minister of Justice yesterday said that 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 connection with the event to which I have referred, was the Minister of Justice in error; was that not the case?


George James McIlraith: The Minister of Justice was not in error. There was-[DOT]


David Lewis: You said there was no request.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to question me, I am perfectly prepared to seek to answer with great accuracy to the best of my ability. But I prefer not to be interrupted when giving an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like you to silence those Grits for me, George; especially that one with the long sideburns. You are doing a good job.


George James McIlraith: I do not wish to pass judgment on the quality of the answers of any colleague of mine in the House of Commons. I have been here too long for that.


Gerald William Baldwin: So have we.


George James McIlraith: But the minister's answer is not contrary to the fact. There was a telephone call between officials, the usual type of thing that passes between officials-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Every day.


Mr. Bell:: Explain.


George James McIlraith: -in the nature of asking for certain information in the event that it might be necessary to make such a request of the R.C.M.P. That was the nature of the call.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister inform the house whether he is aware of any request, by any official or

authority in Quebec, of any official or authority in Ottawa for the assistance of troops in connection with the matter; and would he assure the house that such assistance, in a case of this sort, would not be contemplated by him or his department?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, there has been no request to have services available from the armed forces. The second part of the question of the hon. member I would qualify as hypothetical.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Is the federal government satisfied, as far as they are concerned, that appropriate measures have been taken to defend the integrity and freedom of Canada's leading institution of higher learning?


Mr. Benson:: After Queen's!


George James McIlraith: There is very close working co-operation between the police forces of the various provinces and federal peace forces. That applies in this case as it does with other provinces.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fanatical agitation in Quebec, does the Prime Minister expect to have support for his languages bill in the rest of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
tTranslation]



AIRPORTS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Since there is disagreement with the Quebec government, can he tell us whether the provincial authorities approved the choice of the site for the proposed international airport as announced yesterday by the Minister of Transport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr.. Speaker, the decision has been reached after lengthy consultations between federal, provincial and municipal authorities. There
March 28. 1969

has even been a report-the Higgins report- in which the three levels of government have participated and which proposes the site which we have actually chosen. Of course the choice was ours because the matter was under our jurisdiction, but the consultations lasted several months, and I think that the facts are such that the site which has been selected is the best in all respects.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question
Was the government of Quebec opposed to the decision of the federal government or did it accept the report as the federal government did?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak in the name of the provincial government nor can I say how far removed its decision was from ours. I know that within the provincial government, as well as within the federal government, opinions were much divided on the choice of the best site. We have chosen the best one, not only for Canada, but also for the province and the metropolitan area. In my opinion this is an excellent choice and everybody will agree.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Considering the announcement by the Minister of Transport of the choice of a site for the second international airport of Montreal, were representations made to him by citizens or groups of citizens of the north of Montreal with respect of the establishment of an eleventh Canadian province since provincial authorities seem to believe that the territory north of Montreal does not belong to the province of Quebec?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering the importance of an adequate road system for the new airport, would the Prime Minister tell us if agreements have been concluded to that effect With the Quebec government and, if so, could he indicate what is their nature?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the decision was only taken yesterday at the cabinet meeting and was announced afterwards, it would have been impossible to conclude specific agreements with the provincial authorities for the works required by the establishment of the airport. We have obviously agreed that
Inquiries of the Ministry wherever the airport were located, we would take our decisions in agreement with the provincial authorities. Evidently, if the province does not want to have an airport in the Montreal area, every aspect of international transport could be dealt with in Toronto.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us who is right in the present dispute, since the officials of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development tbld us that the airlines were asking a transfer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that this is an argumentative question and I do not think that the question as put is in order.



FINANCE


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Acting President of the Treasury Board. In the light of the somewhat startling contents of 'the report of the Auditor General for 1968 and 'in the face of the admission that at least 50 recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee dealing with previous reports have been pigeon-holed or ignored, will the President of the Treasury Board undertake to make a statement before the Easter recess dealing specifically with these recommendations and assuring the house that these illustrations of waste, incompetence and slovenly spending habits will be corrected?


Edgar John Benson: We shall, of course, take the hon. member's question under consideration. We have done our best to avoid the slovenly habits which existed under the previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The
previous government was headed by Mr. Lester Pearson.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: The government from 1957 to 1962.


Mr. Fairweather:: You did not say that.

March 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER kept insisting that he had read my mail, appointment OF OMBUDSMAN in Quebec which I did not like very much.


Barry Mather: This is a question on a different subject. Bearing in mind the announcement today of the appointment of an ombudsman in the Province of Quebec-the third province to establish such an office-may I ask the Prime Minister whether any consideration is being given by the federal government to establishing such a post?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that consideration has been given to this matter in the Department of Justice, but I do not know whether it is under active consideration at the present time or not. However I will consult with the Minister of Justice and try to reply later.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO WESTERN FARMERS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of his announcement today, which means that western farmers will get about $80 million less than last year for the same amount of wheat, and the serious situation in the western provinces by reason particularly of climatic conditions and failure to sell wheat, is the government now giving consideration to something in the nature of assistance to western farmers to meet a situation created in large measure by the schemoz-zle by the government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already answered this question on a number of occasions. I repeat that at the moment we are concentrating on trying to return as fast as possible to the I.G.A. price schedule and to make as many sales of wheat as possible. This is why we have allowed the wheat board to become fully competitive, breaking the I.G.A. pricing schedule if necessary.
Yesterday, a lot of unnecessary gloom was spread by the opposition. One had the feeling, listening to them, that grain movement at Vancouver had stopped.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody said that, except the Minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I got the facts this morning. I declined to give them yesterday for the very good reason that I did not have them before me. The right hon. member for Prince Albert


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot allow that. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I know that the minister gets a daily report. That has been the course through the years. The only thing he doesn't do is read what he gets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Could not the minister simply answer the question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Gladly, Mr. Speaker.

It was mentioned yesterday that "there are no vessels in Vancouver" and that "none are expected before April 25". I should like to put the facts on record. There is no truth whatsoever in those statements. Four vessels were loading yesterday, three more are due in March-today is the 28th-and to date eight vessels have been nominated for arrival prior to April 25. The Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board tells me that during the month of April 16 vessels are due to arrive and that he hopes others will be nominated in the coming days. So the situation is far from being as bad as was described yesterday by hon. members on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the Minister has the information today which he had yesterday but did not read.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: I was asking the Minister a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member was rising on a question of privilege.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not have the information yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
I find I am in the habit of pointing, like the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: You get the point, then.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Both Emily Post and my mother say that is a bad thing to do.
I did not have the information yesterday, and it is not the habit of the Wheat Board to
March 28, 1969
give such information. If I insisted on getting it today it is because I wanted to put an end to the kind of questioning which was carried on yesterday and which is not in the best interest of the producers of the west.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having
received that motherly advice from the hon. gentleman I should like to ask him what he is going to do to help the western farmers, in view of their loss of $80 million income?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk.


Mr. Schreyer:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is rising on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister has just made the statement that the opposition has been spreading false rumours. I think he should withdraw it. The opposition has never spread false rumours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is inviting me to ask the minister to withdraw the use of unparliamentary language. It is not unparliamentary to say that false rumours are being spread. It is only if it is said that false rumours are being spread deliberately that a question of privilege arises that such words are unparliamentary.


John (Jack) McIntosh: On the same question of privilege, there was an occasion previously in the house when objection was taken to a statement made about bums and idiots. The minister is speaking for the government and he has just stated that the opposition is spreading false rumours. He knows that this statement is false and I ask him to withdraw it. The facts speak for themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member has a different question of privilege. I have made a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I also wish to bring to
Inquiries of the Ministry the attention of hon. members that there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period. If these minutes are to be spent on questions of privilege I shall recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce deliberately implied that the opposition had misled the public and created a picture of gloom and doom in regard to the grain trade. Yesterday I led off the questioning on that subject. At that time I stated there was not going to be a boat into Vancouver until April 25. I read that in three different newspapers.


Mr. Loiselle:: Newspapers!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, newspapers. I want the government to clear up this issue. That is why I asked the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is the government's duty to clear it up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is also the duty of the opposition to solicit the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to try to compete with the hon. member, but I also have to rule on his question of privilege that this matter cannot be entertained further. I do not think the Chair should be placed in the position where it has to ask the minister to withdraw his statement or withdraw words that in my view are not unparliamentary. Every day I hear from hon. members accusations that one side is preaching gloom and doom while the other side is not. To my way of thinking this is merely debate. Perhaps it may not be the impeccable dignity to which I referred earlier when introducing my colleagues, the provincial Speakers, who are in the gallery, but I am sure they will be pleased to return to their houses realizing that their lot is much easier than that of the federal Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe a few minutes ago the hon. member for Selkirk had a supplementary question.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will take my question as one that is not against the interests of the



March 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry western producers. I should like to return to the substance of the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Can the minister say whether the government is giving active consideration at the present time to the proposition that there ought to be price support somewhat along the line of the Robert Winters formula, if I may call it that, of two years ago?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I specifically
answered this question yesterday when I said that we were studying the whole situation. I said that before doing what is being requested by members, on this side too, and by members on the other side we wanted to assess the situation fully. We wanted to know the real possibilities of returning to the I.G.A. price schedule. We wanted to know how many sales the Wheat Board could make-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: further supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. May we hope that this decision will not be too long delayed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask questions but not express hopes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who was responsible for answering my question, stated that he had replied to the very same question yesterday. This is exactly what he did not do. I want to say to the minister that the time for assessment was some four months ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again that is not a question of privilege.



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Whereas the steady increase in interest rates is detrimental to many Canadian businesses, would the minister advise the house if he intends to find means to improve that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister to make a general statement. I do not think his question is in order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence to inform the house whether his department is now planning the consolidation of military colleges on one site in the Ottawa area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see the urgency of the question asked by the hon. member. Perhaps it. is the type of question that might be placed on the order paper.



INCOME TAX


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government house leader in his statement yesterday of the business we will deal with before we rise for the Easter recess made no mention of any legislation to amend the Income Tax Act, and in view of the fact that there is no legislation of this sort on the order paper, may I ask the minister how long the government intends to collect the 2 per cent social development tax without parliamentary approval?


Mr. Speaker;: The hon. member will recognize-I do not think I am wrong about this- that this question has been asked before. I am not sure whether it should be allowed again today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Months are going by and this tax is being collected without parliamentary approval. I think the country has a right to know for how much longer this situation is going to exist.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 27, consideration of Bill C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and1 Drugs Act, as reported (without amendment.) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
March 28, 1969
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since we are resuming consideration of the bill discussed yesterday and of my amendment, I think the minister could give an answer about that amendment especially requesting standards of protection for the consumers.
We have an international Bill of Rights as well as a Canadian Bill of Rights which has been in force for a few years now. It is therefore time, I think, to introduce in the house legislation providing for a charter regarding the protection of the consumers.
I have in hand briefs and reports already submitted to the consumer credit committee which contain sensible recommendations favouring consumers' rights.
Here, I wish to remind the minister of the main points which have already been made the subject of recommendations in committee and which, I believe, are still sound. However, the minister appeared to turn a deaf ear to them.
Since on page 3313 of the proceedings, mention is made of the consumer's rights, I thought I was justified in moving such an amendment to protect the consumers.
If some manufacturer failed to comply with the rules under the future Canadian consumer's bill of rights, his licence could be revoked at any time.
On page 3313 of the report appear the basic criteria that prompted the recommendations on the safety of drugs. There is also the suggestion that the consumer be informed on the quality of the various food products or drugs offered on the market.
Another need is supplying the consumer with the required information. The federal government has now in stock some valuable pamphlets unfortunately unavailable to the public. It should make use of that literature to inform the public on the food products and drugs now selling in this country.
Another recommendation was made in committee. It concerns the labelling of toxic substances, for the manufacturers can indicate the contents of some pharmaceutical or food products more or less clearly on the container.
It also appears necessary to define more clearly what quality means as applied to food or drugs. In addition, the source of such products should be identified.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
Today, the source of various products on the market remains obscure and the Canadian consumer does not really know whether he is buying a Canadian or a foreign product.
On the other hand, some standards or regulations should be established to prevent the use of fractions of weights and measures.
Mr. Speaker, many other suggestions have already been made to the consumer credit committee, in respect of relevant subjects which are not dealt with in the bill. It would be interesting for the consumers to benefit from a bill of rights, to ensure them more protection.
On page 3310 of the same report, another suggestion is made concerning the protection of the consumers' rights. It is a more simple designation of various qualities of food products. Another recommendation is to the effect that labels should be printed with warnings about the handling and use of dangerous substances.
Another recommendation tends to forbid the inscription on the labels of fractions of ounces. I made the same recommendation a few minutes ago.
A standardization of net weights, over four ounces, should be established.
In my opinion, all these recommendations are logical, intelligent and plausible. On the other hand, I do not mean to say that all recommendations contained in the briefs should be accepted today or tomorrow by the minister in order to protect the consumer. There are, however, some essential recommendations that should immediately be considered. For instance, the public is taken in by false advertising. As a matter of fact, the public is led to believe that it will save money if it uses certain packages, when that is false. The public should be informed on the choice of simple or sophisticated packaging and on the quality of products. We should identify the source of all products made in Canada.
A little further, the same report recommends a better dissemination of information to the consumer, so that he will be better informed on the quality of the various products that are available on the market.
There are three government publications dealing with the quality of drugs. They deal with inscriptions on labels and with drugs that should be found in every home. Perhaps the committee could recommend general distribution of government publications, instead of waiting for people to request them. Are not consumers getting a great many publications
March 28. 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act from industry, without having requested them?
It seems to me that nowadays the government could better inform consumers through a larger distribution of those publications. I know that the department is presently publishing a few pamphlets for the information of consumers; unfortunately the public does not know that they are available. There is on the market presently products which are more or less manufactured with a view to fool the public as far as quantity and quality are concerned.
For instance, we are sold a kind of javel water which is 94.6 per cent water and yet the label bears the inscription "Javel water".
I could also speak about certain kinds of soap for which instructions are provided, but which do not give any information to the housewife as to the value they get for their money.
This is why I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs must take his responsibilities and consider the recommendations already made by the committee on consumer credit with a view to establishing standards of protection for the consumer. This would enable consumers to make a judgment on the quality of the products introduced on the market and would prevent the public from being fooled by advertising.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should, first of all, look after the interests of consumers and set up as soon as possible a consumer safety code.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks must be to thank the hon. member for his intervention in this debate. In his speech he surveyed the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I appreciate his interest in my department and its various programs. If I were to comment specifically on all the points he raised I should probably be out of order. We are dealing here with the report stage of this bill and with an amendment to clause 1, subclause 4.
The hon. member read the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Consumer Prices. I remind him that I was the co-chairman of that committee, that I am familiar with the work of the committee and participated in the writing of the committee report and recommendations. I can assure him that the recommendations affecting the work of my department are very much in my


