1975-04-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
f English]

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity following an answer given Wednesday in reply to a question directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the shortage of Mason jar lids in British Columbia. At that time the minister said "products are available in sufficient quantities". A quick check of four stores in the Okanagan Valley indicated that not one lid was available in any of them. A call to Smithers received the same answer in respect of that area, and word from the Fraser Valley indicates there are none available there. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House direct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to launch an immediate investigation of the situation before the shortage become critical and irreparable.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicated to the first ministers yesterday that the present phase of the consensus program will continue for a few weeks at least, but once again no commitments are being sought at this stage. Could the minister indicate when he will be in a position, or how he plans to be in a position to reach a sufficient
judgment of the outcome of these consensus talks in order to decide how much stimulation is going to be put in the budget which he says he will be presenting to this House before the end of May, particularly in view of his statement to the press yesterday to the effect that the degree of stimulus would depend upon the success of the consensus talks?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I said that was one of the factors against which the stimulus would have to be calculated, and there are others, as the hon. gentleman knows, some of which I outlined in response to his question on Tuesday when I announced that I will be bringing a budget down before the end of May. Consultations with various segments of the economy are now continuing with more precision, and I would hope that we will know whether we have the possibility of a consensus by the end of May.


INFLATION-UNWILLINGNESS OF ONE SECTOR TO EXERCISE RESTRAINT UNLESS OTHER SECTORS ACT IN SIMILAR MANNER-MECHANISM FOR ENFORCEMENT OF GUIDELINES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, 1 noticed that the minister said in his statement yesterday, and I guess we would all have to concur in this, that he found that no group was willing to exercise restraint unless it was absolutely certain that others were going to accept a similar or corresponding degree of restraint at the same time.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister how he proposes to meet this essential precondition when he and his colleagues unilaterally rule out all mechanisms that could in fact enforce that kind of certainty, which certainly cannot be provided by the resurrection of the Prices and Incomes Commission or anything of that sort?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government is relying on the facts and the evidence of the potential danger facing this country if there is not moderation in every aspect of the economy. When you look at the inflation rate, although some moderation was announced in today's figures, you will see it is still running at an annual rate, April over April, of 11.2 per cent, although the first three months of this year show it has been reducing to a rate of 7 per cent. That is not a satisfactory situation. The unemployment rate is at 7.2 per cent seasonally adjusted and our costs are rising in productive terms at roughly twice the rate of that in the United States. These facts are not only evident to everybody in the House, but as well to the leaders of every

April 11, 1975
Oral Questions
segment of our economy. On the basis of that fact, I feel confident that we can come to some sort of understanding.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, these facts were, of course, apparent to everybody about a year ago, and the minister has been fooling around with these talks in a great shroud of secrecy for some five months. In view of the minister's statement that he found that everyone was strongly expressing the need for leadership by the federal government, and I understand this was his expression although I was not present and did not see any TV clip, I should like to know whether the minister was able to say these things to the first ministers with a straight face?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, although the conference had its lighter moments that was not one of them. The premiers all feel that the situation is very serious, and they were interested in my proposition. I was encouraged by their response and we have their undertaking to co-operate in an effort to bring this consensus to fruition by the end of May.


INFLATION-INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY BY BANK OF CANADA AS AN EXAMPLE OF RESTRAINT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement once again yesterday about the consequences of unchecked inflation and his recommendation that a program of restraint be adopted, would the minister indicate in what way it is an example of restraint for the Bank of Canada, which is responsible to the minister, to have increased the money supply since December at an amortized rate of 33 per cent, an increase which is perhaps the greatest three-month jump in Canadian history?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman likes to look at these figures on a monthly basis and draw conclusions from the money supply. Last year in terms of the narrowly defined money supply expanded well under the rate of growth of the economy. The Governor of the bank stated in his annual report that the money supply will expand sufficiently to allow some expansion in the economy, particularly in the current cycle, but not so quickly as to provoke inflationary thrusts 12 to 18 months from now. I think the hon. gentleman would be fairer to the statistics if he would look at them over a longer trend.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this question again is addressed to the Minister of Finance in view of his answer. Would the minister simply indicate whether he disputes the figures of the Bank of Canada which indicate that the currency and demand deposits have increased by over $1.2 billion, from $14.8 billion to $16 billion between December 1974 and March 1975?


John Napier Turner: If those are the figures published by the bank 1 do not dispute them, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR EARLIER DATE THAN MAY FOR BUDGET
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has tended to agree with what has been forecast by other economists and groups for several months that the real growth in the country will be virtually zero in this year, would the minister not speed up the introduction of his May budget beyond the time reference he has already indicated?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, of course, is now becoming inconsistent again. He wants stimulus and about 30 seconds ago he wanted some restraint on the growth of the money supply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I ought to recall to the House that the motion which the hon. gentleman brought forward about six weeks ago calling for tax reductions did not have as its purpose stimulus but controlling expenditures, so that although he may retroactively-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Government expenditures.


John Napier Turner: Government expenditures. But what I am saying to the hon. gentleman from Grenville-Carleton is that the burden of his party's motion was not to stimulate the economy at that time but was to control government expenditures. I am not arguing the philosophy; I am just saying it is a little late in the day for the hon. gentleman to get on the bandwagon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PROVIDE JOBS IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's admission yesterday that the economy is not performing as well as he had anticipated, and in view of the fact that he concentrated on inflation during the statements he made at the conference, I should like to ask the minister whether he can say now what specific proposals he has to get the economy rolling and provide jobs now for the average Canadian?


John Napier Turner: I said to the hon. member's parliamentary leader a few days ago that he ought not overlook the stimulus already injected into the economy as a result of the November 18 budget. Further measures, if necessary, will be announced when I bring down the next budget.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's expectations, again at the conference, that it will take about four years to bring inflation down to an acceptable level through the program he has outlined, are we to assume that no significant measures will be taken during that period to stimulate the economy and provide more jobs for the unemployed?
April 11, 1975


John Napier Turner: No; the hon. gentleman should not assume that. He should take into consideration when we are attempting to achieve the growth we need for our labour force that a good deal of our problems stem from slack economies in the United States, in Japan, and in Europe, which affect our exports. The Leader of the Opposition may smile, but the Premier of Nova Scotia was particularly concerned about falling exports from Nova Scotia which affect that particular economy. Mr. Speaker, the reason I said it would take two, three or four years to get inflation back to acceptable rates, whatever that might be, is, first, that it was severely imbedded into the Canadian, American and world economies and, second, that the only way to get it down in a shorter term would be by a fiscal and monetary policy which I do not think would be acceptable to the country or to this House in that it would provoke massive unemployment in Canada.


INFLATION-INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS TO LIMIT WAGE INCREASES WILL APPLY TO OTHER FORMS OF INCOME
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's proposal, a fairly specific one, that wage increases in general should be limited to the targeted increase in the CPI, can the minister inform us what specific limitations he proposes on such other forms of income and on corporations, and how he will enforce those limitations on other forms of income and on corporations, and also whether he proposes that on wages and salaries?


John Napier Turner: That is not exactly how the statement reads. In any event, I said to the conference and to the press afterward that what I presented at this stage was a sketch, not a blueprint. Details of the blueprint are now being evolved by the government in co-operation with the provinces and with those segments of the economy whose consent is necessary.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Considering that the strike by longshoremen in the Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal ports is continuing in a distressing way, can the minister advise the House whether there are bargainings in progress and whether this dispute will be settled within the next few days?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the last part of the hon. member's question first by saying, yes, I hope that it will be settled. The parties are aware of the fact that we have a mediator on the scene, Mr. Charles Poirier, who is recognized as one of the outstanding authorities on the whole industry of the
Oral Questions
ports in this area. He is meeting with the parties, and the parties are aware that he is available to meet them again to try to achieve a settlement as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is a supplementary question I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture.
Taking into account the answer given by the Minister of Labour, can the Minister of Agriculture formally advise the House whether Quebec City area millers still have access to the Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres port terminals and, if not, what steps he will take to assure that these millers will get adequate supply, pending the settlement of the strike?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been injunctions granted for elevators in Quebec, but still picketing is going on there. The employees refuse to cross the picket line. Yesterday in Quebec City over 400,000 bushels of corn were unloaded at the elevator. Other boats are moving into the area with grain, and we are still hopeful that some amiable agreement will be reached so that grain can move through those areas which are in desperate need of grain for livestock and poultry feed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Now that after a long period of gestation the minister has laboured and produced this paper tiger referred to as consultation on inflation, can the hon. member say if the board or boards which he contemplates as being established under his proposals will be given adequate authority to compel various people from different sectors of the economy to appear before the boards and justify increases in prices or wages?


John Napier Turner: I said in my statement yesterday that reference to the board or boards was part of the consultative process itself. We are asking the various sectors of the economy if they feel that a board or boards would be appropriate, and what the terms of reference of those boards should be. The hon. member should recognize that the process we are undertaking is a consultative one and that consultation is an essential part of it. The hon. member might think of ways of reaching more simplistic solutions, but in a free society I believe human involvement should make this possible.

April 11, 1975
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED REARRANGEMENT OF SPENDING PRIORITIES TO STIMULATE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND RELIEVE INFLATIONARY PRESSURE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that there is excess capacity in the residential housing industry, and given the fact that the shortage of accommodation is in itself highly inflationary, will the minister indicate if he is prepared to rearrange the spending priorities of the government at this time to alleviate the critical housing situation and thus reduce inflationary pressures?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the priority to which the hon. member refers is the priority of the government. The National Housing Act has recently been amended by this parliament, and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs introduced his new programs. The hon. lady's concern was echoed yesterday by the ministers of finance who met after the premiers adjourned. They expressed that same priority, and I took note of it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given the fact that both the budgetary measures and the measures of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs have been in effect for some time now and we have seen a further decline in the housing situation in Canada, will the minister say what he is prepared to do immediately, particularly in view of his comment on April 8 in this House where he said that housing is an area which should receive immediate priority?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there will be an appropriate time to respond to that question in more detail.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the government's assistance plan for potato producers announced by the minister the day after the House adjourned for the Easter recess. Since there were a number of elements which were not included in the original announcement which have since come into play, particularly the limitation of two carloads, which has created not only confusion among potato growers but obviously considerably depressed the prices in Montreal and Toronto, can the minister undertake-or would he respond today-to indicate whether there will be any limitation with respect to diversion of potatoes for livestock feed programs, something which is very important both in terms of livestock feed needs at this time of the year as well as the price of the remaining potatoes to be sold for table stock?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, a further meeting took place this week with the ministers from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the provinces most concerned, and also with the ministers from Quebec and Ontario who also have this problem to some extent. A full announcement on the program has been made this morning-hon. members should have it either in their post office boxes or in their offices by this time-outlining in some detail what the program really does or what it tries to do. It amounts to the fact that there should be payments to people with 10,000 hundredweight of potatoes. We are concerned about some of the producers who we feel are speculating in the market and so on, but we are more concerned about those potato growers who have not sold any potatoes and are depending on that as their sole source of income. It is difficult to work out a proper program for the marketing of this commodity at this late date. We were not asked to do so until several weeks ago, and then it required consultation between the ministers concerned for at least three weeks before they obtained a consensus from their producers and processors, and we are hopeful this will alleviate some of the concern that they will not be looked after. The total expenditure we estimated will be somewhere between $12 million and $15 million.