mind. Many of the matters he has mentioned my department is now working on. I am not at liberty to make announcements today on all these subjects, but I assure the hon. member that they are very much in my mind and are involved in the work of the department. I share the concern he expressed regarding labelling, packaging and advertising. I assure him that I and my officials have these matters in mind.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I have already introduced the hazardous products bill which will be dealt with following this bill. It is an extremely strong piece of consumer protection legislation. It will allow us to deal with a great many products now on the market over which there is at present no control. The hazardous products bill will deal with labelling and packaging.
I suggested to the Consumer Advisory Council, which I appointed last November, that they draw up a consumer charter. I asked in early December that they devote some effort to this matter. I made it very clear last fall that there should be a consumers' charter in Canada, a declaration of consumer rights. In this connection the hon. member and I are in complete agreement.
I will now deal with the amendment before the house. I wish to assure hon. members of the Creditiste party that each of their proposed amendments has received very careful consideration by myself and my officials. I welcome their interest in this bill and their participation in the debate. I share with them their concern for the safety of the public. That is a consideration which must be paramount in the minds of the government and officials.
Knowing the concern and interest of the hon. members, each of their amendments was examined very carefully as to whether it should be accepted. On the question of whether I could accept the last amendment moved, I was invited last night to sleep on it. I have done this, Mr. Speaker, and I must advise that I am unable to accept the amendment because the bill already provides what the hon. members are concerned about in their amendment.
Any compulsory licence granted on stated terms or conditions will be ineffective if those terms are not complied with. If authority is granted to do something in stated terms, the general law is that authority under the compulsory licence automatically lapses if the terms are not complied with. That is the law of the Patent Act and of this country. Any
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
licensee not complying with the terms of the compulsory licence would be subject to an infringement of patent action by the patent owner. What the hon. member is concerned about in moving this amendment is already provided for in the general law of the land. For this reason I cannot accept the amendment.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, may I put another question?
As the number of licences revoked as a result of the enaction of regulations which have not being complied with, is insignificant, would it not have been possible for the minister to amend the present legislation so that the Commissioner could revoke licences at his discretion, when regulations are not complied with?
Nobody keeps a watch on the companies which are not complying with the regulations, and no licence has been revoked.
The minister says that licences have been revoked because the regulations have not been complied with but, according to the statistics, no licence has been revoked. This act seems to be applicable but it has never been enforced. The minister should apply it in the case of companies who have not complied with the regulations and still have their licence. I know several companies like that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if the holder of the compulsory licence does not comply with its terms he is open to an infringement action by the owner of the patent. It is a self-policing action and in our view is sufficient for the purpose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost, on division.
Amendment (Mr Rondeau) negatived.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, be amended by inserting in clause 1 (10)	(b) after
the word "effect" on line 6, page 4, the following words:
"or immediately where the quality or safety of the product has been the cause of the rejection, and all persons who have acquired such product under a patent shall have their licences revoked."
Mr. Speaker, even the slightest error cannot be tolerated, and that must be brought home to drug manufacturers.
It is not after a number of deaths will have been caused by poor quality products or a few people's health will have been affected by a product of dubious quality, that it will be time to act. We cannot allow such manufacturers to retain their licence, be it only for a short period of time.
If the manufacturer were aware that his licence can be revoked if he sells a product of poor quality, it would help to further protect the consumer. That is the object of the amendment I am moving.
We would also have to make sure that the dosage directions are properly indicated so that the buyer will not run any kind of risk.
There is a peculiar situation in this country, because it is a bilingual country, and many products are labelled in both languages. But, as the minister knows, it sometimes happens that on a bottle, the instructions for use in English will specify two tablets a day, and the instructions in French will indicate only one every four hours. There is certainly something wrong here.
It may be a quality product, but the instructions are ambiguous, and I would call this a case of criminal negligence.
In such cases, the manufacturer should have his license revoked, and knowing that this can be done, he will be most careful.
It also happens sometimes that sales promotion of some products is pushed too far by advertising, when their excessive use could have adverse effects on people's health.
For instance, when I see advertisements for products claiming to improve the scalp, I
March 23, 1989

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act remain a little sceptical, because science is not far enough advanced in this field to give any weight to such advertising claims.
Yet, some of those products are still to be found on the market.
So, taking all this into account, the quality of the product must be such, and it must be guaranteed in such a way, that one can be sure, beyond a doubt, that it will not endanger one's health, one's life. The manufacturer or the licence holder must be so conscious of this, that the thalidomide tragedy for instance, of a few years ago, cannot be repeated.
It is obvious that the regulations must be strict, specific, so that such disastrous situations can be avoided. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The act says that the licences will be revoked but I feel that this is not specific enough. Even if certain business concerns were taken to court-we know about those delays which unfortunately are ever increasing in length-it can happen that in the meantime those who violated the regulations continue to sell their products. Will they cease to distribute and advertise them?
That is one more reason why the act should be more specific. When a product has been shelved because it is dangerous, those who sell it, under a patent, will lose their licences. If that were stated in so many words in the act I feel that the people would be better protected.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister for dealing again with the same subject which remains in our opinion very important namely pharmaceutical drugs and according to the same legislation, foodstuffs.
At the present time, the public is under the impression that anyone can very easily get a license allowing him to manufacture anything and that none of these products are controlled on the market. Therefore, people are afraid because accidents have happened.
A few years ago, in my riding, a child died because he had swallowed soap. At the present time, no provision in the legislation obliges the companies to mention on the labels that the consumption of a certain quantity of soap can kill a child.
The minister had performed a tremendous task in this field because today so-called pills and drugs are manufactured.
Bottles are filled with water, colouring is added, the product is put on the market and

the public is fooled. Why? Because consumers are not protected and the legislation is not specific enough.
I heard the hon. member for Champlain say that certain products were damaging for the scalp, and that is true. However, some products are very good for the scalp while others are toxic. There are chemical products and natural products. In the present legislation no provision obliges the manufacturer of toxic products to identify them as such by saying to what extent they could be good or bad for people.
However, natural products have been holding good in England since 1886. If a person has white hair for instance, by the simple virtue of nature, his hair will regain its original colour and the products are unadulterated. In the case of a person who had dark hair when he was young, his hair will become dark again.
On the other hand, there are other products on the market that are supposed to change hair colouring but they are harmful and lead to falling hair, broken hair and dry hair. For instance some beauty products such as hair sprays harm women's scalp. Others, however, are efficient and do have the qualities advertised in their case. But there is no provision in the present legislation to protect the consumer. Good as well as bad products are sold indiscriminately on the market. The advertising pattern tends to make bad products sell more easily than good ones.
We would like the minister to tell us what he intends to do in the case of the recommendations included in the consumer charter he has just talked about, instead of merely telling us he has been studying the problem for months, as he was the co-chairman of the committee concerned. Receiving briefs is not all that matters; the recommendations they contain have to be put into practice.
If we have created a Department of Consumer Affairs, it is time, I think, to implement these important recommendations. This is why, I believe, the hon. Minister told us that he was very favourable to the amendments which we have introduced since last night. He studied them seriously and they will certainly be written into the statutes.
Unfortunately, there have been in the past, in the pharmaceutical field, scandals about products which had reportedly caused death or disabilities. However, we are still facing the same problem. Will the minister wait much longer still before putting these recommendations into practice? We do not want to
March 28, 1969	COMMONS
give him the impression that we want to split hairs but, on the other hand, we want him to make serious recommendations and to put into practice, as soon as possible, those made by experts and by responsible organizations across the country, a few months ago.
They are still waiting for the minister- and I congratulate him on his appointment- to establish a charter of consumer rights in order to protect the manufacturers who want to put quality products on the market and to take the necessary steps to eliminate "scrap" manufacturers and the dangerous products they make.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, again I concur with the hon. member in his concern about safety; it is also our concern. I have tried on a number of occasions to explain that in dealing with this bill I think it is vitally important for the safety of the Canadian public that the functions of the Commissioner of Patents and the Director General of the Food and Drug Directorate not be confused and that there be no overlapping of their functions. The Commissioner of Patents will grant a compulsory licence under the existing law or under this amending bill unless he sees good reason for not granting it. But if, in fact, a product produced pursuant to an interim or compulsory licence or patent process generally is not of the same quality or with satisfactory safety levels, this does not mean that the determination in respect of quality or safety will be made by the Commissioner of Patents. It will be made by the Food and Drug Directorate and the product, pursuant to the regulations we now have, will be taken off the market.
While such a finding by the Food and Drug Directorate would undoubtedly, I think, be taken into account by the Commissioner of Patents in deciding if he has good reason for not granting an application or interim licence, he cannot and should not be expected to make that finding himself. If he did he would be usurping the judgment of the Food and Drug Directorate and confusing the functions of the Commissioner of Patents and the Food and Drug Directorate.
I agree completely, and it is the position of the government, that drugs of improper quality or ones which do not measure up to safety standards should not be on the market. It is our position, however, that that decision must
DEBATES	7259
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act be made by the Food and Drug Directorate. Under the existing law they have the power to control all drugs which are on the market. If a drug is unsafe or not of proper quality it can be taken off the market. Just to ensure that the Food and Drug Directorate has this authority we have clause 5 in this bill which removes any shadow of doubt that they have the power to deal with drugs of improper quality or which do not meet safety regulations.
I think it would be quite improper for me to attempt to draw a law that would confuse the functions of the Commissioner of Patents and the Food and Drug Directorate. I think this amendment would' create such confusion and that it is a confusion which should not be allowed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain how it is that drugs are found on the market which, in fact, are nothing but coloured dust? How can the minister argue that the regulations1 can automatically revoke the licences of manufacturers who, for years, have been cheating the public and pouring trash on the market? On the other hand how is it that, in spite of allegedly specific regulations, certain products are now polluting our water to the extent that the federal government will have to spend, within a few years, millions of dollars to fight it, and that the Minister of Consumer Affairs has failed to enforce any regulations whatsoever to forbid the manufacture of products likely to directly pollute the waters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I guess the honourable member was rising to ask a question but since it appears to be somewhat lengthy, I should remind him that he is only allowed to speak once under the rules.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me of the rules. My question, was a little lengthy maybe, but it is nevertheless important.
How is it that trash should be sold as pills and that products likely to directly pollute the waters are being manufactured under licences which allow manufacturers to operate?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drug Directorate is not within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as the hon. member will appreciate. It falls
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). Therefore, as I have said several times in this debate, I hesitate to give answers or make statements on behalf of the Food and Drug Directorate. I do not know exactly to what product the hon. member is referring. If there are pills on the market which contain nothing but dust, I am sure this can be dealt with under the existing regulations of the Food and Drug Directorate. If the hon. member would privately, outside the house, bring to my attention the particular product of which he is speaking I would be happy to bring it to the attention of the Food and Drug Directorate.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to answer the question I asked earlier in the course of my statement. Is he aware of the fact that drugs are now being sold on the market the dosage of which is not the same in French and in English?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I must again mention that the Food and Drug Directorate does not come under my jurisdiction. Again I am hesitant to give answers on their behalf. They do have a regulation, the precise nature of which I am not sure about, dealing with bilingual labelling of drug products. As I say, I am not sure of the precise nature of the regulation, except that I know it exists. Again, if the hon. member would like to bring this case to my attention privately outside the house I would be happy to see that my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare receives the information and brings it to the attention of the Food and Drug Directorate.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would make inquiries so that he could provide the answer this afternoon, because this is an important point.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here. I will ask him to make the inquiry. He may have something to say this afternoon.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): All
those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): I declare the amendment lost on division.
Amendment (Mr. Matte) negatived.


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Perih) moved:: 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 3 the words "to be sufficiently different in its composition from" in lines 12 and 13 on page 7 and substituting therefor the following words: "if it is not identical in its composition to".
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this amendment is to narrow the field within which the Food and Drug Directorate will be able to say that a product made in one country and a product made in another country, both bearing the same trade mark, are the same. It is well known that here are no international trade mark agreements and that drugs with similar trade marks, although they are not numerous, can be very different in different countries. Under this bill the Food and Drug Directorate has the authority to say that a drug with such a trade mark, manufactured in any foreign country and imported into Canada, is the same as the drug manufactured in Canada if, in the opinion of the Food and Drug Directorate, the difference is not likely to result in a hazard to health.
It is well known that there are wide variations in the effects of drugs and chemicals when they are used in the human body and, indeed, if there is any variation in the chemical potency of the drug, it cannot be called safe unless elaborate tests to prove its clinical efficacy are carried out. The Food and Drug Directorate does not have the resources nor would it be economically feasible for it to carry out the elaborate tests necessary to prove that imported drugs and drugs manufactured in Canada are the same. Under the terms of the bill the Food and Drug Directorate may declare two products with the same trade mark equal if they do not think the imported drug to be sufficiently different to constitute a hazard to health. I feel that this
March 28, 1S69

is open to a very wide interpretation. For instance, the formulation of vitamin preparations with some rare trace metals in them can allow for such differences that although they might not be injurious to health and might have the same effect on many patients, they might have no effect whatsoever on some patients. In such cases both the physician and the patient might be under the false impression that two similar trade mark drugs were the same.
May I remind the minister that the success of this bill in lowering the price of drugs will depend on the number of drugs that will be transferred out of the established pharmaceutical houses to copy houses. It will also depend to a large extent on the assurance of physicians that the tests carried out by the Food and Drug Directorate as to the safety of drugs are sound. In the final analysis it is the physician who is always responsible for the effect of drugs on his patients. The Food and Drug Directorate cannot 'assume the responsibility in any specific case; they can only generalize and say that they have done what they can to ensure the safety of drugs.
According to the information we received in the committee, any drug manufactured in a foreign country will have a label on its package containing information regarding the place of manufacture of the drug. However, I should like to point out that neither the physician who prescribes the drug nor the patient who receives it will have knowledge of this. Again, I should like to point out that confidence on the part of physicians and patients in the safety and effectiveness of drugs is most important.
I urge the minister to accept this amendment as I feel it is most important that when a physician prescribes a drug by its trade mark name-and approximately 85 per cent of drugs are so prescribed-the patient who receives it will be assured that the drug does not differ from any other drug with the same trade mark regardless of its place of manufacture. I point out to the minister that this amendment will apply to only a few products and therefore should not have any great effect on the price of drugs. It is a measure to ensure greater safety, and it is based on information which we received in the committee.
I am quite certain that the present director of the Food and Drug Directorate will interpret the clause in the bill before us very narrowly and that there will probably be no hazard to health as a result. However, he will
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act not be in that position forever, and the definition of a hazard to health is open to a very wide interpretation. I venture to say that ten people speaking as experts concerning one particular chemical can have ten different viewpoints.
I urge the minister to consider at least narrowing the definition if he thinks he cannot accept the amendment. If in time experience shows us that it can be widened, we would then have the resulting benefit. I do not think a sufficient number of drugs would be involved to affect the price of drugs in general, and the trade in these drugs would not be great. This amendment, if accepted, would give an assurance to those people who prescribe drugs that the Food and Drug Directorate is doing all it can to ascertain that products with the same trade marks are of equal efficacy regardless of their place	of
manufacture.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to change "substantial variation" to "any variation". If this amendment were enacted, it might completely nullify the effect of the proposed section 49A of the act. It would mean that extremely minor variations would result in the section being totally inapplicable, and in this way the amendment would deny the protection of the section for the importer of trade mark drugs. This would have a frustrating influence on price competition and would impair the effects of the bill.
I share the hon. member's concern for safety, but I am advised by the Food and Drug Directorate that the proposed amendment is unnecessary from the standpoint of safety. Minor variations can take place, such as the addition of small amounts of colour to a trade mark drug, with no hazards to health. In any case where a variation may amount to a significant hazard to health the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), under a provision in the bill which I propose, can issue a certificate removing the protection afforded under this clause. Under clause 5 of the bill he has full power to control the importation of any drug, particularly of dosage drugs. As a result of the amendment proposed by the hon. member there would be a temptation to create minor differences. The existing proliferation of dosage forms already creates difficulties which would be compounded by the creation of these minor differences. This would cause additional confusion in the drug market, which is already confusing
March 28. 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act enough. Therefore, for these several reasons the amendment should not be accepted.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost, on division.
Amendment (Mr. Monteith) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Saltsman (for the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway):: 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, be amended by inserting immediately after clause 5 (b) the following new subparagraph:
"(c) the regulation of drug manufacturing, importing, and distribution so that only drugs having a generic name be allowed to be sold in Canada,"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment having been put, may I say that I have some reservations about the relevancy of this amendment and some subsequent ones. I would be prepared to make a ruling now but I would not want in any way to prejudge the issue. If hon. members have comments to make about this amendment, I would be prepared to hear them now. Otherwise I could make a ruling.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the difficulty that some of the amendments create. In view of the fact that I intend to speak very briefly on several of the amendments, I wonder whether I might be permitted to


accomplish two things, that is, say a few words on the validity of the amendment as well as deal with the matter contained in the amendment.
The reason for introducing this amendment is to strengthen the bill beyond its present provisions. It is to recognize that the bill needs a greater measure of strength than it now possesses. This has been admitted by the minister, who has pointed out that the bill seeks to do some rather limited things and he is prepared to go beyond them if necessary.
One matter the minister has indicated he is prepared to consider and is in the process of examining is the question of an information bulletin that would indicate to physicians and pharmacists the generic names of the various chemicals on the market, their equivalents and their relationship to each other. In the long run, it seems to us that unless the emphasis is placed on generic names no really substantial savings can take place with regard to the cost of drugs.
At one time brand names probably served a very useful purpose. At the time of the cracker barrel it was important that there be some kind of national standard that was recognized everywhere. That was in the days of a rather permanent society before governments had departments which checked into safety, before there was a Consumer Affairs Department and before there were organizations concerned about national standards. Whatever the argument may have been initially for having national brands, and whatever the advantages may have been initially for having national brand names, today they have become a very serious liability in many industries1, particularly the drug industry. For this reason I think the time has come when drugs should be sold on the basis of their intrinsic definition rather than on the basis of an artificially created name.
It has been said that if we in Canada were to move to generic drugs the people who buy them would save $50 million a year in total. I believe this to be the fact. I think the safety of drugs would be guaranteed by the inspection of drug companies and the very adequate resources of the Food and Drug Directorate. It is for these reasons that we are introducing this amendment. We hope the government will consider the importance of the suggestion we are making.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having listened to the hon. member, I still have the doubts that I expressed originally about this amendment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
March 28, 19G9

would like to make a contribution on the relevancy of the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since you seem to have some doubt I regard that as an invitation to me to try to remove your doubt. I do not know how thoroughly ingrained it is, but may I make the effort. We are, of course, at the report stage when, according to our rules, it is permitted to give notice of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill. I was reading from Standing Order 75, paragraph 5.
I recognize, of course, that this does not mean one can move an amendment about elephants in a bill that deals with apples and oranges; one still has to be relevant to the bill that is before us. The explanatory note to clause 5 of the bill with which we are dealing reads:
The purpose of this amendment is to authorize the making of regulations under the Food and Drugs Act for the protection of the public in relation to the safety and quality of drugs manufactured outside Canada.
It seems to me that the amendment my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo has proposed is within that general framework and on that basis should meet the test of relevancy. I do not wish to argue by comparison, but it strikes me that it is at least as relevant to the bill before us as most of the amendments that have been considered to this point. That is why I think Your Honour should see it as in order.
In the case of one or two of the amendments yet to be proposed today, I confess to seeing some difficulty. But it would seem to me that this amendment and the next one, at any rate, are within the general terms of "regulations . for the protection of the public in relation to the safety and quality of drugs".
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have listened to the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but I confess that my doubts remain.
It is suggested that the proposed amendment must be read and considered in the light of the wording of the last two lines of new subsection (la) in clause 5 of the bill so that we would have a construction reading as follows:
la.-the Governor In Council may make such regulations governing, regulating or prohibiting-
(c) the regulation of drug manufacturing, importing and distribution-
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
And so on. It is suggested that in tacking on the amendment to the clause it purports to amend, its inconsistency becomes apparent. It is suggested also that the amendment is not entirely relevant to new subsection la in clause 5 of the bill. That clause relates to the making of regulations respecting imported drugs.
The amendment, it is suggested, seeks to give the Governor in Council authority to make regulations in respect of the manufacture of drugs. If the amendment relates to the manufacture of drugs in Canada it is not relevant to clause 5 (la).
In May's 17th edition, page 551, paragraph 7 states:
If an amendment would make the clause which it is proposed to amend unintelligible or ungrammatical, or if it is incoherent and inconsistent with the context of the bill, it is out of order.
The same author states, as found on page 549:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter, or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
Reference may also be made to page 567 where the same author states:
-the rules of order respecting the admissibility of amendments in committee ... are generally applicable to amendments moved on consideration-
This is the stage in which we are engaged at present. I must therefore rule that the amendment cannot be accepted.


Max Saltsman: 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, be amended by inserting immediately after Clause 5 (b) the following new subparagraph:
"(c) the permitting of hospital pharmacies, under the direction of a licensed pharmacist, to provide narcotics and control drugs on prescription under the Food and Drug Act and the Narcotic Control Act,".


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Again I must say I have reservations about this proposed motion. I do not want to prejudge the issue, though, and if the hon. member would like to make a contribution he may do so.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this amendment is to urge upon the government the implementation of a recommendation contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services, the Hall Report, which would permit licensed pharmacists to provide narcotics and control
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act drugs on prescription. It goes beyond the specific question of control drugs to the general question whether hospital pharmacies should be permitted to dispense to the general public.
It is our feeling that wherever it is possible within the federal jurisdiction to encourage hospital pharmacies to dispense to the general public this should be done as a way of providing more competition in the retail market and as a way of giving people an opportunity to buy drugs at the lowest possible price. It has been the experience of many people who have been able to get drugs at hospitals, when they were outpatients, for instance, that they could do so at about one-third of the normal cost. And the hospital was able to recover its cost. We believe that if this method of competition were encouraged the price of drugs to the general population could be substantially reduced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might make some comment about this amendment. It appears to be irregular on much the same grounds as the previous amendment.
It is inconsistent in form and meaning with clause 5 (la) which it purports to amend. Furthermore, it is suggested that it too goes beyond the bill now before the house since it also purports to amend 'the Narcotic Control Act. It would seem that one of its effects would be to modify or regulate a provision or provisions in the latter act, and if it were adopted it is suggested that the title of the bill now before the house should be amended to indicate that the bill also amends the Narcotic Control Act. For these reasons the amendment cannot be accepted by the Chair.


Max Saltsman: 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, be amended by inserting immediately after Clause 5 (b) the following new subparagraph:
"(c) the establishment of a Crown Corporation on behalf of Her Majesty which shall be empowered to manufacture, sell, distribute and promote drugs offered for sale in Canada,"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again I confess to certain misgivings about this amendment but I am prepared to hear the hon. member for Waterloo briefly on the question.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We believe this amendment is relevant to the bill because it involves one of the principal means by which competition can be injected into the drug market. A number of questions were raised regarding this amendment when it was

put forward in the committee and perhaps I might take a moment to deal with them.
First, let it be clearly noted that this is not a proposal for the nationalization of the drug industry. What we are calling for is the establishment of a competitor, a proprietary drug corporation which would provide competition in the drug field, one which is obviously becoming monopolistic, as a result of which prices are far too high. It is not important that this crown corporation take a very large share of the market. All it needs to do is to take a relatively small portion, as was done by some of the Swedish co-operatives, to indicate to the others concerned that they will have to lower their prices. A corporation of this 'type would be run very much like any other business. The chief advantage flowing from it would be the provision of real and effective competition.
The question of what would happen to the drug industry as a result of the passage of this bill has been raised and it has been said by some that imports will destroy the Canadian industry. I do not believe that will actually happen, but I urge those concerned about the maintenance of an indigenous Canadian drug industry to support our proposal for the establishment of a crown corporation because in a way this would obviate the necessity of importing drugs.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The government has indicated some measure of support and encouragement of some of the smaller drug companies in Canada in order to develop some competitive forces in the drug market. This would seem to be the aim of some government measures. This crown corporation could act as a useful marketing agency for new drug companies. Much of our drug marketing at the moment is done under national brand names. A crown corporation such as we propose would receive instant credibility and acceptability on the part of the public. It could establish its name in the marketplace and market on behalf of smaller companies products that might be more worthy but at the same time not readily accepted by the public or against which propaganda might be waged by the larger companies.
There has been increasing evidence that one of the great difficulties facing the small manufacturer in Canada is the vicious whispering campaign that has been conducted by the major drug companies against their competitors. These competitors, the smaller manufacturers, have been very effective in reducing
March 28, 1969	COMMONS
drug prices. This proposed Crown corporation could assist these small companies to compete against the larger companies, and would receive the assistance of government credibility. For that reason I suggest such a corporation would be of great value to Canadians in their fight for lower drug prices.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might point out to the hon. member for Selkirk that I was listening with some patience to the hon. member for Waterloo. The point at issue at this stage is not the substance of the amendment but whether the amendment is admissible. I am prepared to rule now on the admissibility of the amendment.
Clause 5(la) of Bill C-102 deals only with the making of regulations respecting imported drugs. The amendment, if adopted, would necessitate the setting up of a crown corporation for the purpose, among other things, of manufacturing drugs in Canada, and in doing so goes well beyond the purpose of the bill and would have the effect of creating a public charge.
Reference may be made to paragraph 13 of May's 17th edition, page 551, where it is stated1:
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, it no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution.
Furthermore, as stated in paragraph 1 on page 549 of May's 17th edition:
An amendment is out of order ... if it is irrelevant to the subject matter, or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
Foir the reasons stated I regret to say that the amendment is not in order.