POTATOES-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING NEW MARKETING PROCEDURES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Earlier when the minister was requested by provincial ministers from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to respond with an emergency program now, the minister indicated very clearly that there would have to be a related agreement with respect to changes in marketing procedures. I wonder whether this matter has been covered in the press release-unfortunately, the press release is not available to hon. members at this moment-or whether the minister will be making a statement. I think it is rather unfortunate that such an important question has been relegated to press releases when the House was not in session and now, apparently, press releases when the House is in session without any appropriate statement on motions from the minister.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the agreement we were able to come to with the provinces was one which was demanded. Proper regulations concerning marketing could not be worked out because they wanted it announced by April 1. That is why we made the announcement without the regulations.
In regard to the other part of the question about a new system for marketing potatoes, we are working toward that end, but how quickly we will be able to come to that I do not know. They are desirous of having a new system. We are also, because we have helped them in the last number of years, I think, twelve times out of the predicament in which they found themselves. If they are not desirous of that kind of program, neither are we.

Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago last March I raised a question with the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the regulations in the Family Allowances Act taking orphans off the family allowances list. At that time the minister promised to do something about it. I have raised the matter three or four times since then, and I should like to ask the minister now how long he feels it will take him to persuade the civil servants that the view of parliament should prevail and that all children under 16 should receive the universal family allowance?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the problem is not how long it takes to give instructions to civil servants. I have to act according to the law and the regulations which have been passed under that law. What is required is an amendment to the regulations and there are also substantial financial implications in such a change that are being considered by the cabinet.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the minister to say that even though he promised to make these changes in the regulations a year ago it has taken this long to persuade the cabinet to make such a simple moral type of alteration?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of time. It is a question of the finances involved.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. In view of the fact that four months have passed since the Minister of Agriculture was questioned about reported irregularities in the operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act during his term of office and that the House leader has said Bill C-30 which would repeal the said act will go before the House today, and in view of the fact that the RCMP investigation might not be completed for some time, would the government House leader agree to withhold Bill C-30 at least until the report on the investigation has been submitted?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much connection between the two. I think it is desirable to repeal the act. The other inquiries can go ahead when the minister's estimates are before the committee and, of course, on the debate on the repeal the various points of view can be expressed.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN OLD AGE PENSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister considering a substantial increase in the old age pension in order to stimulate the purchasing power of senior citizens and enable them to overcome the crushing financial burden that inflation has brought upon them?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE TO INCREASE MEMBERS' SALARIES UNTIL AFTER DECISION ON RESTRAINT TARGETS FOR WAGE INCREASES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is based on his statement to my colleague the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville a few moments ago. He said that thus far he has given only a series of sketches and that the details of the blueprint are still being evolved. In view of the fact that the restraint targets with respect to wage and salary increases have yet to be arrived at, or are yet to be agreed upon, will the minister take whatever steps he can to urge the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to delay consideration of Bill C-44, to increase members' pay and allowances, until these targets have been achieved?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the proposed increased figures are prorated over a period of years the question of the targets would be satisfactory within the discussions already contemplated by the various areas of the economy. In any event, the hon. gentleman will undoubtedly have his own view to present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we do not yet know what the targets will be, does the minister not think that this parliament and the government should give leadership on this issue by waiting for those targets?


John Napier Turner: We are giving leadership right across the country, Mr. Speaker. It is up to parliament to decide the immediate problem before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How can the
minister say that with a straight face?
4720

April 11, 1975
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and I should like to say to him that perhaps yesterday was a bad day for him. I can understand that because really his optimism is lying in shambles at his feet. When, a few moments ago, he expressed his confidence in the consensus program on which he embarked, or on which he is to embark, was he serving notice to this parliament and his colleagues in the government that if that program does not work he will leave the ministry which he occupies at this time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. gentleman is having a rather bad day today. I hope he will consult with his own leader who said yesterday that, although he might have some doubts about the procedure, he would give whatever support he could to a sincere effort to cope with the inflationary difficulties of this country. I recommend that to the hon. member.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister use his memory and recall that the leader of my party said that we will support any sincere effort by the government with respect to the consensus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Environment.
Because of the ravages caused by the spruce bud worm in New Brunswick, Maine and Quebec in the last few years, can the minister tell us whether the federal government has reached a decision on the amount of financial assistance it will be able to give that province this year?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the funds earmarked for spraying trees infested with the spruce bud worm had been cancelled. Because efforts are being made this year to convince me that the epidemic may be more serious than in years past, that it could become even worse, I am in the process of looking into what steps I could take to alleviate somewhat the gravity of the situation.


ALLEGED DIVERSION OF SHIPMENTS FROM WEST COAST TO EAST COAST-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Yesterday I asked the minister to report to the House on the diminution by 10 million bushels a month in the amount of grain moving out of the port of Vancouver. Admittedly, although I raised the question only yesterday, the Wheat Board had announced on April 3 that there has been considerable discussion of this subject, especially on the west coast. Can the minister give the House any information.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have talked with the commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board about the reported statement to which the hon. member alludes. The matter to which he made reference had actually occurred long before April 3. The statement in no way indicates any lack of performance at this time. As I indicated to hon. members yesterday, performance on the west coast is very good. The comment made during the course of the labour dispute was merely to the effect that such problems on the coast might indeed lead to a change in the attitude as to how much can be accommodated at any one time; but that would be subject to review and I have no doubt that the port will continue to perform at high levels.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for looking into this matter immediately and reporting. May I ask a supplementary question. Was the minister saying that there is not a policy for reducing by 10 million bushels a month shipments from the port of Vancouver, because this suggestion has appeared in the press.
(


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say to hon. members that the Canadian Wheat Board will look at the capacity of the port, and at sales opportunities. In balancing sales opportunities from the east and west, it will make as full use of the port as seems feasible. As sales opportunities present themselves, we foresee that the west coast will be handling record volumes again.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of current indications that cattle feeders are now planning to sell most of their fat cattle just before August 11, the final day of the minister's first year support policy, will the minister give serious consideration to announcing immediately the new price support level for the second year, to reinforce his previous policy announcement, namely, that the beef stabilization program is to be continued after August 11.
April 11, 1975


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that we have ample time to make the announcement so that cattlemen can plan their marketings in proper fashion.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to make the announcement before the end of the first year's support program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, yes, we do, to give the cattlemen ample time, because we do not want to see a rush of cattle to the market in the last month before August 11. We want proper and orderly marketing and we realize that we will need to make the announcement some time ahead of that date.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which arises from a phrase he used when answering the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. Unless I am misquoting him, he referred to bringing inflation down to an acceptable level, whatever it may be. Can he tell the House and country what he considers to be an acceptable level of inflation, so that, when trying to reach this elusive consensus, he can define what he is trying to achieve in this regard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have a better idea of that when we bring the blueprint before the House in due course.


INFLATION-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION HOW GOVERNMENT ADOPTING A MODERATING STANCE TO COPE WITH PROBLEM
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since federal government spending has increased by over 28 per cent, as measured by the estimates of last year and the estimates of this year, and as the money supply is increasing at an annual rate of 33 per cent, can the Prime Minister explain how the government is adopting a moderating stance, to cope with the problem of inflation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, not in answer to a question.


INFLATION-SUGGESTION ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT IS SUBSTITUTE FOR LEADERSHIP
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A little while ago there was an election, during which the Prime Minister said that we had made some progress and that the problem of inflation was world-wide. Statements made this week suggest we have made progress, to the extent that we have reduced
Oral Questions
the problem of inflation to three factors, namely, the use of consensus, the energy conference and the result therefore, and what happens in the United States, and there has been little progress there. As the ministers of finance are not even meeting today, although they are supposed to, which takes care of the elusive consensus, and as the energy conference did not produce any concrete results-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated briefly on Monday the desirability of keeping preambles to questions to a minimum, particularly to supplementary questions, to which, if possible, there should be none. In view of that admonition, and as the hon. member has perhaps continued for long enough, could he ask his supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, what I said was not a preamble to my question. It was part of the body of the question. I was asking about the three factors which the Minister of Finance said this week related to the budget and when the government will finally come to grips with inflation. I dealt with the first two factors, the consensus and the energy conference. As for the U.S. problems, anyone looking at television last night would have seen how unsettled conditions there are. In view of all this, will the Prime Minister be as realistic and factual as he was when he was a writer and finally admit that the whole consensus search is just a charade and a cop-out from leadership on the question of inflation.