Max Saltsman: 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, be amended by inserting immediately after clause 5 (b) the following new subparagraph:
" (c) the prohibition of distribution of drug samples by drug manufacturers for purposes of advertising and promotion, except when a physician or the pharmacist makes a separate specific written request for samples of the particular drug or drugs in which he may be interested,"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again I confess certain misgivings about this amendment but I am prepared to hear the hon. member for Waterloo briefly.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must remark on your great constancy and patience. In view of the apparent difficulty 29180-4601
DEBATES	7265
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act that has been created in attempting to amend this clause in the particular way we have outlined and in the interests of expediting the work on this bill and the desire of almost all of us to see the bill become law, we would be prepared to withdraw this amendment as well as the next amendment. We will indicate our position in the debate on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Saltsman) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand that the hon. member for Waterloo proposes to withdraw amendment No. 13 as well as No. 12?


Max Saltsman: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now turn to amendment No. 14 in the name of the hon. member for Perth.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That BUI C-102, an act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, be amended by adding clause 6, as follows:
"6. Within two years of the coming into force of this act, the Minister of National Health and Welfare shall prepare and table in Parliament a report reviewing the operation and the effect of the act and all regulations enacted thereunder and the said report shall be considered by parliament and its appropriate committees."
I do not intend to speak at length on this amendment, but the principle of it was first introduced this session by the members of the other place when they proposed an amendment to the hazardous substances bill somewhat along these lines. Despite the rather strong criticism of the industry by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), I feel that it is an important one. Incidentally, I am surprised that we have not heard, either yesterday or today, from the hon. members for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), Lachine (Mr. Rock) and Vaudreuil (Mr. Emard) who were so vehement in their remarks in committee. I would have liked to see them here today to present their case and to support me in mine.
However, as the evidence indicates, this industry employs some 10,000 workers, about 2,500 of them university graduates. I think there is a responsibility to let the house know just what is going to happen to this industry and what has happened to it in the past. I am not holding a brief for the industry as such, but I think it has been proven that as a result
March 28. 1989

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act oi certain policies of this government other industries have suffered.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), I believe on second reading, as reported at page 4408 of Hansard related what had happened to the footwear industry in Quebec. I raised a question in the house not long ago in connection with what is happening to the textile industry, and only this morning I received the progress report for March, 1969 of the Stratford Industrial Commission which points out that Cluett-Peabody of Canada has closed a factory in Stratford that employed 160 people. This is undoubtedly the result of imports, primarily from low-wage countries. This may happen with other industries, and it is what frightens me.
I feel there should be some reporting back to the House of Commons on the results of this bill. If we do not insist upon a report back to the house by the minister, then we are going to be governed by the civil service with no report made to the people. We are the people who must know what is happening as a result of this legislation. I will not say anything more, but I do feel we are entitled to know what happens as a result of legislation passed by this house.
s (2:30 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the amendment that has just been moved. The matter presents me with some difficulties. The bill before the house seeks to amend three acts of parliament and it would be very difficult, if the amendment were adopted, to bring in a report dealing with those three acts in the way that has been suggested. This bill seeks to amend the Patent Act. The Commissioner of Patents is already required under that act to report to parliament. The activities of the Trade Marks Office pursuant to the amendments to the Trade Marks Act and the activities of the Food and Drug Directorate pursuant to the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act will foe reported on annually. My department reports on matters pertaining to the Trade Marks Office and my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, reports on the activities of the Food and Drug Directorate. I therefore think that there are already .adequate provisions within the law for reporting to parliament.
May I point out that under our new rules the estimates of each department, including the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, are examined in committee. Each year
.
the members of the appropriate standing committees of this house will be able to examine the activities of the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, National Health and Welfare and Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and determine how those departments have been affected by the amendments now being brought in. There is already adequate provision for parliament to examine continuously the operation of these amendments. I do not think anything further is required.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Amendment (Mr. Monteith) negatived.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That Bill C-102, an act 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, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: the third reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in beginning the debate on third reading I plan to be brief. I should like again to remind the house that there are five points to the government program to reduce drug prices. I discussed these at length when I spoke on second reading and in the committee.
The first of these points was the removal of the sales tax on prescription drugs, the reduction of customs duty on these products from 20 per cent to 15 per cent and the narrowing
March 28, 1969

of the application of dumping duty to drug imports. The second point was the introduction of this bill. The third was the development of a drug information service for doctors, a recommendation of the Harley committee, which is now being developed by the Food and Drug Directorate. The fourth point, or step, was the Pharmaceutical Industries Development Assistance program known as PIDA. This is now in operation and is designed to strenghten and improve the efficiency of that sector of the pharmaceutical industry which manufactures and sells prescription drugs at lower prices. The fifth and final step in this program involves discussions with the provinces and is designed to tackle the problem of the high cost of retail distribution of drugs which, of course, is primarily of provincial concern. These discussions will commence after this bill has been passed. My view was that I ought to devote my energies at this time to piloting this legislation through parliament.
It is the government's expectation, as well as mine, that the effect of Bill C-102 will be substantially to increase price competition in the Canadian drug industry. We anticipate this increased competition will occur in three ways. In the first place we anticipate that at least some of the larger drug companies which operate on an international scale will themselves be seeking compulsory licences pursuant to the provisions of this bill to supply drugs in' competition with present patent owners. We know of at least one large drug company which intends to take advantage of the provisions of this legislation.
In the second place we expect that compulsory licences will be sought by the smaller Canadian-owned companies which are being strengthened by the PIDA program. I refer to companies with marketing strategies involving a low price policy. The extent to which these smaller companies will have an impact on the general level of prices depends primarily upon how much confidence physicians have in their products. This emphasizes the importance of the information service being developed by the Food and Drug Directorate. In the third place, where drugs in dosage form are available in other markets at substantially lower prices than they are in Canada, the amendment to the Trade Marks Act will permit the importation from abroad of such drugs properly trade marked by the parent companies of Canadian subsidiaries.
In the committee stage there was a good deal of discussion of the effects this bill might
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act have on the structure of the industry. The Harley committee had before it ample statistical and factual evidence concerning the drug industry in Canada, as is apparent from their report. They also had before them a statement of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act concerning the fundamental issues which required a consideration of the social costs and benefits of alternative arrangements for supplying drugs to the Canadian market. One such fundamental issue so suggested is whether the drug manufacturing industry ought to be preserved in Canada in exactly its present form, which would require the continuation of present protective devices the industry considers necessary but which deny Canadians access to a less costly supply of drugs. It was also pointed out that to remove significant elements of that protection by extending compulsory licensing to imports should lower the prices of drugs reaching the Canadian market but may well shift some sources of supply to plants abroad.
The committee were clearly conscious of their responsibility in dealing with the fundamental issues, as appears in their report. I quote what they said at page 6:
-the Committee's conclusions must be such that any of its recommendations, if adopted, should continue to maintain a proper balance between industry and consumer and take into consideration the importance of continued and increased scientific research in Canada. No recommendations could be considered, which, although designed to lower drug prices in Canada, might produce drugs of questionable safety or have a detrimental effect upon other aspects of the Canadian economy. How such a balance between consumer interest in price and continued pharmaceutical research (one of the professed causes of high drug prices) may be maintained, and the resulting effect on the drug industry will be discussed as this report proceeds.
It must be remembered that the committee made its recommendations in the light of the basic principles thus expressed and these recommendations include the principles of compulsory licensing for imports and reduction of trade mark protection which are the essentials of Bill C-102. It is obvious that the Harley committee, the recommendations of which were unanimous, had weighed the social costs and gains resulting from their recommendations and had, in so doing, decided that the recommendations should be made.
Before concluding, I want to say a word about safety, which has been dealt with at length on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare both in this house and before the standing committee. I would like during this third reading debate simply to
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
refer to the four provisions in Bill C-102 which relate to the question of safety.
The first provision is subclause 13 on page 4 under which notices of an application for a compulsory licence or an interim licence must be given by the Commissioner of Patents to the Department of National Health and Welfare and possibly other departments. The main purpose of this is to allow the Food and Drug Directorate to became aware of the application and to take any steps it deems necessary to prepare, to scrutinize or control the importation of the drug under the licence.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The second provision relating to the program of safety and quality control is to be found in subclause 16 on page 5 which is inserted out of an abundance of caution to make it clear that nothing in a licence or interim licence granted by the Commissioner of Patents shall be construed as conferring upon any person authority to do anything that is contrary to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. This provision was not in Bill C-190.
The third provision relating to safety and quality control is in subsection 2 of new section 49A on page 7 which permits the Minister of National Health and Welfare to control a situation, if it should develop, where a trade marked drug imported into Canada differs from a Canadian drug similarly trade marked, and is therefore liable to cause confusion, and where the difference in composition between the two is such as to be likely to result in a hazard to health. No such situation has been brought to our attention in any significant, actual case, but as we would not wish such a possibility to occur we have placed this safeguard in the bill, and this differs from Bill C-190.
The fourth provision relating to safety and quality control is the new clause five on page 8 which has been added since Bill C-190. This will give the Governor in Council power to make regulations, to be administered by the Food and Drug Directorate, regulating or prohibiting the import of drugs into Canada and the distribution and sale of those drugs in Canada. These regulations may be such as are deemed necessary for the protection of the public in relation to the safety and quality of any imported drugs. The intention is to place beyond doubt, if this were needed, that the Food and Drug Directorate has complete and flexible control, through its regulations, over all imported drugs, including of course drugs imported by the established companies.

May I conclude by saying that in view of the long period, of time during which the high cost of drugs has been examined in this house and elsewhere, and in view of the importance of the matter, I urge the house to give speedy passage to this bill. I thank the house for its co-operation last night and today in dealing with the amendments on the report stage.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the minister for piloting this bill through the committee stage and the house. I wish to thank him particularly for his courtesy during the committee stage. I will be brief as this subject has already been discussed.
I believe that the approach of this bill meets with general acceptance by Canadians. It results from the Harley report and others before it. The Harley report adopted the .attitude that if we do not prevent or reduce the incidence of propagation of new drugs there will be price reductions. I think this is quite true.
In the committee we asked for some indication as to what effect this bill would have on the industry. The answer always was that no one knew and only time would tell. I think this is correct. Much will depend on how many import or export licences and compulsory licences are issued. It is time this bill was made law as the minister has been in a state of suspended animation for some months or years. He will now be able to decide what attack he will pursue.
The industry is international in scope and I feel it will likely remain this way in the foreseeable future. It is unfortunate that the Canadian industry did not attempt to institute a giant chemical or pharmaceutical company that could compete in world markets. In this way we could get back some of the money that has been sent out of this country.
I hope the industry will not be subjected immediately to too much distortion and that the price of drugs will be reduced. The introduction of new drugs or companies brings with it a safety factor. Drugs are not like mousetraps and similar items which can be easily appraised by the public.
The safety factor costs the taxpayers money. The food and drug estimates this year are approximately $12 million. Forty to 50 per cent of this amount will be spent on safety. This represents $5 or $6 million, which is considerably more than previously budgeted. The directorate is of the opinion that there will be a host of new drugs or copies on the market which they will be compelled to
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
examine. Consideration will have to be given to some substantial reduction in the manufacturing cost of drugs to pay for what the government is spending to have the Food and Drug Directorate police this operation.
I hope research will not suffer. Canada carries out a small but significant amount of research in this field involving the employment of a considerable number of our university graduates. We were informed in the debate last Tuesday that university graduates are looking for employment opportunities in this field. It would be unfortunate if this research was phased out and carried on elsewhere.
The supplying of drug information or promotion is a sore point but unfortunately this activity is necessary to some degree. The Russian drug industry complains bitterly that there is not sufficient promotion and physicians and institutions use the drugs the pharmaceutical industry of that country promotes. The government is going to get into the field of promotion by providing a drug information chart. One wonders how effective this information will be in view of the fact that the average physician receives 20 or 30 sheets of drug information per day. I hope it will be of some value inasmuch as initially $400,000 or $500,000 is being spent in this connection.
I wish to comment on drugs for elderly persons. Much has been said about this bill lowering the prices of drugs which will assist the elderly and infirm. Unfortunately it will be of little value to these people. Even if the profits of the drug manufacturing companies were reduced to zero, the saving would only be a few dollars now to those chronically ill elderly persons who spend from $10 to $40 per month. Our society will have to look for some other way to provide for these people. A great deal is expected of this bill that will not be forthcoming. Consideration should be given to a drug subsidy for chronically ill people. Many provinces are already doing this.
The statement of the minister emphasized that the probable effect of this drug bill could well be the importation of drugs from outside Canada. The manufacturing of drugs in this country is almost completely concentrated in Toronto and Montreal. If this bill does what is suggested, then the fact that more drugs will be imported from overseas will create a better trading balance for those parts of the country that are far away from the manufacturing centres of Toronto and Montreal. I speak particularly of western Canada with
its resources-based economy, exporting its products to Japan and western Europe. In turn we can now expect that drugs imported from outside Canada will be manufactured in Japan, one of our Pacific rim trading partners, and in the countries of western Europe such as England, Germany, France and Switzerland. As a result this bill may encourage better drug manufacturing facilities all over the world and benefit us all materially in that way.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I express the hope just as earnestly as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) that the passage of Bill C-102 will be of immediate tangible benefit to the drug consumers of Canada. While I share this hope I am not as optimistic as the minister that the bill in fact will have that kind of result. It is my sincere belief that the bill once passed will have a marginal beneficial effect.
I do not intend to say anything at all about the issue of quality control and its implications so far as the bill is concerned. My colleagues spoke at length about it during the committee hearings, and last night my colleague from Winnipeg North put considerable evidence on the record to show that there is considerable disagreement among the top experts in the field on this matter. Quite a number of experts in the industry made very plausible arguments that the bill's effect would be to cast serious doubt upon our ability to maintain quality control at the same high level as in the past. On the other hand, the former commissioner of the United States food and drug directorate said we should not take too seriously much of what was said by spokesmen for the industry in connection with quality control and generic drugs.
With respect to the price of drugs it seems to me that Bill C-102 will go part way toward reaching the goal we have in mind. It would be far more effective had the government seen fit to cast aside its ideological bias and accept the kind of thinking implicit in one of the amendments that my colleague from Waterloo wanted to move earlier today. I refer to the amendment calling on the government to establish a crown-owned drug manufacturing corporation. I urge that this be done if for no other reason than that it would have a beneficial effect by serving as a yardstick with which to compare the operations and the pricing policies of the private drug manufacturing corporations.
March 28. 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
I know that traditions in this country and in the United States are not quite parallel with respect to the important questions of public ownership and public regulation and deciding which of these can more expeditiously serve the public interest.
In Canada in the past, although perhaps not frequently enough, we have not hesitated to resort to public ownership in the form of crown corporations. I need not take the time of the house to cite examples, but it seems logical to me that serious thought should be given to the establishment of a crown corporation in the drug industry.
As my colleague took pains to point out, we in this party do not have a gigantic crown corporation in mind, one that would serve as a monopoly or an oligopoly, but one that would undertake a significant percentage of the industry's production, say 10 per cent, 15 per cent or something like that. It would serve as a useful yardstick by which to compare the rest of the industry.
Experience in the post-war period has shown that we make a mistake when we put too much reliance and confidence in public regulation of private industry as a means of protecting the public interest. Just a few days ago I had the privilege of having dinner and a long conversation with a man who was a chief economist with the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, a man intimately connected with the function of public regulation of privately owned corporations, in this case communications carriers. After years of work and responsibility his experience was that it is a very costly, painful, bureaucratic, red tape ridden and largely ineffective system, and that often, one could make a very logical and ideologically unbiased argument for public ownership, not public ownership in the sense of monopolizing an entire industry but in the sense of having a corporate presence under public ownership large enough that it could compare favourably in size with those under private ownership.
When one looks at the experience that the public has had in the past decade in Canada and the United States with the large corporate giants in the field of drug manufacturing, one cannot help but conclude that these are indeed corporate monsters.
Several months ago some state and local governments filed suit in the United States against five American drug manufacturing corporations charging that they had overcharged their customers, in this case state

and local government purchasers, to the extent of $120 million over a period of a few years. This does not take into account the many billions of dollars spent by individuals for drugs, so that one has only a small inkling of the order of magnitude of the problem. The firms prosecuted were Charles Pfizer and Company, American Cyanamid Company, Bristol-Myers Company, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, and the Upjohn Company. The case was heard before the New York district court of appeal and a decision was rendered sustaining the plaintiff, the state of New York. The drug companies were found guilty and restitution was ordered by the court.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
It seems to me when we face a problem of this magnitude we should be prepared to give serious consideration to any logical method of attack on the problem. I am not saying the introduction of regulations, the introduction of compulsory licensing, or the changing of the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act or the Food and Drugs Act are not helpful. However, one can sum up what the minister is hoping to accomplish by this bill. The hope is that by opening up the door a little and allowing the winds of international competition to blow into the industry there will be beneficial effects. I certainly hope so. But, in itself, that is not enough. I suggest that rather than- holding committee hearings to decide whether this bill is of any value, we should be holding studies and investigations into the advisability of establishing a publicly owned drug manufacturing corporation with a view to providing competition and a yardstick by which to measure other firms engaged in this industry. I think this is a very sensible suggestion.
It would not surprise me if someone were to say that I am making this proposal simply because of my ideological bias as a social democrat. I suggest that failure to give this proposal serious consideration would indicate a doctrinaire attitude or ideological bias on the part of those on the other side even more pronounced than that on this side.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, six members of our party at least had yesterday the opportunity to stress the points that seemed to be the most vulnerable in that bill and I will not dwell on them any longer. The minister said a while ago that he had thoroughly considered those amendments and that
March 28, 1969	COMMONS
he intended to apply the legislation so as to avoid all the mistakes which were detected. That is why we moved our amendments.
It is unfortunate that we sometimes have to take drugs. We therefore wanted at all costs to obtain the assurance that the drugs would comply with certain standards of quality.
The problem affects everyone today, particularly in our North American society where life is so hectic that, much too often, we use drugs.
Publicity must not encourage the use of those products, as some amendments seemed to suggest, and they should be used only under doctors' prescriptions.
If the minister is serious in his intention to have the legislation fully enforced, and to favor the consumer, we hope that the bill will help solve the problem of exorbitant drug prices.
As this is an area where mediocrity cannot be tolerated, the quality of the products is of the utmost importance and it must be on a par with reasonable prices, for that is the purpose of the bill, and we hope that the minister will succeed in this endeavour.
It must also be ascertained that the importance of the Canadian drug industry is not impaired in favour of foreign manufacturers.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I think this debate is an indication that there is a great interest on the part of members in all parts of this house in this bill. My colleagues have said over 'and over during this debate that we support Bill C-102. We congratulate the minister for bringing it forward. We believe, however, that it is a timid piece of legislation and that ultimately it will not do a great deal to limit the scope of the extortionist tactics carried on by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. Many Canadians, and I refer specifically to the poor and the elderly, can scarcely afford drugs at cost let alone at the excessive rates imposed on them because of the monopoly position enjoyed by the brand name drug manufacturers or, as they prefer to be known, the ethical drug manufacturers.
These so-called' ethical drug companies imply by their employment of that term that any drug manufacturer that does not belong to their chummy little international club is by exclusion unethical. To the P.M.A.C., "unethical" usually means price cutting and they maintain a constant vigilance for any threat to their society which would involve price 29180-461
DEBATES	7271
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act cutting as it relates to the patent companies. We maintain that to be sick is tragedy enough, but that to be robbed in addition is a crime against which our government should protect us.
I, and others, have said that this bill will do very little to bring down the cost of prescription dirugs to the Canadian public. But Canada is not the only country which has had to face this issue. It might be well to note some of the problems other countries have had and the steps they are contemplating to fight the drug cartel.
On August 30, 1968 the U.S. task force on prescription drugs published its second report in which it calls for a drastic overhaul of the existing system of drug merchandising and prescription dispensing. The report scored the molecular manipulation of existing drugs- the "me too" drugs-which is called research but which in reality is an elaborate, wasteful exercise undertaken in order to win a new patent or a renewed patent. The task force refuted the allegation by the industry that prescription drug costs had been dropping and noted that this industry is skilled in introducing new costly products to replace cheap ones.
Finally, the United States report goes to the social nub of the problem, the eldeidy segment of society, and recommends the following:
We find therefore, that the requirements for appropriate prescription drug therapy by the elderly are very great-far greater, in fact, than those of any other group-and that many elderly men and women are now unable to meet these needs with their limited incomes, savings or present insurance coverage. Their inability to afford the drugs they require may well be reflected in needless sickness and disability, unemployability and costly hospitalization which could have been prevented by adequate out-of-hospital treatment.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
If this is a true reflection of the drug scene in the United States and reflects their concern, we in Canada should be equally or more concerned since we have a similar proportion of elderly citizens who are affected, and, if anything, our drug prices are reputed to be higher.
What is the story in Britain? I am afraid it is the old one of a privileged manufacturing position and high level gouging of the public for needed prescriptions of brand name drugs. A government probe into the drug industry there, under a commission headed by Lord Sainsbury, proposed drastic controls
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
on drug prices and profit margins. The British commission wants also to limit promotion and advertising land to abolish all brand names tor new drugs.
In a report on the problem in Business Week of October 7, 1967, Lord Sainsbury charged that the national health service had been the victim of "excessive prices" to the extent of several million pounds over a period of three years. The commission also severely criticized the drug industry's annual promotion expenditures of $42 million per year, half of which went to the company's detail men.
Here is what the British commission proposes should be done to bring down the cost of drugs: First, the abandonment of brand names for all new drugs and the use of generic names instead. This was proposed, I suggest, because brand names tend to extend the monopoly position since they are well known long after the protection of the patent expires. Second, the British Commission proposed the filing of a cost report for all new drugs and all existing drugs with sales over $700,000 a year, including anticipated sales, proposed selling prices and proposed profit margins. Presumably this recommendation is a result of the commission's discovery-incidentally confirmed in Canada-that these show little relationship between the cost of production and the ultimate selling price of prescription drugs.
The third point that the British commission made was that they would like to see established a medicines commission to licence drugs on the basis of safety and effectiveness, to control advertising and to approve generic names. Certainly some of the debate here has emphasized the need for safety, and for biological and chemical equivalency. We in this part of the house can do nothing but applaud efforts in Canada to increase the government testing staff to better ensure that the public is protected. However, we must never conclude that generic drugs are unsafe nor that brand names have some heaven sent monopoly on safety, for it must be remembered that both Thalidomyde and Cutler Salk polio vaccine were either brand name or ethical drugs, not generics at all.
The Swedes have not pussy-footed around this drug price problem either. The government of Sweden is threatening to nationalize the drug industry if drug prices do not come down. A Swedish drug lobbyist, Mr. R. Wes-terling, as reported in the Toronto Star of July 29, 1968, said: "American prices of eight

popular drugs are 76 per cent above those in Sweden". Drug prices appear to be about 10 per cent higher in Canada, so that would make the cost of our drugs 86 per cent higher than the cost in Sweden.
The same article concludes as follows:
Isn't it time the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers stopped howling as if ruin and outrage were about to descend on the drug industry? Isn't it time that the P.M.A.C. stopped affronting parliament with phoney and specious excuses for soaking the sick.
A layman might be forgiven for asking how all this came about. How could one industry insinuate itself so intimately into the medical profession and government agencies that country after country contemplates steps or has taken them to prevent its citizens from being "rooked" by the drug industry? How do they get away with it?
I think it is necessary to realize that the patent medicine and prescription drug industry has proceeded on a broad front to solidify its position over a long period of time. Here are some of the ways this industry has been allowed to go about it.
One of the most damnable reasons is the myth held by free enterprise parties that competition between manufacturers is enough to ensure fair and equitable prices, and that the government let industries and professions police themselves. The procedure, of course, whether we talk about the drug industry, the electrical industry or the insurance industry, is that the big fish first of all eat all the little fish. Then, in turn, they get together and agree on a fixed price, which defeats the concept of free enterprise and free competition.
To give one example of this, as was mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer), on December 29, 1960, a federal court in New York city convicted three leading firms of criminal anti-trust violations involving the antibiotic tetracycline and two chemically related, broad spectrum "wonder drugs". These firms were Charles Pfizer, American Cyanamid, and Bristol Myers and Company, the conspirators named by the court. E. R. Squibb and the Upjohn Company were ruled guilty and the court fined the firms $50,000 each for conspiring to fix prices.
During the prosecution it was revealed that American Cyanamid's cost of production for one hundred 250 milligram capsules was $1.50. However, the cost to the pharmacist charged by all five firms was $30.60 for the same number of pills. So much for price fixing. Undoubtedly, other examples could be
March 28, 1969	COMMONS
cited. So much for the free rein of competition as it exists in the drug industry and, I assume, in many other industries as well.
The second point I should like to make is that the medical profession cannot escape its share of responsibility in the matter of high drug costs. It has been far too uncritical of the claims of detail men, the drug financed medical journals and the letters of correction forced upon the companies by the action of the food and drug administration.
Morton Mintz, a Washington Post reporter, who has made a specialty of ferreting out the sins of the drug industry had this to say in the New Republic of July 6:
In few areas of our mass-marketing technological economy is the medieval doctrine of "caveat emptor" less relevant than for prescription drugs.
The late Senator Estes Kefauver described it in this way:
He who orders does not buy, and he who buys does not order. For a patient the issue is more than economic; a potent medicine that is ineffective or less effective or safe than other preparations, may injure or even kill... It is, therefore, of high importance to the public health that the physician not be misled about the proper uses of the drugs that can be sold only if he prescribes them.
Since the 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments to the U.S. food and drug act which required prescription drug advertising to carry a true statement, in brief summary, the F.D.A. has taken 33 formal actions1 against 26 manufacturers, including the largest and most prestigeous in the prescription field, and forced them to retract in the Physicians' Desk Reference and in letters of correction.
In 1967, the F.D.A. invited comments on new regulations to tighten up deceptions brought to light in corrective letters. Not one U.S. medical group or practitioner responded in support of the F.D.A. This suggests1 to me either an apathy or an outright complicity. The physicians seem to enjoy being fooled, and so deception of physicians continues to be a profitable pursuit.
Third, the responsibility for deception rests with advertising of one kind or another. It has been reported that in excess of $3,000 spent on advertising and promotion per doctor per year adds between $600 million and $850 million annually to U.S. prescription costs. With so much at stake it is little wonder that the U.S. news media give little prominence to charges brought by the F.D.A. in an attempt to eliminate deceptive advertising. This is a lucrative bread and butter item for newspapers, radio, magazines and TV. Therefore, we cannot depend on these media to kill 29180-4611
DEBATES	7273
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act the goose that lays the golden egg any more than we can depend on the industry to police itself.
That spurious advertising is widespread may be underlined by the results of an exhaustive two year review of the efficacy of 3,640 pharmaceutical products marketed in the U.S. between 1938 and 1962. A preliminary report released by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council provides further ammunition for the critics of the drug industry. According to the report, only 10 per cent of the drugs wholly live up to the claims made for them by their makers. About 10 per cent will probably be denied market privileges for lacking the therapeutic value claimed for them. This leaves 80 per cent of the drug products which are deceptively advertised beyond the limits of their usefulness. These statistics are contained in "Fortune" of July, 1968. So let the buyer beware all right, and the physician and governments too, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It seems to me that an irrefutable case has been made by previous speakers over the past few days of this debate. I think few will disagree that the evidence is damning. I do not think this little bill by itself will do much to lower drug prices far enough, and neither do my colleagues. It might frighten some companies into making some temporary price adjustments. The bill is really only a sabre-rattling exercise. Two or three years from now, when the evidence proves inescapably that we should apply further corrective measures, please let us not hear a plea to substantiate further moves by more studies. We have already studied this matter to death, and so have other countries. Further studies will be just another stall, an excuse for not taking action.
We have had the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission study of 1963, the Hall Commission study of 1964, and the study undertaken by a parliamentary committee whose report resulted in the siring of this bill. We have the United States studies, the British commission and the Swedish experience at our disposal. They all say the same thing, that is, that the cost of prescription drugs is too damn high; and we have listened to the reasons ad nauseam.
So, let us get tough, if we have to. Let us get on with the job of protecting the patient, because he cannot do it himself. But whatever happens, Mr. Speaker, in the next three or
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act five years, in order to get on with the job one thing we do not need is more studies.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on his cool.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On what?