INFLATION-SUGGESTED EXISTENCE OF CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLS-POSSIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In a newsletter to his constituents, the Minister of Labour, after saying that the government had found it necessary to establish a prices review board, went on to say, and I quote:
The government also has a contingency plan if for some reason this board fails in its effort to control prices. The contingency plan would involve the establishment of a form of wage and price control, which you have shown your concern for in the last questionnaire which was returned to me.
Some 62 per cent of the minister's constituents agreed with this form of contingency plan. Can the Prime Minister now say if this form of contingency plan is still on the shelf, and what does it take to make this government implement it.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We established earlier this week that unless the question of privilege or point of order raised during the question period is of immediate urgency, it must wait until twelve o'clock.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member raised that same point several months prior to the last election. On each occasion he has failed to indicate the date when that letter was sent out, which leads to all sorts of misunderstanding and misrepre-
29557-24'/2

April 11, 1975
Oral Questions
sentation. This letter was sent out at a time when the government was considering contingency plans and inflation was due to many different factors than it is today.
mistaken. As for the policy on regional rates, there are pros and cons. The government favours a policy of regional rates for federal employees in general.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has evaded the question. In light of the fact the prices review board has not been any great success, and in light of the fact the consensus seems to be mythical and elusive, notwithstanding what the Minister of Labour is talking about, can the Prime Minister now advise whether the government has a contingency plan involving a form of wage and price controls such as they had in June of 1973 and what it takes in order for the government to face reality and bring in the same?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that I was not evading the question by allowing the Minister of Labour to stand up. I knew that, if given a chance, he would point out the shabby practice in which members of the opposition indulge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, this matter is too important for me to be playing games with the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now answer my question or are we to conclude that he and his government are bankrupt in terms of presenting any type of plan in order to deal with inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that the hon. member is playing games by reading a quotation without indicating the date of it. It is something which goes back a considerable amount of time.


* *
*


OIL-AMOUNT BY WHICH GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO INCREASE PRICE AND JUSTIFICATION THEREFOR
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of his statement at his press conference yesterday to the effect that if no agreement can be reached with the provinces, the federal government intends to raise the price of crude oil unilaterally under Part II of the Petroleum Administration Act. I have two brief questions. First, by how much per barrel does the government intend to increase the price of crude oil? Second, what justification is there for any increase in price in view of the exorbitant profits which the oil companies have made out of the present price of $6.50 a barrel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I indicated at the conference and at the press conference following was that we were still hoping a consensus would be reached. However, since it is impossible tp predict that with certainty, I indicated that we would be proceeding with the Petroleum Administration Act. This would put the government in a position where it would be able to exercise its constitutional powers, if and when this consensus could not be reached, and if and when some provinces unilaterally envisage or contemplate a raise in price which we felt was not in the public interest.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the government proposed regional wage rates in the collective bargaining that is now going on with firefighters who are employed by Transport Canada airports across the country? I will ask my supplementary at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: I can sit down and get up again as everybody else does or save time. It does not really matter to me. Is there any evidence where the regional rates are paid that the cost of living is any higher than in the rest of the country? Where is the fairness in the regional wage system?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to those negotiations, I believe the problem was this: the union chose to go to arbitration and the matter is now before an arbitrator, if I am not


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the Prime Minister has said the government has decided reluctantly that an increase in price is warranted, will he now advise what justification there is for an increase in price in view of the substantial profits which have been made on the basis of the present price and if the reason for an increase in price, as the Prime Minister indicated to the conference, is the need for increased exploration? What steps does the government intend to take to ensure that any increased revenue to the oil companies will be used for exploration when they have not used their present profits to bring about increased exploration in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, every premier and myself, at the conference and publicly over television, gave reasons why the price would have to go up. Some said at this time and some said subject to various conditions. I do not see any possibility in the space of the question period of summing up all those arguments which were made publicly. I will send the hon. member a copy of my speech if he has not had an opportunity of reading it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have read the Prime Minister's speech several times. The House is entitled to some information. If the government is convinced that an increase in price is
April 11, 1975

required in order to supply a cash flow to the oil companies, and they have not used the very large cash flow they have for exploration, in fact exploration has declined, surely the government has some program in mind to ensure that any increase in price does result in increased exploration for oil in this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not only do we have some program in mind, but many steps have already been taken. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, over television the day before yesterday and at the press conference yesterday, indicated some $2 billion had been committed by the federal government since January 1974 to ensure further exploration and development of energy in Canada.


OIL-CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT SET PRICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Understandably, he would like to see a general agreement among all the provinces and his own government with regard to the price of oil and natural gas. However, when the Prime Minister contemplates fixing a price unilaterally by the federal government in the absence of an accord, is he thinking in terms of an accord with all provinces, including the consuming provinces, or is he thinking in terms of the necessity of an agreement between the federal government and the producing provinces to avoid the government of Canada having to set a price unilaterally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I still hope that, like last year, we will be able to reach an agreement between all provinces, the consuming as well as the producing. If that does not happen, we are in the area of a hypothetical question and I do not know how to answer at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be argumentative with the Prime Minister. However, it is important that the House know the policy of the government and whether a price would be set unilaterally, according to the policy of the government. If an agreement could be reached between the government of Canada and the producing provinces, would that obviate the necessity of the government fixing a price or prices unilaterally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the Leader of the Opposition, but I wish him to understand that it is the government's preference that there be no unilateral action. If I were to indicate what course I would adopt in the absence of an agreement, surely the provinces would lose their incentive toward an agreement. I would very much prefer all provinces, both consuming and producing, to work toward that agreement and not give them the excuse of saying that the federal government has already decided to act unilaterally.
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY WHEN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES WILL BE REPRESENTED BY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since all other Canadians were represented at these talks on the pricing of oil by their elected representatives, and since his minister of northern affairs, in response yesterday to a question of mine, indicated that in the case of the Yukon and Northwest Territories this representation was the responsibility of the federal government, was the Prime Minister, in stating his views on the pricing of oil at this conference, purporting to express the views of the citizens of the Yukon and Northwest Territories? If not, when is provision going to be made for the people of those two territories to have a voice in conferences such as this through their elected representatives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the arrangements that were made, but the instructions that I gave were that we follow the usual practice, and that is that as members of the federal delegation there be some representatives from the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has his department received submissions and, in effect, made any decision to extend the potato stabilization program that was applied to eastern Canada and the maritimes to Manitoba and other areas of western Canada, or is he introducing a new program for western Canada to alleviate the problems that the producers of potatoes are having in western Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations from Manitoba and from Alberta concerning the problem they are confronted with, and we are considering these representations at the present time. Although they have some problems in those provinces, they are not nearly as large as those in the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer, which seems to indicate that there will not be any assistance for the producers of western Canada, if I read what he has said correctly, how can the government or his department justify coming out with a stabilization program for one part of the country that is affected by the problem and not applying the program equally across the country to assist other affected producers in much the same manner?

April 11, 1975
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, at the time the request was made for aid for the maritime provinces, prices in Alberta were averaging $4 a hundredweight, $3 a hundredweight bulk delivery from Manitoba. Since that time one of the delivery points for Manitoba in the United States has gone bankrupt. However, I will consider the hon. member's representation, and if there is need we will come up with a plan to assist those producers who are in financial difficulty as a result.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the present trend toward the militant Communist-led left in our NATO ally Portugal, has the minister any plan for reassessing Canada's diplomatic role with this country, and will the minister be giving leadership to western democratic countries by supporting the United Kingdom's request for an urgent summit meeting of NATO countries in May?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter part of the question, the answer was given yesterday, both by the Acting Prime Minister and myself. We are certainly in agreement in principle with the concept of a NATO summit. We are asking some questions about the timing, but we have expressed a willingness, if the meeting is to take place, to be present.
With respect to Portugal, I believe the situation is not sufficiently clear at the moment to undertake the type of action that the hon. member suggests. An election is to be held in that country and we hope this will provide the people of that country with an opportunity to elect in a free way a government. Following that election would seem to me the appropriate time to assess the situation. I would assure the hon. member that the matter is under very close study, and following that election it may be possible to make a clearer judgment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has stated that there will be freely held elections in Portugal. I would ask him to explain how this can be possible when one party has been ruled out of entering the list in that particular country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As a matter of fact, I did not state that freely held elections would take place. Certainly, it is my view-and this has been urged upon the Portuguese authorities-that the greatest possible opportunity should be afforded the people to select their representatives in a freely conducted election.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister since it involves at least four departments, fisheries, environment, industry, trade and commerce, external affairs, and possibly national health and welfare. Since American fishermen are laughing all the way to the banks-the fishing banks and the financial banks-over their country's ban on Canadian caught swordfish, though their own state swordfish markets are big, would the right hon. gentleman cause this whole matter to be looked at again with determination to correct what has become an injustice against Canadian fishermen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I realize the matter does concern several departments and that it is an important one. I will undertake to seek an answer and advice regarding the question asked by the hon. member.


THE ARTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. On Wednesday I asked the minister whether his department has established any criteria to define what is pornography when allocating Canada Council grants for the arts. His answer, as recorded at page 4644 of Hansard, was "Of course not". Does the minister not make a distinction between the right of free expression of an artist who is self-supporting and the artist's responsibility when living on the largesse of taxpayers' contributions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the rather amazing answer the minister gave my colleague from Victoria the other day, could I ask the minister whether he would advise the House if it is the irrevocable decision of his department to proceed with the acquisition of approximately 700 acres of land in the Columbia valley region of British Columbia for the purpose of extending CFB Chilliwack?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we do have options to purchase a little over 400 acres in the Chilliwack area, and we are negotiating the possible purchase of an additional 200
acres.
April 11, 1975


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the alleged unethical procedures used in seeking options on some of the properties involved and the effects upon the whole valley of the establishment of a project such as is contemplated, would the minister assure the residents that his officials will be present to discuss with them on a mutually satisfactory date the total program?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. No purchase has been made and I would be pleased to make the arrangements to have officials meet with any citizens who are interested in this land transaction.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, on Monday we will be calling Bill C-32, the Petroleum Administration Act.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order simply to ask you, as Speaker, in preparing your comments and directions regarding the experimental question period, to give consideration to the deliberate practice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when answering questions to speak as slowly as possible in order to consume time during the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I welcome the opportunity to indicate to the House that it will be my pleasure to give a statement to the House on Monday. It will not include any comments on the quality or word rate of any members of the House of Commons.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Food Allocation Programs for the fiscal year 1975-76.


BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes
Order Paper Questions
and Proceedings]
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which might come close to being a question of privilege. It concerns the tabling just a moment ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) of a report in respect of food allocations for 1975-76.
In view of the importance of this matter in terms of Canada's role last fall at the food conference, and the importance of continuing dialogue in this regard, I rise on a point of order in that the minister had tabled what I hope is an important document on the eve of his departure: he will be out of the country for I do not know how long, thus making it impossible for members to question or examine him on this document either in the House or in the committee. I hope it will not become the standard practice of ministers to table important documents and then disappear for a considerable time, thereby not allowing the House to deal with these matters of importance.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,532, 1,602, 1,883, 1,906.
Mr. Speaker, if starred question No. 1,789 could be made an order for return this return would be tabled immediately.
I would ask that question No. 637 be made an order for return, and also ask the consent of the House to tabling immediately the information which has already been submitted, and the balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Secretary of State receive a letter dated December 3, 1974 from the Member for Leeds asking for certain information requested by the Brockville and District Branch of the Canadian Federation of University Women and, if so, has it been answered and on what date and, if not answered, on what date will it be answered?
2.	Did the Secretary of State receive a follow up letter of January 30, 1975 on the same subject and, if so, has it been answered and on what date and, if not answered, for what reason?
3.	Is it usual practice for the Secretary of State to allow over two months to elapse without acknowledging his mail and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Will the Secretary of State take steps to have his mail from Members of Parliament and the public answered in less than two months?

April 11, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
Yes, the letter in question was answered on March 5, 1975.
2.	Yes (See answer to part I).
3.	It is the practice of the Secretary of State to acknowledge correspondence within ten days of receipt. However, under certain circumstances, when the substance depends on events or decisions beyond the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, replies must be delayed.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Railton: 1.	Is it the policy of the government to diversify trade and to direct it towards the EEC. Iran, Japan and other areas of the world?
2.	Have Canadians been penetrating businesses in the USA and, if so, how does the government intend to assist Canadian businesses to increase their export trade? ,
3.	(a) Does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce encourage business to attend trade fairs in these foreign countries (b) does the Department financially assist companies wishing to visit distant countries for the purpose of increasing their trade?
4.	(a) How effective is the trade diversification programme of the Department (b) what is its future to be regarding a percentile re-direc-lion of exports to these countries from the USA?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, the policy of the government is to encourage the further diversification of Canadian trade to a number of important foreign markets while at the same time maintaining and enhancing our trade and economic relations with our traditional trading partners.
2.	Yes, Canadian firms are increasingly active in the US. market. Many of these firms receive assistance in their marketing efforts through a variety of programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In addition, the services of Canadian Government Trade Commissioners and qualified trade staffs are available in 14 major U S. business centers.
3.	(a) Yes, the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce actively encourages and assists businesses to attend, and participate in, important trade fairs throughout the world, (b) Yes, the Department financially assists companies to visit foreign countries for the purpose of increasing their trade. This is mainly accomplished through the Trade Fairs and Missions Program as well as the Program for Export Market Development (PEMD).
4.	(a) Canada's exports have increased to a number of important markets such as the EEC, Iran and Japan where the department has undertaken a considerable number of trade promotional activities, (b) No particular percentile goal has been set for this diversification program.


Mr. Neil: For the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, what was the total grant paid to each province under the Federal-Provincial Programme for bilingualism in education to promote (a) English (b) French?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
following is a list of funds distributed for (a) French language projects (b) English language projects and (c) projects involving the two official languages indiscriminately:
(a) French (second language and minority language)
Provinces	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74Newfoundland	123,485	181,629	194,891	165,131Prince Edward Island	101,490	128,905	115,589	125,501Nova Scotia	733,615	847,575	808,857	721,869New Brunswick	3,690,660	6,664,993	5,724,308	6,459,163Quebec	0	0	0	0Ontario	12,164,400	21,438,234	18,083,862	21,623,189Manitoba	849,557	1,133,693	1,176,301	838,906Saskatchewan	597,063	432,914	671,654	366,823Alberta	865,359	1,075,811	954,094	747,297British Columbia	883,558	1,018,744	819,857	969,223English (second language and minority language) 1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74Quebec:	29,986,813	42,600,236	34,038,043	38,261,596Other provinces:	0	0	0	0French and English (indiscriminately)	Provinces	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74Newfoundland	-	29,200	28,200Prince Edward Island	-	-	111,840	58,682Nova Scotia	-	-	142,378	72,220New Brunswick	-	-	44,625	121,791Quebec	-	-	127,200	835,965Ontario	-	-	146,979	625,266Manitoba	-	-	12,952	158,611Saskatchewan	-	-	112,615	154,071Alberta	-	-	71,913	137,107British Columbia	-	-	0	49,802
|Mr Cossilt.|
April 11, 1975


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many CWA/WVA cases are handled by the district authority in each province?
2.	What amount of money is being disbursed for Civilian War Allowances and War Veterans Allowances in each province as of January 1, 1975?
External Affairs
3.	How many people are on staff at each district authority office responsible for administering CWA/WVA in each province as of January 1. 1975?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Caseload	2. Disbursement	3. StaffNewfoundland	4,780	* 9,675,559	7Prince Edward Island	1,242	2,573,027	2Nova Scotia	7,784	15,330,817	14New Brunswick	5,417	11,240,464	8Quebec	10,495	18,277,479	13Ontario	29,454	44,036,515	52Manitoba	5,254	7,070,676	8Saskatchewan	3,308	5,222,292	8Alberta	5,834	9,192,573	12British Columbia	12,998	18,169,924	26



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Stevens: As of March 31 in each of the years 1967, 1969, 1971-1973 and 1974 (a) how many Information Service Officers were employed by the government and what were the aggregate salaries paid such officers (b) how many others, while not classified as Information Service Officers, were employed by the government and performed one or more information functions and what were the aggregate salaries paid to such government employees (c) were non-governmental information service agents or agencies utilized and, if so (i) what were their names (ii) what were the fees or other types of remuneration, compensation and expenses paid to each such agent or agency?
Return tabled.



PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY CANADA FROM UNITED NATIONS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I ask leave to
move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. I have given you a lengthy document with my reasons and I will not go through that document now. My only point is asking for this debate on the Greenpeace III is that the trial of Captain McTaggart will begin on May 12.
There is urgency in considering the matter now because this government has stated it will give him assistance, but he is not getting the assistance required. Also, we have the statement by French officials that there was collusion between the French government and the Canadian government in the boarding of the Greenpeace III. I think we should have an opportunity to debate this matter in the House before the trial of Captain McTaggart takes place, in order that he will have the weight of the support of the Canadian government at his trial against the French government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member has indicated, he has given the Chair notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26. While it is customary to indicate that notice has been received, in this case there is some problem with the notice. However, were there not I should point out to the hon. member that I would have no difficulty in ruling that this is not a proper subject for debate under Standing Order 26.
In so saying, may I indicate that notwithstanding the importance of the subject-and, quite frankly, hon. mem-

Trade Marks Act
bers rarely raise a subject under this rule that is not important and worthy of consideration, and this is certainly no exception; it is a very important question-debate on a matter under Standing Order 26 is reserved for matters that present an emergency and an hon. member moves that the House do adjourn because of the emergency nature of the matter.
The matter raised by the hon. member is, by its very nature-supported by the context of the hon. member's remarks-some two years old. The trial which is to take place is a civil trial and is not scheduled for another month. Under these circumstances, it would be stretching the provisions of Standing Order 26 and its interpretation beyond the limits if I were to find that the motion came within the order. I therefore have no hesitation in not accepting the hon. member's proposal.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill S-9, to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to the question of where we send this bill after it is given second reading. Since it is a very simple bill and likely to occasion little debate, and since the committee to which it is referred is overloaded with work, I wonder if there might be an agreement to deal with the bill, after second reading, in committee of the whole.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we would accept that suggestion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the House, then, in respect of the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), if there is unanimous consent that the motion be amended at this time so that the reference would be to a committee of the whole rather than to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is so amended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was not listening carefully, but having spoken with the hon. member for Athabasca, who is in charge of this matter on behalf of our party, I find that while we agreed that the matter should be referred to committee of the whole rather than to the standing committee, we were under the impression that there would be at least limited debate on second reading. If, in fact, the order made was to the effect that second reading be eliminated, that was not the understanding of this party.
I felt I should bring this matter to Your Honours' attention of the House. It was not our understanding that this bill would be sent to committee of the whole without at least some debate on second reading. If that was the order, it was not our understanding or belief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the one who
made the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I was not proposing that there be no debate on second reading. I thought there would be a short debate on second reading and little or no debate at committee of the whole stage. I suggest that the second reading stage having taken place so quickly, and this was no doubt an oversight, perhaps the situation could be corrected simply by allowing the so-called second reading speeches to be made now.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I suggest there is an alternative; either to ask the Chairman to occupy the Speaker's chair and have a second reading debate, or to allow general debate on the first item of the bill within the confines of the committee of the whole. I am sure hon. members can express their views in the same way, unless they are looking forward to a type of proceeding of the House other than second reading stage.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances, and to facilitate the proceedings, I think we agree that we should have what would be the equivalent of a second reading debate on the first item. However, I urge Your Honour, when paying attention to the quality and direction of the debate, to lean lightly on members so that to all intents and purposes we have the same situation as in a second reading debate, except that speeches would be limited to 20 minutes but the same member might be allowed two 20-minute periods instead of one 40-minute period.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair does not have any difficulty in respect of the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River. We will proceed to the consideration of clause 1.
On clause 1.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I did not think the consideration of this bill would move so quickly, but I thank you for your interpretation of the rules in allowing us to have some debate, at least, at this stage that is similar to debate at second reading stage.
I should like to take a few minutes to put before the House the purpose of this legislation which is amending an act that has been part of Canadian legislation for quite a long time and which has had a consequential effect upon Canadians. The introduction of this bill to repeal the
April 11, 1975

Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act marks a significant advance in the continuing development of Canadian drug legislation. So that the House may gain a better appreciation of the government's proposal and policies concerning proprietary medicines, I will briefly outline the history and development of the act, its relationship to the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, and the future of proprietary medicines.

The origin of the term "patent medicine" dates back to the late 18th century, in England, when a royal "patent", or exclusive right, could be obtained for the formula of a medicinal preparation which was claimed to help the sick in some way. Such a preparation was distinguished from the other recognized medicines of the day in that the formulae of the latter were published in pharmacopoeias and, therefore, their compositions were generally known to anyone who cared to consult the appropriate text book. In other words, the compositions of "patent" medicines were kept secret, while the compositions of pharmacopoei-al medicines were public knowledge. The word "proprietary" as in the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, originally indicated that someone "owned" a formula which was, therefore, in effect, a trade secret. Today, however, the term "proprietary medicine" is associated with products which are available to the general public for self-medication.
Early Canadian legislation did not concern proprietary or patent medicines. There were no controls over manufacturers of such medicines and hucksters peddled fraudulent, worthless, even hazardous, products. Some of these cure-all concoctions contained dangerous substances, such as cocaine, strychnine or arsenic, and high concentrations of alcohol. Indeed, one famous preparation, promoted for the relief all old kinds of dreadful disorders grouped under the euphemism of female problems, probably owed most or all of its activity to the 18% of alcohol it contained- added-so the label said-solely as a solvent and preservative.