Philip Bernard Rynard: On your cool. Actually, the minister was so cool that we never got him to the point where we could thaw him out. Not an amendment was agreed to by the minister. He was so nice about refusing them all that we could not even just get up and walk out. I also congratulate hon. members who have contributed to this debate. I am sure this is a matter of great concern to everybody in the house. I am sure it is also of great concern' to the minister. All hon. members have tried to do the best they can in presenting their views in this respect. Parliament must accept responsibility for passing this bill. We are responsible for seeing that it is a bill that does some good for the people of Canada, who are paying the shot.
We are also responsible for seeing that the bill does no harm. This is what bothers me, because certain fundamental principles have been forgotten. In fact, the very principle that drug safety must be paramount, as emphasized by the Harley Committee, was negated when this bill was brought forward by the minister. I have a high regard for him, but here we have a food and drugs bill that is concerned with clinical equivalency and safety and it is brought in by the department of consumer affairs. I do not blame the minister for this. However, the No. 1 priority is to make sure that the drugs we are using are safe.
I shall not dwell on those matters which have been so ably dealt with by my confrere, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). He spoke about the harm that might occur to the pharmacological industry, the people who would find themselves out of a job and the research people who would be going south of the border. The hon. member spoke about all the other things that might happen as a result of the passage of this bill.
I think the minister will remember that some friends from his own party pointed out the unfortunate economic effects of such legislation. This question was argued in committee. The minister will remember that very well. Members of his own party argued these things in the committee. I compliment them

for putting up such a good fight in this respect. As a matter of fact, they put up as good a fight as any of us I wonder what has happened to those boys.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Philip Bernard Rynard: What has happened to them would make an interesting story. There was the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Rock), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) and the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), who challenged his own minister's statement that the economic effects cannot be measured. The minister will recall the statement that it is possible to project the economic effects of such legislation on drug prices and manufacturing in Canada. It is to the government's discredit that this has not been done.
I asked the minister about the economic report. He was quite frank and honest, as I think he has tried to be throughout this debate, and told me that the economic report would not be available until the fall. We are being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke, because the minister does not know the answer. He could not answer the hon. member for York East when he said he could get a feasibility report that would be accurate within 2 per cent. However, Mr. Speaker, I will leave that aspect of this matter.
The minister says that the industry will look after itself. He did not agree to having a tribunal of the industry consider this question. He did not agree to having a tribunal of the Food and Drug Directorate consider it. He said that if the question had to be referred to a tribunal, he would not put in the legislation a provision to cover it. In other words, as the provision is now, the Patent Commissioner could send a note to the Food and Drug Directorate and it could be forgotten there, left lying on his desk.
There is nothing mandatory in this respect. I wonder why not. The minister said that he has slept on the question. I think he did, because we have not had any answer. But I did not sleep on it; I thought about it. I thought: What in heck is wrong with this minister, that he cannot make a concession on a procedure he said is going to occur anyway? Is this arrogance? Is it stubbornness? I cannot imagine the minister being arrogant or stubborn, but he said he slept on it and did not come up with the answer.
I shall now deal with a few other points, Mr. Speaker. The point that concerns us most,
March 28. 1S69

the one with regard to which we see the most danger, is simply that of the clinical equivalency of drugs. This point has not been covered. Many citations have been put forward in the debate on this point. We have heard this, that and the other thing. All the citations were good. I should like to put on the record what was said by Dr. Goddard in this respect. He was quoted last night by N.D.P. members-. Dr. Goddard, when speaking to the American College of Clinical Pharmacology in Atlantic City, New Jersey, said:
The U.S. pharmacopia and the national formulary provide no biological performance test from which we can conclude whether a particular dosage form of a particular drug will perform as it is supposed to perform in the human.
Over and over again, we have been told by the Food and Drug Directorate that they have the answers. The minister has assured us that they have all the answers, and that these drugs can be tested. Dr. Goddard, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Directorate of the United States, whose formulas we use over and over again, went on to say in that address that there is no test from which we can conclude whether a particular dosage form of a particular drug will perform as it is supposed to perform in the human. He went on to say:
This has not been a wilful omisson. Until recently, it just was not considered necessary.
We just cannot fool the people in this regard. Why cannot we be honest and say there is a risk here? Dr. Goddard went on to say:
There are two reasons we can think of which explain this attitude of blissful ignorance which all of us-let me repeat, all of us-have enjoyed thus far. To begin with, there was an assumption that different specimens of a dosage form containing the same concentration of the same active ingredient will behave the same way

They just do not. Then Dr. Goddard said:
X think it is fair to say that most of us in clinical work now know that such an assumption may be valid for many drugs, but is not valid for all drugs. Considering the vigorous activity in clinical pharmacology and chemotherapy which you and your colleagues carry on, and considering the alleged vast number of checkpoints in our drug distribution system, I have to say I am more than disappointed.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This is the awesome thing which the Minister has hanging over his head. The address goes on:
I am deeply disturbed at our situation today.
I am taking this opportunity, I am using this particular form, to express my misgivings to you and, through you, to all our colleagues in medicine.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
What, then, are the elements of this issue which must be vigorously and immediately explored? We know that different drug products which are generically equivalent have been shown to perform differently in vivo. How widespread is this phenomenon? How many different drug classes are involved? How serious is this phenomenon in the public health field? And what does the FDA intend to do about it?


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


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, if Mr. Speaker will permit.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Even agreeing that perhaps the bill is not precise enough in relation to the question of clinical equivalency, would he not admit that the effects of two drugs of the same kind and of the same clinical equivalency would vary in accordance with the receptivity of individual patients?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Given the same clinical
equivalency, drugs working on the same person would work in exactly the same way.
This writer goes on to say:
Science has been accumulating a great deal of observable information about drugs over the past 100 years. In the recent past we have sought through good law, reasonable legislation and good science to document this information particularly as to safety and effectiveness. But our documentation falls far short of what we need.
There is the story. We were led to believe in the committee that they had the answers- that they could test a product and arrive at the therapeutic equivalency. The writer goes on to tell us that new kinds of experimental data are needed. I am not saying this in order to be critical or to be smart about it. I am saying it in the hope that the minister will pay heed. I hope, he will, because he is a bright young man. I trust he will act accordingly, because this is our last recourse. The address states:
We need new kinds of experimental data to tell us the minimum concentration of a drug in the blood and urine from which we can deduce that there is enough of the drug available to be viable and to do the job it is supposed to do.
I shall not continue to take up the time of the house on this aspect. But this makes clear the awesome task which the minister has assumed. I am sure he has not thought much about it or he would have shown more responsibility about bringing some of the professors from the pharmacology departments of the Universities before the committee to give evidence. But not one was called.
7276	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
I want to ask the Minister what he intends to do now. He can go into any city in Canada and find drugs sold at half a dozen different prices. This has been documented by responsible people. He has power to act without recourse to this legislation at all. If he had taken action before on the basis of legislation already in existence he could have brought down the price of drugs. This bill is window dressing.
Now, I want to ask the minister whether he proposes to set up designated areas in which companies he intends to help locate-companies which might otherwise decide they would have to move across the border. Is he willing to lose these companies? He says he intends to give money to the firms which are already operating in Canada and let them go ahead. But these firms are doing all right. Some of them are not brand name companies but generic name companies. I could name two in my own area. Empire Laboratories and Paul Maney Laboratories. They are both doing well. One of these firms wrote to the minister asking: What are you trying to do to us? They are small firms, comparatively speaking.
Next, what does the Minister intend to do about those poor people who are living on old age pensions? This legislation was supposed to bring drug prices down. He even said he was prepared to go further. He told us that if it should turn out that the measures proposed did not have the desired effect he would be prepared to take further measures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: What will the Minister do about the 18 per cent of our people who are taking drugs in Canada though they cannot really afford them? That is the big question. That is the social question. Not one word has been said about these people. It is just window dressing for the government to say: We are reducing drug prices. This phrase catches the headlines. They have completely forgotten about the old age pensioners and those on social services. They brought in the medicare legislation under which a doctor can write prescriptions for them. But who pays for them to be filled? If old age pensioners do not have the money, what will they do? These are the social questions which are bothering us, not the window dressing which has been put on for show. And this applies to 18 per cent of the people across Canada who have to buy drugs, the people on limited incomes on social services.

DEBATES	March 28, 1969
I know the Minister is an intelligent fellow and a kind hearted fellow. I ask him this: will the government's next move be in favour of these underprivileged people, these people who are living on or below the poverty line and who cannot afford these drugs? The government has brought in the medicare legislation under which a doctor can write the prescription. The doctor is paid for doing so, but nothing is paid in respect of the drugs to be purchased with it. We are concerned, here, with the forgotten people.
I propose to read, now, from a comment by the Canadian Medical Association.
"Bill C-102 places an extremely heavy responsibility on the Department of National Health and Welfare and on the food and drug directorate.
This is of special significance in the light of what I have put on record today, and I suggest the Minister had better move slowly in the light of some of these considerations. The hon. member from Dauphin says this has already cost the people of Canada $4 million-before they have received any benefit whatsoever.
The statement continues:
What will happen? We doubt that anyone really knows. However, our knowledge of the doctor.- and his concern about the efficacy and safety of what the prescribes-of the fact that the majority of drugs prescribed in Canada will not be affected by this legislation at all (new drug classification), of the food and drug administration-and the probable action it will take following consideration of its responsibility in this area, leads us to believe that relatively little will happen. The cost of drugs will not be markedly reduced and Mr. Basford and his colleagues will introduce additional legislation to make good his naked threat.
And that will be compulsion. Maybe the minister can tell us what his intentions are. One thing I do not want him to forget is the story of clinical equivalency I have put on record this afternoon. And I do not want him to forget the underprivileged people, the 18 per cent who cannot afford to buy drugs on the basis- of the prescriptions given to them.
The government has brought in a bill designed, they say, to bring down drug prices. It has brought in medicare legislation which gives people the means of securing drugs. But not one thing has been done to make sure they can purchase the prescriptions they require. In conclusion, I want to say again that I have a high regard for the minister, his coolness, and the other qualities which go with it. However, I hope he will not sleep as soundly as he slept last night, and will be able to come up with some answers to this problem.
March 28, 1969

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, judging from the look of the minister he intends to sleep very soundly tonight in expectation of this bill's receiving third reading. I have only a few things to say about the bill; much has already been said in the course of the debate. I do not believe this bill is really going to lower drug prices to any large extent, yet having said that I still feel it is one of the most significant bills ever brought before the House of Commons. At least, it has proceeded this far; hopefully it will be passed.
I think its significance lies in one particular feature. What we saw here was a confrontation between one of the most powerful economic interests in this country and the government on behalf of the people. There is no doubt that the people won hands down. The powerful P.M.A.C., that great tiger that made and broke members of parliament, turns out to be made of paper. I think it is true that in any confrontation, not only a confrontation between the government and organizations like the P.M.A.C. but with any great economic interest in this country, if the government or its ministers are willing to say that the interests of the people shall be paramount, then the particular interest loses out.
I hope that the victory that appears to be won will not be a Pyrrhic victory. I said to begin with that I do not see how prices will be lowered significantly as a result of the passage of this bill. I think they will be lowered to the extent that they reach the level in the United States, plus whatever tariff applies.
My colleagues in this party have put on record and demonstrated that even if the prices went down to those prevailing in the United States, they would still be much, much too high. Evidence has been placed on the record indicating that these drug companies are being prosecuted in the United States for colluding against the public interest. They have been forced to pay massive fines because of their behaviour in the marketplace. There is little that this bill can do or will do about that particular situation.
I believe the minister is aware of this problem. He has indicated that he is prepared to go beyond the measures contained in this particular bill, and perhaps the very fact that he has said this publicly will be enough to force the drug companies to re-examine their pricing policies.

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
However, even if the drug companies wish to make changes, I do not think they are going to be able to do so unless other measures are brought to bear in the marketplace in which they operate. They have all put themselves in the position where they spend 20 to 30 per cent of the selling price of their products on advertising and promotion. They are going to continue to do this in an effort to take business away from each other; they are going to continue the kind of competition that really has almost no effect on lowering prices. Quite the contrary, it has the effect of raising prices and is really not worth while in any sense of the word "competition".
In some ways we would be better off with a monopoly in the drug industry in this country if that monopoly would eliminate the high cost of selling and pass on the savings to the people of this country. A monopoly is probably unacceptable for a number of reasons, but one thing we must consider most seriously is the injection of significant competition into the market place. We can get this competition in two ways. One is the encouragement of small manufacturers to compete pricewise as generic drug manufacturers. To do this, the government has introduced the P.I.D.A. program.
Let there be no mistake about it: it is not enough to introduce the P.I.D.A. program. As the situation now stands, there is every indication that the manufacturers of brand name drugs are going to do everything within their power, as they have in the past, to discredit the manufacturers of generic drugs. The government will, of course, do everything within its power to counteract this and to ensure that the small drug companies are policed for safety reasons, and that the information is available to the public. But the government's action may not be the complete answer.
Therefore, a second possibility has to be explored. It is the one I mentioned earlier, namely the creation of a crown corporation to provide competition in the market place as well as to provide marketing services, if necessary, such as inspection and handling on behalf of some smaller companies that choose to market their products in this way. Some may feel they want to market their own products, and that is fine. But some may feel they need the services of a Crown corporation to market their drugs. Such a Crown corporation could rationalize much of the industry. It could buy certain generics or act as agent for certain manufacturers of generics who may be limited in the number of products they can
March 28, 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act produce. These drugs could be combined with the products of other companies, and in that way a complete line of drugs could be marketed.
One hon. member raised the question, and I think it is a valid one, of the possibility of exporting drugs. He expressed the hope that one day Canada might produce efficiently enough to export drugs into world markets. I think that though this might be possible in the future it would not be under the present system where our drug industry is dominated by United States branch plants. Under the U.S. branch plant system markets are allocated. Companies are told where to go and where not to go. Under such a system, I do not think that drug exports can be anything more than a pious hope as far as we are concerned.
Were we to have a crown corporation of the type I envisage, exports would become a real possibility for Canada. A crown corporation would have credibility, being backed by the government of Canada. It would not have to hide its books from the government of Canada. Safety of its products would be assured by inspection services provided by the government of Canada. Again, it could act as an international marketing agency on behalf of some of our smaller generic drug manufacturers. It would be an example of where private industry and public enterprise could work together to the benefit of all. Perhaps it would not work to the benefit of that handful of companies that dominate the drug market and have abused the privilege; but in a situation of this kind somebody must suffer, and if the choice has to be between a few drug companies and the entire population of Canada, I think sympathy has to lie with the people of this country.
e (3:50 p.m.)
We have been told that there is some danger that research will be eliminated in Canada. When I hear statements like that I find it hard not to laugh out loud, especially since an examination of the figures wifi reveal that the amount of research carried out in this country is infinitesimal. On the other hand, if a crown corporation such as we have been suggesting were set up, we might get a great deal of research here. The crown corporation would have the facilities and the incentives to carry out research and to create a drug industry that would be indigenous to this country. It could absorb the scientists and bright young people coming from our universities and technical schools.


During the committee hearings we heard the threat that if this bill were passed the big drug companies may move out of this country across the border. Some think that such a move on the part of the drug companies would be something to worry about. My reaction to that threat is, "I will make you a sandwich. When are you leaving?" The drug companies seem to think that only they can make drugs. Well, Mr. Speaker, 21 million people in this country need drugs and if the international drug companies now competing in Canada will not make our drugs, others will. If private investors are not willing to undertake the manufacture of drugs, a public corporation will be willing to do so. The point is that the people employed in the industry will remain employed in that industry. As a matter of fact perhaps more will be employed in research; less copying of the work of others will take place and this country may become important as a centre of drug manufacturing. There is no reason for Canadians to pay the kind of prices that prevail in the drug field now. As I pointed out, our drug prices are among the highest in the world. That situation is intolerable and passage of this legislation will indicate to those responsible for our high prices that we will no longer tolerate those high prices.
Although I could say a great deal more, I wish to stress again the importance of this legislation. As a party we have fought hard for it, harder than some members of the government have. Passage of this bill will show the world that our people, instead of being content to be dominated by economically powerful and monopolistic industries, wish to have the right to decide their own future, to make their own choices and to make their own value judgments. With passage of this bill, our people have won a great victory and set a new precedent.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention one or two points related to this bill. The defenders of the drug industry and the people within the drug industry have called the bill half baked; the group to which I belong call it a half measure. The minister says that it will do the job of lowering drug prices. Time and experience will tell whether he is right. I hope the minister and his colleagues will not take too long before deciding whether the legislation is doing its intended work.
March 28, 1989

Although I do not support this legislation as wholeheartedly as the hon. member for Waterloo does, I support it being not at all convinced that it will do the job the minister expects of it. If events prove me wrong I shall be glad to be wrong. I am not so naive as to think that, following this legislation, the drug industry in this country will quietly and co-operatively work towards the attainment of the objectives of this bill. The industry will go to great lengths to show that the legislation cannot work. I point out that the amendments hon. members of this group proposed that were ruled out of order are on the record. The minister may adopt them at any time. He may use them one year from now or sooner if it becomes evident that drug prices in this country have not been reduced significantly. I submit that the five main proposals we brought before the minister and the house on second reading are still valid and relevant if this legislation is to control drug prices and the drug industry effectively.
It seems that international drug companies are now manufacturing many of our drugs. For years we have been told by Canadian and United States drug manufacturers that "foreign" drug manufacturers are dangerous because the quality of their drugs is inferior to ours. The public was warned not to use "foreign" drugs. Yet less than a year ago, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada went to Europe to hold meetings with European manufacturers. I believe the meetings took place in Stockholm a few months ago. The two sets of manufacturers formed themselves into an international association. Mr. Speaker, I am gazing into a crystal ball; it may be clouded, but I can see this international association going to great lengths to achieve co-operation between companies in Canada, the United States, Europe and, possibly, Japan.
It will all be very subtle. There will be understandings between various companies, and the Government of Canada alone will find it impossible to oversee the activities of such an association. What has happened within the drug industry in North America will spread to other countries, and no one government alone will be able to properly police the activities of such an organization. I suggest that the minister ought to talk to the Solicitor General and suggest to him that instead of having R.C.M.P. officers spending a great deal of time in plain clothes trying to find a few grains of marijuana in some kids' pocket, it
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act might be wise to set up an underground network so the R.C.M.P. can secure information to enable us to control in this country the activities of such an international association.
May I also ask the minister to persuade his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), not to be overly generous with non-Canadian owned drug manufacturing companies in the dispensing of loans under the pharmaceutical industry development assistance program. If anyone is worried about the welfare of our own companies and about their inability to survive, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce can give our companies financial assistance to enable them to compete on an equal basis with international companies.
Under this legislation, the minister will not be able to do much with respect to patents on new drugs until five years have elapsed. That provision has been introduced allegedly to allow the inventors of new drugs to recover their costs of development. It seems to me that if a manufacturer is given a five year monopoly to recover the costs of research and development, he ought to be required by law to file complete information on those costs which are to be recovered. This would serve as a check on the price he wishes to charge. It would enable the government to check him if he seeks to engage in unreasonable and unconscionable pricing within that five year period which he has to recover these costs. Giving manufacturers a blanket five years without knowing what is involved in the makeup of these prices certainly leaves the door ajar, if not wide open, to the manufacturer to, I won't say cook the books, but to exaggerate the so-called costs of research development and promotion in an effort to get the maximum profit.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I am not clear precisely as to what agreements there were. I do not know how long the hon. member intends to speak. I believe there was discussion and an agreement that we would stop now and deal with private members business, namely, the Quebec Savings Bank bill. I believe 'there was substantial agreement we would then come back to the drug bill in order to give it third reading before 4.30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the point the minister raised, I believe the
March 28. 1969

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
member who has the floor is the concluding speaker in the debate. This debate could be over in a few minutes and that would leave enough time for the bill referred to before proceeding to royal assent.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rose because I did not know how long the hon. member was going to be. If it is a few minutes, I would be in agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude in a few minutes. It is my understanding there was agreement we would go to a few minutes past four o'clock, and then deal with the private members' bill. I shall conclude in a few moments.
The government of Canada must, in concert with governments of other countries, conduct a thorough and continuing scrutiny of the drug industry. In concert with these other countries, the government of Canada must carry on the fullest exchange of information in order to protect our citizens, particularly in the matter of drug costs and safety. When adtion is needed to penalize drug manufacturers or scrutinize drugs, Mr. Speaker, the countries must act together. In other words, we need an international cartel of governments to protect people from high cost and unsafe drugs.
May I say to the minister that I hope I am wrong in my predictions for this bill. I hope the measures he proposes prove to be completely effective in substantially lowering the cost of drugs, controlling the quality of drugs and placing some severe limitation on the promotion and advertising of them.
Many hon. members of this house and many people across the country will watch the effects of this legislation as well as the activities of the minister, his department and the Food and Drug Directorate for the next several months. I feel a year and a half would be sufficient time for these results to materialize. If the results are not there and the minister does not take the initiative to bring about additional measures, there will be others in this house and other places attempting to start those measures,


Stanley Ronald Basford: May I, as a matter of privilege, express my thoughts to the hon. members of this house. This bill is now leaving this house to go to the Senate.
May I express my thanks to hon. members of all parties for their contributions to the

deliberations on this bill, to those members who served on the Harley committee and the committee of health and welfare. I thank them for their attention to this very pressing problem.
As Dr. Harley is no longer a member of this house, may I record the thanks of this house to him for his services as chairman of the special committee on drug prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: This bill arises from the Harley committee report. It is a very fitting tribute to his years in parliament.
Although people are usually not named in this house, may I take the unusual step of recording those officials who assisted me in my department and in the Department of Health and Welfare. They have acted beyond the call of duty in serving their minister in working on this program to lower drug prices; Mr. McLeod, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Henry, Mr. Laidlaw, and Dr. Chapman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business 'as listed on 'today's order paper, namely private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-27, An Act respecting The Quebec Savings Bank.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I might intervene. If the house would make an order, it would be easier. The understanding of the house at this time is to consider item 3, namely second reading of an act respecting The Quebec Savings Bank Act, and upon conclusion of consideration of that bill that we then adjourn. In other words, private members hour would be confined to considering one bill only, namely S-27.


Stanley Ronald Basford: co-operation from the house today. I suggest that we revert to the hazardous products bill and deal with a very minor amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I make this one rider, the two previous private members' bills will retain their precedence. I don't think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned that.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Laflamme (for Mr. Guay, Levis) moved: that Bill S-27, respecting The Quebec Savings Bank, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, the main objectives of this bill, which has been passed unanimously in the Senate, are to authorize the Banque d'Econo-mie du Quebec, in operation since 1948 under the terms of a special legislation of a Canadian province and which since April 21, 1871 has pursued its activities under the terms of a special legislation similar to the Bank Act, to purely and simply become a bank like any other bank, subject to the general regulations applicable to charter banks in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I shall only say a few words to draw your attention to the fact that, following a meeting of about 500 shareholders of the Banque d'Economie du Quebec, it has been agreed and resolved to bring forward this bill in order to allow this chartered bank, which has been in operation for many years and has 27 branches in Metropolitan Quebec and whose deposits amount to over $60 million, to meet its obligations and compete with other financial institutions. In fact, the main purposes which the savings bank had set for itself at the beginning are now carried out by other financial institutions, especially the credit unions and. the "caisses populaires".
The aims pursued by the savings bank formerly must be amended, and though this new direction has some disadvantages for the Quebec savings bank, especially with regard to its reserves, which are of 5 per cent, and which it is empowered to deposit to the bank to receive interest, it will have to comply with section 72 of the bank act, that is deposit
Private Bills
in the Bank of Canada 4 per cent of its reserves in term deposits, and 12 per cent of its reserves in demand deposits.
This bill is being introduced, on the whole, not to create a new bank but to enable a particular bank in existence for many years to extend its activities.
I submit that hon. members might suggest to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, to assign the directors and the principal employees of the bank who will then be able to provide all the information and details concerning its operations.
Mr. Speaker, if the savings bank becomes a chartered bank, it is not really a matter of creating a new bank, because as far as its capital and reserves are concerned, it already falls under the jurisdiction of the general inspector of banks.
As I say, all its shareholders are Canadian citizens, and more especially, Quebecers
The object of the bill is to enable the bank to avail itself of powers granted to banks generally, which will enable it to compete with other financial institutions, to enter on the business market and engage in a new activity.
At the present time, it can grant mortgage loans, since 1954 only, and it can also grant personal loans.
I would like to go over a few points discussed by the inspector general of banks in his testimony before the Senate committee which studied this bill. He declared that to compensate for the inconveniences, which I enumerated a while ago, and for the losses of revenue which the savings bank will undergo because its reserves will be deposited with the Bank of Canada, it will have to move into the industrial and economic fields.
That is why the Quebec Savings Bank which is unable to expand today wants to become a financial institution like the others, in order to become competitive and to meet its engagements.
Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I respectfully suggest that the bill be referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs for examination.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we are somewhat pleased to be able to cooperate with the hon. member in "deseparatising" this bank, making it more of a national structure than a provincial one. However, we do so with a certain amount of

March 28, 1969
Private Bills
wonderment, in particular about the Quebec Savings Bank but also about the general banking structure and the banking fraternity in Canada, of which presumably this bank will become a part. We know that within recent years our banks have been perhaps the greatest single contributing factor to the pressures of inflation.
This is partly because of revisions to the Bank Act, partly because of the removal of the interest rate ceiling, partly because the banks themselves participate in advertising, as it were, to push their wares and services upon us, and partly because our banking institutions in effect create money out of nothing. Each time this is done they pump into the economy additional millions and millions of dollars that are used to buy the goods and the services that we produce. They are doing this at a faster rate than the Department of Finance or federal government can cope with.
On the one hand, we have had the government, by tax increases and the like, trying to dampen the so-called fires of inflation and, on the other hand, permitting the banking fraternity and the banking institutions to add to the fires of inflation. As I have said, they are able to do so at a much greater pace than the government can keep up with.
The mere fact that we have seen the profits of banks jump somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent in the last year is indicative of the additional activity that they are pursuing in the money market, and indicative of the pressures that the banks are putting on the inflationary spiral. We know that the more the banks engage in advertising, the more they attract the general public to borrow greater and greater amounts of money, and the greater the desire of banks to get into the consumer credit field, the greater will be these pressures on inflation and the greater the devaluation of the dollar itself. So it is with a certain amount of reluctance that we endorse what is being asked of us at the moment. Probably one result will be the addition of one more point of pressure on inflation. There will be the addition of one more banking institution to create more money and create more inflationary pressure by urging people into greater debt. This is a picture which, on balance, we do not think is good for the nation.
But when this bill goes to committee it will permit us to explore these things in a great deal more detail than is possible at this point.