Some of the most romantic and colourful aspects of the early days of patent medicines in this country were the names of the products themselves and the claims made for them. Our grandfathers and grandmothers guzzled, smeared or otherwise employed such exotic concoctions as Lydia Pinkhams' Compound; Green Mountain Vegetable Ointment for piles, sore throats and swelled breasts; No-To-Bac, "to be used faithfully by those who desired to free themselves from the bondage of the tobacco habit"; Pratts' Healing Ointment, for Man and Beast; Munyon Pills-ads for which trumpeted the advice of, "Doctor yourself; there's a Munyon Pill for Every 111"; and last but not least, Dr. Pierce who offered $500 to women who could not be cured of female weakness by taking his medication. I suppose one might regretfully infer from the latter that in Dr. Pierce's day, as in our own, "female" and "weak" tended to be synonymous all too often.
One famous product was even named Razma. Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to suggest that some hon. members may not know their Razma from a hole in the ground, to paraphrase the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings,
Trade Marks Act
but I hope this brief resume of the romantic past may at least have begun their enlightenment.
Responding to the demands of physicians, pharmacists and the general public, the government passed the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act in 1908 to protect consumers from the hazards of such nostrums or cure-alls. The act was amended in 1919 and has continued in force essentially unchanged since that time. Meanwhile, the number of products registered under the act has decreased. In 1935, for example, there were some 5,600 proprietary medicines; today there are about 2,000.
Mr. Speaker, without delving into the technical details, I would like first to indicate the positive aspects of the present Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. This act, which has served the Canadian public well, recognizes that there should be a class of products that can be used, without undue risk, by the general public, for self-medication. Such products are intended for the relief of symptoms associated with minor ailments, such as headache or indigestion, and they are intended for use without medical supervision. The government believes that such self-medication has an important place in the total health care system and serves to ease the pressure for services on health care professionals.
I want to stress that the provincial governments also recognize that such products should be available to the general public. At the present time, most provinces, through their provincial pharmacy acts, enable the sale of proprietary medicines outside pharmacies. To reiterate, we intend to ensure that future federal legislation will provide for a class of products which can be used for selfmedication, and we have every reason to believe that the provinces concur in our actions and our policy. So much for the positive aspects of the present Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act which we want to preserve.
On the negative side, there is the so-called secrecy aspect of the act, which really has no place in today's modern, consumer-oriented society. The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act permits the manufacturer of a proprietary medicine to keep the medicinal formula a secret from the public, although the Department of National Health and Welfare must, of course, be given access to it. With certain specified exceptions, ingredients are not required to be listed on the label of proprietary or patent medicine products. As already stated, this secrecy provision is no longer appropriate nor is it in the best interests of the general public.
The most logical course, once the secrecy provisions of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act are removed, is to bring the control of proprietary medicines intended for self-medication under the primary federal drug legislation, the Food and Drugs Act. Indeed, it is the opinion of our legal advisers that removal of the secrecy aspects of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act obviates the need for its further existence. Therefore, it is my intention to introduce a new division for proprietary medicines in the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. Authority to do so is provided by that statute and no amendment to the Food and Drugs Act will be required. Because proprietary medicines will then be subject to the Food and Drugs regulations, a quantitative list of all medicinal ingredients will be required on the labels.

April 11, 1975
Trade Marks Act
The new regulations concerning proprietary medicines will contain provisions enabling my Department to respond rapidly to the changing scientific and technological developments in the pharmaceutical field. There will be sections enabling a continuous scientific review of data pertaining to the manufacture, quality control, safety, and effectiveness of proprietary medicines.
For example, where additional information on the safety or effectiveness of a proprietary medicine is considered necessary, the manufacturer will have to supply that information upon request. It will be mandatory for the manufacturer to notify my Department whenever changes are made in the composition of the product since these may affect its safety or effectiveness. Once the manufacturer meets the requirements of the regulations, a certificate of registration will be issued for his product, permitting him to sell the product. However, if in the light of subsequent experience the information submitted is found to be insufficient, the certificate of registration could be revoked. If this occurred, it would no longer be permissible to sell the product as a proprietary medicine.
As I said before, proprietary medicines are intended for self-medication with minimal, or no, medical supervision. Therefore, as with the present Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, certain drugs considered dangerous will not be permitted at all in proprietary medicines. Other, less hazardous drugs will be permitted only within specified limits. To that end, the new regulations will contain a schedule listing both types of drugs. This schedule will, of course, include all those drugs not now permitted in medicines registered under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act such as prescription, controlled and narcotic drugs as well as others.
Permit me to summarize: the new Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act will provide for,
(1)	review on initial registration of the medicine,
(2)	review as the need arises during the currency of the registration of the proprietary medicine,
(3)	review of information submitted by the manufacturer regarding changes in his product which might affect its safety and effectiveness,
(4)	scheduling drugs prohibited or permitted in only limited amounts in proprietary medicines, and
(5)	more readily applying the Food and Drug Regulations to proprietary medicines.

Now I would like to outline briefly the conditions under which various drug products can be sold, and to indicate the concern of my department that we do not disrupt this established pattern unnecessarily. As hon. members know, prescription drugs can be sold on the authorization of a prescription issued by a practitioner. Non-prescription drugs can be sold without such authorization. By virtue of provincial legislation, prescription drugs and those nonprescription drugs not presently registered under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act can be sold only in drug stores or pharmacies. In general, also by virtue of provincial laws, only proprietary medicines presently registered

under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act are available outside pharmacies. Thus, in a pharmacy one can obtain all types of drugs, while in a non-pharmacy outlet one may obtain only proprietary medicines.
Finally, I would like to consider some of the timing involved in this legislation. The bill before us proposes that the effective date of repeal of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act be July 1, 1976. The majority of provincial pharmacy acts contain references to the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. As I have indicated, such references exempt drugs registered under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act from the general prohibition of sale of drugs outside pharmacies. The repeal of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and the transfer of proprietary medicines to a separate division of the Food and Drugs Act regulations will therefore require changes in the provincial acts. I understand that the necessary changes in the various pieces of provincial legislation are considered to be minimal, consisting essentially of the deletion of references to the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and insertion of appropriate references to the new regulations concerning proprietary medicines under the Food and Drugs Act.
As I indicated in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-who has shown great interest in this issue, for which I congratulate him- I have had contacts with my provincial colleagues in connection with this bill. At the federal-provincial conference of health ministers in February, 1974, my colleagues agreed that the federal government could repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and substitute other regulations providing for greater disclosure. Further, the provincial registrars of pharmacy met with officials of my department on October 3 and 4, 1974, and due consideration was given to the changes that would be required in provincial pharmacy legislation. Moreover, there have been extensive consultations with representatives of the industry on this subject. Prompt passage of this bill will enable the provinces to have sufficient time to pass the necessary legislation to ensure a smooth transitional period; I wish to thank the House for its co-operation to date in ensuring prompt consideration of the bill.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that if the House passes this bill, we will have removed the secrecy aspect inherent in the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and will, thereby, make available to the general public essential information by requiring that medicinal ingredients be listed on the labels of proprietary medicines, without interfering with the availability of such products for self-medication. Indeed, as I indicated in reply to another question of the hon. member for Vaudreuil, this bill is intended to protect consumers and to improve access by consumers to information on drugs sold over the counter.


Mr. Holmes:: Mr. Chairman, I assume that while we are in committee of the whole we have an opportunity to make comments and perhaps to intersperse them with questions. If that is the case, that may well be my format. Let me say at the outset that I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Although the bill before us is rather short, I think it is an important piece of legislation, as has been indicated by the minister. I want to tell him at the outset that we agree in principle with the repeal of the
April 11, 1975

Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and its inclusion under the Food and Drugs Act. I was interested to hear the minister make at least brief reference to the regulations. His comments were not detailed and I will have some specific questions related to that. I wish to take issue with the practice of the government, when introducing legislation in which reference is made to regulations which are obviously the important, operative component of a bill, to refuse to include the regulations. I want to stress the fact that while agreeing with the intent of the bill it is impossible for me to comment upon the ultimate effect or success of the legislation without knowledge of the proposed regulations and of the specific details included under the Food and Drugs Act.
I recognize that there is a need in many instances to pass regulations to fulfil the intent of proposed or existing legislation. However, I believe that when such regulations exist or are contemplated, if we are to have a meaningful debate and meaningful input by all those interested in the legislation it is essential for the government clearly to define the regulations either preceding the introduction of the bill, during the debate or certainly when the legislation is before the standing committee. Let me give a couple of examples which have come to my attention in the short time I have been in this House. The first one is Bill C-28 which is on the order paper and is an act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I think it is important. Several provisions of the bill are to clarify provisions of the act for which regulations exist, and the Department of Justice has, rightly, raised questions as to whether there is adequate authority under the act to evaluate and incorporate the regulations under which they are operating. A significant number of the provisions of the bill basically are to clarify these purposes. The point I wish to make is that that bill clearly demonstrates that regulations previously passed by governor in council now form a substantial part of the bill before the House.
In the same bill there is a new feature which gives authority to regulate the care and treatment of animals while in transit, for the purpose of reducing the incidence of sickness and disease. It is an attempt to eliminate losses during transportation and provides for the implementation of regulations affecting the movement of livestock by all forms of transportation. No one questions the intent of the legislation, but I suggest very seriously that a valid judgment cannot be made on the safe and humane transportation of animals or the maximum efficiency and speed in the movement of livestock without a thorough understanding of the proposed regulations.
I strongly urge the government and the minister to establish a mechanism whereby regulations can be thoroughly assessed so that affected parties have a substantive input in the development of these regulations. I find it inexcusable that a government would introduce legislation in which regulations form the important, operative part of the bill yet the House is not privileged to assess these regulations, many of which must be in existence or formulated at the time the bill is drafted. I want to remind hon. members that regulations or proposed regulations are the spawning ground for future legislation, and as such should be part of the debate.
Trade Marks Act
Another bill is the environmental contaminants bill which was recently given second reading in this House. Again I want to stress the fact that extensive reference was made to a schedule and regulations, the details of which are not included in the bill and were not adequately discussed by the minister. This practice has, again, preempted members of this House from assessing the ultimate success of the bill, and perhaps more important, the government's intentions in respect of dealing with environmental health problems.
I am certain that all hon. members can provide additional examples and enlarge on the difficulties they have in assessing the full impact of proposed legislation because of inadequate details with respect to the regulations presented to this House. I would strongly urge the minister, preferably before the completion of the debate, to provide details of the regulations under this legislation to hon. members and interested parties.
I have no hesitation in indicating that the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act has outlived its usefulness-the minister has indicated this-but I also wish to stress that it has served a useful purpose in our over-all approach to drug therapeutics and I hope some of the positive features of the act will be retained. The minister has also made reference to this question.
Those involved in the delivery of health care have long recognized that medication for minor ailments should be available to the general public without the necessity of having to obtain a prescription. Let me give two examples of the importance of this modality of treatment. If one reviews the World Health Organization estimates, one will find that 63 per cent of drug treatment is self-medication. I refer to "View from Ottawa" of March 3, 1975, "Report on Use of Non-Prescription Drugs Released" and quote as follows:
A preliminary government report on the use of non-prescription drugs by Canadians showed that about half of those surveyed used at least one drug daily. Vitamins accounted for the largest proportion: about 37 per cent of respondents reported daily use. Another 7 per cent said they used cold medicines daily, while another 10 per cent used cough medicines daily. Over the year preceding the survey, 96 per cent of those sampled said that they used at least one remedy-type drug, and two-thirds reported using three or more.
I think these two examples will be some indication of the importance of self-medication. I want to say that with minor restrictions I believe this feature should be preserved. To do otherwise would place an unrealistic burden on the health care system, add substantially to the over-all cost of delivery of health care services and, most important, remove a form of treatment which has benefited thousands of Canadians, with the support of the majority responsible for the delivery of health care. On the surface, the most important feature of the bill-the minister has referred to this matter-is that it removes the secrecy provisions which exist at the present time. As hon. members know, the present situation does not require a quantitative list of ingredients on the labels of drug products which come under the Food and Drugs Act. At the present time, the ingredients are secret, known only to the manufacturer and the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Citizens have become more conscious about the quality of products and

April 11, 1975
Trade Marks Act
the associated environmental health hazards and are seeking full disclosure and information on available products.
The minister indicated previously, and again during the debate, that the regulations controlling proprietary medicines will contain provisions enabling the regulatory authorities to respond rapidly to changing scientific and technological advances in the drug field. This implies that the regulations will contain sections enabling a continuous monitoring program and scientific analysis of data pertaining to the manufacture, quality, safety and effectiveness of proprietary medicines.
As I indicated at the outset, it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of the bill unless more substantial information is applied. I would like to ask some questions on this point: the minister may wish to make note of them and respond at a later time. Who makes the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act? Is it the minister? Is it the governor in council? What input do these bodies affected by the legislation have? The minister has made reference to the provinces. How extensive has consultation been with the provinces with respect to their pharmacy acts? As I recall, the minister said there seems to be some agreement, and I am sure he recognizes that we must have some indication as to their agreement with the whole principle of self-medication as enunciated by the minister in including this present bill under the food and drugs regulations.
Have the various provinces amended their present pharmacy acts so that we can be certain that this new format will be included in that for which the provinces will be responsible? Since this is under a new division-I think the minister mentioned this-of the Food and Drugs Act, does this imply that proprietary medicines are subject to all the regulations existing under the food and drugs regulations? Will there be other, separate regulations with respect to proprietary medicines? I think this is most important because there are some differences. The minister indicated that there will be a schedule, and he mentioned some of them; but will there simply be a list of drugs which can be included as proprietary medicines? Will there be a list of thousands of proprietary medicines in the form of a schedule? I am not quite clear on that and I hope the minister can enlarge on it.
I think the minister is also aware that at the present time there are hundreds, probably thousands, of proprietary medicines in existence. I will comment in a moment or two on the quality assurance of drug program; but does the minister visualize a similar type of program in terms of the safety and efficacy of these various drugs under the proprietary medicines bill? Another matter is, Mr. Speaker, that it is not unusual to see rapid changes in proprietary medicines. The minister made some reference to that question but did not say how he plans to monitor them. Will there be consultation with the industry to ensure such monitoring?
I want to ask the minister about drug identification numbers. I am sure he is well aware of the controversy which arose when that particular regulation was introduced. I have received a good deal of correspondence about it and have talked to many people involved in pharmacy. A lot of people felt that the program was costly and the

results of questionable value. I should like to ask the minister whether anything will be done about the drug identification numbers program as it presently exists. I am sure there are many other questions that will be raised. As I indicated previously, if we are to have input of value with respect to this type of legislation, I think it is most important that the regulations be made available to interested parties.
The minister has not made reference to the safeguards he plans to ensure the quality, safety and effectiveness of drugs if we are to provide the Canadian public with safe and effective proprietary medicines. I now want to say something about the QUAD program. I know the minister is aware that I have not been too happy with the government's performance in managing the quality of drugs in Canada. I spoke on this matter on April 3, 1973, in the House. I believe the Canadian public has been misled and that those people involved in the health care delivery systems in the industry, and even in this House, have been misled.
I want to remind this House that when the present government first embarked upon a program of quality drug control it was introduced as the quality assurance of drug program. When the program was introduced, the Canadian people were informed that quality would be guaranteed, and this has been a permanent impression with the majority of Canadians. I want to bring to the attention of hon. members, however, that shortly thereafter the government reversed its decision and introduced the drug quality assessment program. I am certain the minister recalls his difficulties with that particular program. The minister has yet to tell the Canadian people that there is no guarantee of the quality of drugs. At this time the health protection branch is simply testing drugs at random and has not fulfilled its commitment to the Canadian people to guarantee the quality of all drugs.
I have referred to the secrecy aspects of the existing legislation and the necessity of abolishing this archaic approach. I have also stressed the importance of the quality of drugs. There is a third area that has received little of no government attention, however, and that is the problem of drug reactions. Let me put the question in its proper perspective. I should like to quote from the summary of an article entitled "Drug Reaction Control" which was written by Campbell and Napke, the latter person being chief of poison control and adverse reaction programs of the Department of National Health and Welfare. This article which was published in June, 1974, begins with these words:
The incidence of drug adverse reactions (DAR) in hospital patients varies according to the intensity of monitoring from a low of 5 per cent to a high of 35 per cent. As many as 5 per cent of monitored patients may suffer DAR on admission to hospital, while more than 3.5 per cent of in-hospital deaths have been drug-attributed.
From this, the direct and indirect costs due to this problem are readily apparent. As I indicated, the government's initiative in this area is essentially zero, despite the introduction of this bill and the implication that by listing the ingredients the problem will vanish. I want to emphasize that there are two principal bodies which have called for this legislation, in my view. The first is the health care delivery system because of the growing awareness of drug adverse reactions and interactions, thereby creating a
April 11, 1975

demand for more information on the individual ingredients in medical formulation; the second is a more enlightened public which is demanding to know more about the medication it is receiving.
These observations lead me into the broad problems of drug advertising and marketing practices, both of which play an important part in the problems of drug misuse and drug reliance. It is essential to reassess the general practices and techniques as applied to the marketing of drugs for medical utilization. In my view, if one assesses the present techniques of advertising as evidenced in journals and direct mail to physicians, one may conclude that these contribute in a negative manner to the prescribing habits of physicians and to patient risk. There is need for a thorough re-evaluation of the Food and Drugs Act in this area. We must recognize that the advertising of all drugs, including non-prescription drugs, is potentially harmful and because of the visual impact, particularly on children, we must reassess the advertising of drugs on television.
There is an obvious need to emphasize the educative component regarding the use and misuse of drugs. There is a need to emphasize the positive by informing people about the problems of side effects and the dangers of over-reliance on drugs. I am not suggesting tight and inflexible regulations to govern the safety of existing or new drugs, since this could promote therapeutic isolationism. What I am suggesting is that a new attitude is required, one which would alter the present mentality of "above all, do no harm" to "above all, do good". I think if the minister and the government were to adopt this philosophy, then meaningful legislation might be possible.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask, what is the ideal we should strive for in drug legislation? Is it assurance of the safety and efficacy of the prescription drugs available for the use of professionals in the health care system and the safety and efficacy of non-prescription drugs available to the public? If this is combined with instructions for use that are correct and understandable, and if drugs are advertised and marketed in a positive manner, then I believe our drug laws will be immeasurably improved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say. It is our view that the minister has made a case for this bill which in effect calls for the repeal of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, that repeal to be effective July 1, 1976. The arguments for it are, of course, that the act itself has outlived its usefulness and that there are other ways to deal with the matters that were covered by it.
The other important point, of course, is that the element of secrecy which is involved in the old act should be done away with. I think we will all agree that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has made a useful contribution in the remarks he has just made, and we look forward to the answers the minister will give to the important questions that have been placed before him.
The only other comment I want to make is that when the question of drugs comes up, a concern that many of us have is for the cost of those drugs so far as older people are concerned. I was quite disappointed earlier this week when I put a question to the minister concerning phar-
Trade Marks Act
macare, hoping that he would show some interest in it. But the minister's answer in this parliament-I can hardly believe this is the same minister that we had in the last parliament-was "No".