Those of our members who are on that committee, and who have some expertise in this particular field, will be interested in going into those details at that time.
We know that other banks have on their boards of directors, those who are also senators. We know from past experience that certain senators, were on the boards of directors of certain banks., In view of their financial interests in certain banks they interfered with the normal parliamentary procedures a few years ago when there was a desire to establish more banks. One of the saving features we might put into this bill at committee stage, and hopefully the same idea might be incorporated into the Bank Act, is that senators and members of parliament be excluded from participating in the boards of directors of these banks. After all, by permitting this activity we have placed members of the other house in the position of having to try to serve two masters, their financial one and the public interest. We should try to correct that situation, and we look forward to an explanation in committee about these and many other points.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberyal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the motion to refer this bill to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, for study.
I am naturally in favor of this bill, because its object is to allow this old Quebec bank to operate as if it had been incorporated for a long time. I find it rather surprising that it has not been encouraged before now, and that it has not been treated like the other banks.
Some hon. members may be surprised to hear a member of the Ralliement Creditiste support the establishment of a new chartered bank. We once supported the establishment of a new bank in Canada, but we did not get anywhere. As concerns this one, we are happy that the bill was unanimously adopted in the Senate, because I find that given the system we live in, we have to accept the will of the majority, even if we do not always agree with it.
We are not against banks, because they should play their role fully in the private sector, as the Bank of Canada must do in the public sector.
At present, it is the opposite, because chartered banks have much more influence than the Bank of Canada. Experts tell us that the Bank of Canada's role is only secondary, but we are fighting so that it can play its true role.
March 28, 1969
COMMONS DEBATES	7283
Control of Sale of Hazardous Products I was glad to hear the hon. member for [English]
Skeena (Mr. Howard) say so earlier, and I	GOVERNMENT ORDERS
saw government members with a startled	

looks on their faces when he said that chartered banks create credit.	HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
It is precisely on that point that we disagree with capitalists 'and the supporters of the present system, because we want the Bank of Canada to be the only one to create and control credit.
At present, such control is in the hands of chartered banks' and if a Quebec bank is authorized to compete with other banks, it will be able to create credit. When the inspector general of chartered banks says that it will incur losses because of its 5 per cent reserve, I believe those losses will be easily compensated by the fact that it will be authorized to operate across Canada, by extending its field of activity and by multiplying its reserves by 14.
[DOT]a (4:20 p.m.)
We are glad because it is a Quebec bank. We have a right to have within this sytem our own French-Canadian banks, because when we get to studying banks, we find that English-Canadian banks are worth ten to twenty times our small French-Canadian banks. I trust that the people of Quebec will support this bank's endeavours. One can be sure that if parliament and the committee approve the creation of that Quebec bank, they will have shown their will to contribute to the unity of the country, in making it possible for 'the bill to be passed in the near future.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. members and I thank them for their excellent co-operation and consensus, which I think will enable that bill to get through an important stage and to be passed soon. I suggest that we must congratulate the directors and shareholders of the Quebec Savings Bank which from now on will carry on its operations under the name of "The People's Bank", which shows the confidence the bank has in the economic future and the democratic institutions of Canada, as well as its sharp sense of progress.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the house agree to adopt the said motion?
Some Members: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-26, to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra) moved:: That Bill S-26, An Act to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products be amended by deleting subclauses (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 8 and substituting the following:
"(3) Every order adding a product or substance to Part I or Part II of the Schedule shall be laid before the Senate and the House of Commons not later than fifteen days after it is made or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(4) If both Houses of Parliament resolve that an order or any part thereof should be revoked, that order or that part thereof is thereupon revoked."


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that there will be Royal Assent in a few minutes. I am not sure it is worth going on with another matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in respect of what the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) had to say, although Black Rod will be arriving in a few minutes I think we might as well use this time to deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) and make some progress on it.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, when this bill came to us from the Senate the wording in respect of this clause was as it appears on page 6. This was subsequently amended by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and submitted to the House in its fifth report. I should like to read this amendment which appears at page 779 of Votes and Proceedings of March 10. I refer particularly to the amendment in respect of subclause (4) which reads as follows:
Where an order is laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection (3), a notice of motion in either
March 28, 1969

Control of Sale of Hazardous Products House signed by twenty-five members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within ten days of the day the order was laid before Parliament, praying that the order or any part thereof be revoked, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity.
The point I want to make is that the way in which the amendment is put interferes1 with the procedures of this House. I think we could effect the same purpose and allow the House to remain in possession of its own procedures if the bill were amended in the rather simple manner I have proposed. This is a simple procedure which would accomplish the same things that were sought to be done by the committee, but the House would still remain in possession of its own procedures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question before he sits down? In view of what seems to be reasonable logic in what he has said, can he tell the House how it happened that in the Standing Committee this provision for 25 members putting down their signatures became part of the amendment?


Grant Deachman: I am sorry, I do not know since I was not a member of that standing committee. However, the records of the standing committee will have the story in full.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask another question since we seem to have time. What is the position of the government in respect of this matter? Did the government support the amendment in committee and then change its mind or has there been some hanky-panky going on?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: I do not know whether or not there has been hanky-panky, but I put to the house a very simple amendment which would return to the House of Commons its procedures. I hope that hon. members would like to remain in possession of their own procedures rather than having them within the terms of the act. This is why I seek agreement for this amendment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In answer to the questions that have been asked, I might indicate that the government supports both amendments, the one that was made in committee and the one which is before us1 now. It is an improvement on the one put forward by the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where does that leave the rest of us? It seems to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) makes sense since it leaves the matter in the hands of the house rather than trying to write house procedures into a statute. But I think I deserve to be forgiven for wondering what has been going on.
The minister did not make things any easier to understand when he said that the government supports both propositions. The government cannot do that-it is either one or the other.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: They have been doing it for years.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The history of the matter is that an amendment was put forward in the Senate committee which was unacceptable to me as the minister responsible for the bill. Then, an amendment was made in the committee of the house, which was acceptable to me, but it transpired that there should have been further consultations on the amendment that was made in the committee to avoid the problem of which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra spoke, that is that there was not sufficient consultation on the committee's amendment regarding the matter of the house controlling its own business. Therefore, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra put forward an amendment which I regard as an improvement over the one proposed in the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister has won me over by telling me that what we are doing here is an improvement on what was done in the other place.


Mr. Lundrigan:: May I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra a question, Mr. Speaker?
First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister on the way in which he has piloted previous legislation. I am really not too clear on the nature of the amendment before us. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra would like to elaborate on it and give us some more details of the amendment which he has proposed. I believe that other hon. members may also have questions about it, as do I. Perhaps we could begin by asking him what he had in mind, because he spoke about the amendment in a great hurry and certain questions were left in my mind.

March 28. 1969


Grant Deachman: The purpose of the amendment is very simple. It does not really relate to the bill as much as to the way in which procedures are to be handled in parliament. Provision is made in the bill for additions to the schedule of hazardous substances from time to time. If hon. members turn to the Votes and Proceedings of March 10, they will see at page 779 the way in which this was to be put into the act by an amendment proposed by the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The committee proposed a series of procedures in parliament which would take away from parliament the right to handle its own affairs. These procedures would be set forth in the act. What I propose to do by the simple amendment is to effect the same purpose so far as the bill is concerned, while leaving the matter of how it is to be proceeded with in the House of Commons in the hands of parliament itself. To put it in exact words, the amendment to subclause (4) reads as follows:
If both Houses of Parliament resolve that an order or any part thereof should be revoked, that order or that part thereof Is thereupon revoked.
It does not, for instance, tell them what procedures they should employ in order to do that. It is a simple technical amendment which concerns this house rather than the bill itself.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am taking the chance of running into some heavy weather with some experts in the house, especially members from out west such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), but I did get the impression from the minister's remarks that he was not satisfied with the amendment. The only thing that worries me is the fact that the principle involved is more important than the amendment itself. Of course we have run into this problem in various other committees, such as in the committee on fisheries. About a month ago we attempted to make certain amendments in the committee which were later not accepted in the house.
I would like to believe that there is a possibility of proposing amendments in standing committees that can receive approval in the house. For example, I should like to ask the minister whether, if a standing committee of the house makes an amendment of which he does not approve, he can automatically prevent the amendment from coming to the house. Do the regulations of the house which we adopted recently allow such a situation?
DEBATES	7285
Control of Sale of Hazardous Products The matter which I bring to the attention of the house is related directly to the powers of standing committees and the possibility of the legislative process being thwarted if the minister is not in favour of an amendment proposed in the committee. I wonder whether, as was said recently by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), we have a dictatorship instead of a parliamentary system in that ministers of the cabinet can determine the exact nature of the legislation to be presented to the house, especially now that there is a majority government in control. This is a lengthy question which is not directly related to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, but I should like to hear the minister's reaction to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I might make an observation at this point. I do not want to interfere with the debate, but I feel that this line of questioning is out of order. I understand the hon. member's concern, and perhaps it may be in the best interest of the house for the minister to answer, but I want to add that caveat. I have misgivings as to this type of questioning on such an amendment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The plain fact is that any committee that has a piece of legislation in front of it can amend it, and the bill comes to this house as amended by the committee. That is the case with Bill S-26 before us now which went into committee in one form and came out of it in an amended form. This amendment, which was placed on the order paper and moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, is an improvement over the amendment made in the committee. It does not nullify the amendment made in the committee.
Both amendments involve the same principle, namely, 'that orders made under the act be laid before parliament, and the new amendment deals only with procedure. I want to emphasize that if a standing committee has a bill before it, it can amend it. The bill then comes to the House of Commons as amended, and the minister cannot throw those amendments out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say, with your indulgence, that if you consider my previous interventions to have been questions, I should now like to ask for the floor to say that in the light of the explanations we have heard I
March 28, 1969

Control of Sale of Hazardous Products should like to withdraw my suggestion, that there might have been some hanky-panky. I am sure I can be forgiven for suspecting it because it does happen sometimes around here. However, in this case it seems to me that the picture is now quite clear. The other place altered the bill in a way which the government did not like. The government was successful in getting an amendment through the standing committee which overcame whatever Their Honours did to the bill, and it was in that amended form that it came back to us from the committee.
It was perfectly proper for an hon. member to have thought afterwards that what was done in the committee could be improved upon further. I see that that is what the proposed amendment of 'the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra seeks to do, and I think it is an improvement. It achieves the same result, but it leaves us in charge of our own procedures. I commend the minister on winning his battle with the Senate. I commend the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) for improving on what was done in the committee. Perhaps on that note we could pass the amendment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I was concerned about the discussion of this matter and am inclined to agree with what has been said. But I think it points up the fact that more homework needs to be done in committees by the government. That is the point I make. I have made it twice already. We are breaking new ground; we are in a transformation stage; we are all trying to co-operate with regard to the work of committees. I add the addendum that this difficulty might have been avoided. If someone in the government had been closer to the problem, it could have been handled in the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Amendment (Mr. Deachman) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Basford, seconded by-


Mr. Danforth:: There is no minister to second it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -seconded by Mr. Jamieson-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is he?


Harold Warren Danforth: He isn't here.


Mr. Comeau:: Change the roster.


Harold Warren Danforth: That roster is getting pretty slim.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send for the Minister of Transport.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Send him to the Senate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Meanwhile I might read a message from the Senate.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-185, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970; and also
A message informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-172, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, without any amendment.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill S-26, an act to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
March 28, 1989

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Royal Assent
An act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.
An act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
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.
An act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock this house stands adjourned until Monday afternoon at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 31, 1969