Marc Lalonde: Not at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sometimes his answer is just "No", and sometimes "Not at this time." This morning, when the hon. member for York-Sunbury asked a question about old age pensioners, I think the answer was just plain "No." The minister did not even enlarge the answer to "not at this time."
This is an area of real concern, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that if the government is not prepared to come through with a pharmacare program for all the people of Canada, it should at least start it for old age pensioners and other special groups. I realize that this matter is beyond the confines of this particular piece of legislation, but I hope the minister will say a word on the subject. Generally speaking, although we want to hear the answers to the questions which have been put, we are prepared to support this bill.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words at the third reading stage, which in fact is a second reading of Bill S-9, an Act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act of 1908, which was amended ten years later, and also the Trade Marks Act had the Labelling Act. As far as the Proprietary or Patent Medicines Act is concerned, I believe it has lapsed with the enactment of the Food and Drugs Act.
At the outset, it was better than nothing and even if some concoctions seem a bit childish today, still there was confidence with which to build up patient morale. It is still said that good morale accounts for 50 per cent of the cure.
The minister referred a few moments ago to the somewhat comical names of certain remedies with doubtful virtues. But he said nothing of their psychosomatic effect in those days. I shall remind him that even today, there is for instance the so-called Indian remedies. Although they might be laughed at by a good number of learned pharmacists, they nevertheless have proven curative values. But of course what is involved here today is not the art of medication but the marketing and quality control of drugs offered for sale to the public.
Is quality ensured today? That is the question raised by many people. When people today go to a drugstore or licensed retail outlet, do they really get the drugs they need? Wn my opinion, the reply is much more serious, because even in some drugstores, people often try out new remedies: "Try this pill, if it does not work, you can try another one." This pill often has the opposite effect to that hoped for. The old act is critized, but I believe that today the department must seriously examine these pill pushers and especially formulas, because certain products have been found in drugstores which have now been discontinued and which were sold to cure liver troubles and were ineffective. But these products are still being sold, Mr. Chairman. Things should not remain as they are; the

April 11, 1975
Trade Marks Act
department must continue its work to clean up and steer the country in the right direction.
As for distribution, as I said a while ago, today there is an increasing tendency ... I remember when I started in business I had a grocery store. I no longer have it since I transformed it. We sold several patent medicines. They were much less expensive than in drugstores. As soon as they were transferred to drugstores, about 50 per cent of the drugs that we were allowed to sell were taken away from us, and their price doubled immediately. This was not a victory for the population. I agree that all drugs, especially prescription drugs, must be sold in drugstores. All the drugs which must be rigidly controlled and sold by a specialist must be sold in drugstores. However, we should continue to sell patent medicines in stores, in groceries, to help the population, the ordinary worker, who has a low income.
Mr. Chairman, the policy announced by the minister is a good one since he talked about the possibility of retailers continuing to sell patent medicines provided that they are well labelled, that their ingredients are listed and that the poopulation stops being deceived as it has been in the past and still is today. I hope this bill will open the door to the department so that the health of the population can be protected through the Food and Drugs Act.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could call it one o'clock.


Gérald Laniel: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, this is a very small bill; therefore, it is going through the House without too much discussion. But even though it is a small bill it may have very wide-ranging effects on certain aspects of our society. It suggests the repeal of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and some changes in the Trade Marks Act in order to clear the way for institution of regulations to govern patent medicines. At the present time, patent medicines are kept secret from the public in so far as their ingredients are concerned. The only ones who know the ingredients are the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his disciples, and the manufacturer.
With regard to the secrecy aspect being outdated and indeed dangerous, we agree with the principle of this bill, namely, that this secrecy aspect of patent medicines should be removed. However, we wonder why the minister chose to be so secretive about the regulations which are going to be brought in to replace those acts which are being repealed and changed. We disagree with this kind of government secrecy; it makes it almost impossible properly and thoroughly to debate the pros and cons of the long-term outcome of this legislation.

I would like to know why the minister seems to be carrying on the tradition established by this administration of this passion for secrecy, especially when there does not appear to be anything to hide. There is no reason why these regulations should not have been given to us. I made several attempts, by telephoning the minister's office in the past month or so, to obtain a copy of the regulations. Without providing any reason, each time I was refused. We are not the only ones concerned: the industry involved in the production of patent medicines is concerned. The minister said-I think I quote him correctly-that the secrecy aspect has no place in today's modern society. However, in presenting this bill he is selling the House another patent medicine under the old rules. We still do not know the constituents of it, since the new rules are still secret. Only the minister and maybe some disciples in his department know, but we do not know what they are. That is a rather strange approach to take. There is no obvious reason for it, yet it is being done.
The stated purpose of the bill as it appeared in Debates of the Senate and the minister's speech reminds me of the television advertising of a patent medicine where certain claims are made, but there is no way we can verify whether the medicine will do what is claimed for it because we do not know the ingredients. In this case we have a bill presented as a patent medicine. We do not know what it will achieve in the long run, other than being told that in the future some regulations will be brought in, making a few corrections for improvement. The minister should rise in the House, if he returns to the chamber, or his parliamentary secretary should-who is also capable of doing it-and explain why the regulations have not been presented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I thought I would be nice to her, since this is the first time she is piloting a bill through the House. Perhaps she can give a sensible explanation as to why we were not provided with the regulations in advance. As I mentioned before, the intent of the bill sounds all right. For example, it will be a great help, not just to people in treating themselves and knowing what they are getting but to the medical profession in dealing with patients who have used patent medicines. There may be some side-effects from a patent medicine for which a patient presents himself to his doctor. However, the doctor does not know what was in the patent medicine and it may be difficult for him to interpret why the side effects occurred or what is the best treatment. The same applies to allergic reactions. If you do not know the cause of allergy, it is more difficult to treat it in a reasonable way. Therefore, it is important that the ingredients of patent medicines be known.
It is also important for the public to be able to scientifically verify claims that are made for patent medicines. This leads me into the subject of advertising. We have a situation where manufacturers or distributors of patent medicines can make virtually any claim they please. The public has no way of verifying whether the claim is scientifically true. The only way the public can judge is by taking the medicine and subjectively trying to determine whether they are getting better. That is an extremely unscientific way of assessing the usefulness of a medica-
April 11, 1975

tion. There are all sorts of examples of what I would say is misleading or dishonest advertising of some of these preparations. One of the most obvious examples is various preparations of aspirin, or acetylsalicylie acid. It may be presented in the same quantity, in the same constitution, with a different name as a new treatment for arthritis or even an old treatment for arthritis. Take the situation where a patient will treat himself without medical advice. He will go to the drugstore or to a distributor and ask for something for his arthritis. He may be given two or three different items, all of which claim to be for arthritis but which in fact are the same chemically. In other words, he may get four times as large a dose of the same medicine that any one of the tablets themselves would provide. In other words, I think it is a step in the right direction to state what the actual medications are.
Television advertising of some of these patent medicines might also be worth mentioning. I am irritated sometimes when watching them. For example, you see a picture of a beautiful girl with a headache swallowing a pill, and within seconds a smile comes over her face and she feels just great. I do not think we can describe this kind of advertising in any way other than to say it is extremely deceptive. There is absolutely no physical way in which a headache tablet can relieve pain in a matter of seconds, as the advertisement portrays.
In the regulations to be published, I think we should consider the possibility of a regulation dealing with advertising of this kind. I appreciate you cannot sit and wait for 45 minutes to elapse before the girl in the ad feels better, but some indication should be given in the advertisement that for reasons of time and cost the whole thing is condensed into 60 seconds. Otherwise, I think a false impression is created. We all know that any medication taken by mouth does not reach its maximum effect until the passage of at least 45 minutes or an hour, and possibly even longer. That is why I think this kind of advertising should be corrected.
The most important thing to remember is that further information must be made available regarding the effectiveness of these various medications. There must be made available to anyone who requests it scientific information confirming any claims that may be made for the effectiveness of any drug. Information should also be given as to any side-effects or possible harm that may result. As a matter of fact, this information should be on the label so that people do not unknowingly use a preparation that may have harmful side-effects for them. This is particularly the case with people who may be allergic to certain constituents and who may have other adverse reactions to that medication.
Another situation where patent medicine advertising is rather misleading concerns the various potions, ointments and rubs on the market. An athlete may have a sore shoulder from pitching a baseball too vigorously, so he rubs some lotion on his shoulder. Immediately the pain goes away; or that is the impression created by television ads. We all know this is absolute nonsense. I, for one, have not been able to find any scientific evidence to substantiate beyond a shadow of doubt that the various compounds that are rubbed into the skin to relieve pain from arthritis,
Trade Marks Act
rheumatism or whatever have the slightest pain relieving effect, speaking from the pharmacological point of view.
Where such claims are made, the manufacturer should explain to the satisfaction of the scientific community the mechanism of action involved in producing the claimed effect, and this must be proven by clinical studies, rather than the evidence of someone who may have improved for one of two reasons, either because there was a psychological feeling that there was improvement because some treatment had been administered, or because there was improvement as a result of the effects of nature itself. For example, a painful muscle caused by the excessive exertion of that muscle will get better by itself within three or four days. Some patent medicines may say on the label that if they are rubbed in, within three or four days any pain will be cured. This sort of thing occurs with advertisements for rubs, lotions, and so on. We should inform the public, when this sort of thing happens, that they are victims of a snow job. The public should be informed on the label on the bottle that the medicine contained therein will or may improve the pain condition within three or four days, but that the pain will also go away by itself within the same period of time. Certainly that would be more honest and accurate as far as the public is concerned.
While I agree that the public is entitled to self-medication if that is what it wants-and I am not objecting to that-at the same time there must be accurate and honest information given about these products for self-medication. This is not the case now, and the minister gave us no assurance in his speech that it will be the case after the bill is passed and new regulations are brought in. We have been given no assurance that the public will not continue to be exposed to what in some cases amounts to a sham. I suggest we look seriously at this matter and take steps to correct the situation.
Perhaps I appear to be dwelling a little too much on drug advertising, but there is another aspect that I think is related here. We all know that prescription drugs are not advertised on the public media; such advertising is restricted to patent medicines. It seems to me that in due course these advertisements will have some kind of influence on the psychological attitudes of our young people, people of middle age and, indeed, the elderly, in regard to the value of nature itself in remedying minor ailments compared with the value of some pill or potion. It seems to me that the kind of virtually uncontrolled advertising that we see today is creating the attitude on the part of the public that there must be a pill or a potion for everything.
This sort of thing is destroying the idea that people used to have, that nature will take care of most of the minor ailments, that we do not need a pill or a crutch to lean on every time we have a little headache or a sore muscle from too much exertion, or every time we become a little worried about something. The net effect of advertising patent medicines year after year and decade after decade is to create a drug dependent society, a feeling in society that a drug must be administered immediately if there is some minor thing wrong with us that we do not like. This does a disservice to society and in the long run is harmful. I suggest we must consider the long-term effects of this sort of thing on our children and on society as a whole.

Trade Marks Act
One other aspect, that I have already touched on, is this new attitude on the part of consumers in general. They are no longer satisfied, generally speaking, because of their greater awareness today of what is going on around them, to be given information that is not provable. They are no longer satisfied to be provided with a product with a claim attached to it which is not provable. So far as this aspect is concerned, the bill is useful.
I should like to conclude on this note. The minister indicated that a certificate of registration was to be given the manufacturers of certain patent medicines so that in some way the Food and Drug Directorate can monitor the effectiveness of their preparations in order to see whether they achieve what they claim to achieve. He did not provide any information whatsoever as to whether the Food and Drug Directorate would be involved in testing the effectiveness of these medicines before they are marketed, while they are being marketed or after marketing. He did say there will be some monitoring. I should like to know what testing procedure the department will follow to make sure the public is adequately protected, not only from adverse reactions which may occur but also from false claims that may be made.
It seems to me we should be provided with this kind of information in order that we can be reassured, particularly in view of the fact we do not have the regulations: we should have some assurance that the department will be carrying out thorough testing of these various medicines to ensure that the public is not abused.


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this time I might answer some of the questions raised by hon. members this morning. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Athabasca made reference to the secrecy of regulations. As hon. members will appreciate, it would be somewhat strange if the regulations were published before the bill was passed. It would be almost contempt of parliament to have the regulations before there was an act. I am sure that hon. members will have the opportunity to examine these regulations in detail at a future time in the committee studying the estimates.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent also asked who would be responsible for making these regulations. Regulations are made by the governor in council, and I can assure the hon. member that they will go through all the usual and proper channels before that point. The hon. member also asked whether there had been any discussions with the provinces in this regard. Last February, during the federal-provincial health ministers' conference, the question of the intention to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act was discussed. There have been discussions with the provincial registrars in respect of the new regulations, and I think the minister clarified this in his opening statement to the House. The government's intention is to create a new division under the Food and Drugs Act regulations dealing specifically and only with proprietary medicines, but the general regulations under that act will also continue to apply to that new division. There will also be a schedule that will include a list of chemicals or drug entities not allowed in proprietary medicines.
The hon. member for Athabasca asked who would be conducting the monitoring. I can tell thim that this will be done by the health protection branch. The regulations will also provide for an initial review by the health protection branch of the department and an additional review of the products' safety and efficacy should the need arise within the current term of the registration. There will also be a review of the data submitted for a product should the manufacturer change the formula of the medicine, as well as a schedule of drugs not permitted in proprietary medicines. I think that gives hon. members a clear picture of what will be provided for under the regulations.
Hon. members also asked questions in respect of advertising. It has been brought to the attention of the House that this matter was again raised for discussion at the last federal-provincial meeting of the health ministers concerned. There was general reference to advertising in respect of drugs. I should point out that the health protection branch already reviews all Canadian TV advertisements regarding proprietary medicine. Any new claim in respect of a proprietary medicine would not be allowed unless the manufacturer submitted data to the department to substantiate that claim. The medicine would then be considered a new drug and would consequently be subject to the new regulations.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent also referred to the drug identification number. Under the new regulations, these medicines will be required to have an identification number. Perhaps this will be a different type of number, but it will allow the pharmacists and physicians to identify a proprietary medicine with that number. One must remember that the whole purpose of repealing this act is to allow full disclosure to the public. In other words, they will have knowledge in respect of over the counter drugs; people will be able to recognize the components of the proprietary medicines they are taking and will be able to know if they have had previous allergy reactions in the past. They will know exactly what are the contents.
There was also reference this morning by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent to the quality assurance program. During the first three years of this program, of the drugs examined the failure rate was reduced from 7 per cent, initially, to 4.9 per cent in the following year, and to 3 per cent last year.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her complete answer in respect of some of the questions raised. We will be examining them in great detail to check their accuracy, but I am satisfied that she has done everything she can in this regard. I should like to compliment her. I understand this is her first opportunity to pilot a bill through committee of the whole. Let me say, on behalf of my colleagues, on this Friday afternoon that she has done a commendable job.
Let me now make a suggestion about something she said regarding the practice of this House. The hon. lady said she felt it would be almost contempt of parliament if the regulations were produced before the bill had received the sanction of parliament-and in that sense I refer to both Houses. I cannot believe that some consideration has not been given to the regulations that will be promulgated under this statute. While I understand why the regula-

April 11, 1975

tions are not here at this stage, it would be very helpful to parliament if the regulations which are so vital to the operation of the bill were produced at the same time as the bill, so that members of parliament, and not just opposition members, could study them. This is particularly so when we are dealing with a bill of this nature which is really dependent upon the regulations for its operation.
The parliamentary secretary suggested that at a future time these regulations will be available to members of the House or the members of the standing committee which will deal with the bill. However, they will only be available some considerable time after the bill has become law and perhaps after the regulations have come into effect.
It may well be that members of the committee from all sides of the House interested in this matter would find the legislative process to be assisted if they were given an opportunity to examine the regulations. This is just one bill among many which fall into that category. If members of parliament are to attempt to make a really useful contribution to the understanding by the public of important pieces of legislation, then I would ask the parliamentary secretary to convey that message to the government House leader so that he might consider the matter.
I realize the difficulty which exists in respect of committee of the whole, but not all legislation goes to committee of the whole. It is sort of a legislative accident in this case that the legislation is being considered in committee of the whole. There are bills which on second reading are referred to the standing committees, and at those standing committees it might be very helpful to the legislative process if the regulations were there. While the regulations might not be in final form and could be in draft form, the bill has been on the order paper and has been involved in the parliamentary process for some time. It was introduced first in the Senate, as I read the number. There has been considerable opportunity, in terms of time, for the consideration of these regulations.
I wish to emphasize to the parliamentary secretary that this is not intended as a criticism of the hon. lady or of the government, but I am putting forward the possibility that this might be a way in which the parliamentary procedure could be assisted at a particular time when the government seems to be indicating great interest in changes to the parliamentary procedure.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the reason I made the statement I did is that if the regulations were promulgated it would be anticipating a decision of the House prior to its being made. I went on that assumption. However, I would point out that a portion of the regulations which would also apply to proprietary medicines are already in existence under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have been through the experience so often of trying to get regulations before they are published that I know how difficult that matter is, and therefore I do not intend to drag it out at this point. However, it seems to me there is one point the parliamentary secretary is missing which I think my friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton also missed. They both spoke about regulations being
Trade Marks Act
passed under this statute. Bill S-9 does not give anyone authority to pass anything. When Bill S-9 is passed, the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act will be gone. I suggest that the authority for regulations is contained in the Food and Drugs Act and that authority already exists. If the government wished to level with us and show us the new regulations, it could do so without any contempt of parliament at all.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. lady whether the regulations in total are now ready, or whether there is still a good deal of work to be done in finalizing them.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I am told they are still in the process of preparation.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, during my earlier remarks I asked a question concerning the testing procedures used by the new division set up in the Food and Drug Directorate. The hon. lady said that if any new claims are made, they will have to be substantiated by the manufacturer. However, I am of the impression that some information is not necessarily accurate.
I should like to know specifically what testing procedures will be used by the Food and Drug Directorate, because it seems to me that simple reliance on the manufacturer to provide information about the efficacy of a new drug is an unreliable way to obtain information. It is possible, for example, for the manufacturer of a new drug to conduct 100 different tests, and 95 of those 100 tests might show an undesirable result and five of them the desired result. The manufacturer may choose to provide information by saying that it tested five cases which showed the desirable result, perhaps neglecting to mention the others which showed an undesirable result. I think this happens not only in respect of patent medicines but also in respect of prescription medicines. I want reassurance from the parliamentary secretary that action is being taken to correct this type of situation.


Coline M. Campbell: The minister in his speech already referred to the nature of the regulations respecting this point that will be promulgated out in the future.


Paul Yewchuk: Tell me what the testing procedure is.


Coline M. Campbell: I do not think we have at any time said we would test proprietary medicines for safety and efficacy. Rather, we require that the manufacturer, when registering a proprietary medicine with the health protection branch, submit a protocol for testing, and conform with it before he is allowed to put that patent medicine on the market. I would think the manufacturing industry should accept the onus for satisfying the requirements of the health protection branch concerning the safety and efficacy of their products.


Paul Yewchuk: I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed with that answer. Do I take it to mean that the Food and Drug Directorate simply says that it is not interested in verifying a claim made by a manufacturer, and that in fact it refuses to do the testing and must rely on the information provided by a manufacturer who is in business primarily for profit? I have outlined a possible

Trade Marks Act
example. I am not suggesting that it happens in all cases in which information is provided the government on the efficacy of a drug, but if there is no testing procedure carried on by the directorate, there is a great likelihood that information provided to the government on the understanding that the government will not do any testing on its own, could very well contain some misinformation.


Coline M. Campbell: In answer to the hon. member for Athabasca, the department does review very carefully the research material with a view to verifying claims made by the manufacturer. I have already stated that the health protection branch will set out the criteria which must be followed by the manufacturer before it can place a product on the market. The criteria set out by the health protection branch must be followed. If there is any doubt concerning safety and efficacy of the product, the department would immediately require additional information if the product is to continue to be marketed. I think the hon. member is playing with words, because no manufacturer would want someone else to do the testing of his product. Surely the manufacturer must be required to bring additional information to the department and have it approved.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I did not want the parliamentary secretary to misunderstand my comments. I did not say the department should do the primary testing. Of course the manufacturer must do his own testing. However, I think the Food and Drug Directorate must take steps to ensure that the results from this testing are indeed accurate. There must be some way of verifying the efficacy of these products. However, I will leave this matter for the time being because I do not think any further answers will be forthcoming.
I would like to ask one more question dealing with advertising. The parliamentary secretary indicated that this matter had been discussed at the federal-provincial conference but she neglected to say, or I did not hear her, what the conclusion of these discussions may have been and what corrective action was taken regarding the inordinate amount of drug advertising in this country.


Coline M. Campbell: I will deal with the hon. member's last point first and then return to the first point he made. A study is presently being made of advertising and its effect on sales, and it is anticipated that this study will continue for some time.


Paul Yewchuk: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask whether any study is being carried out to determine the effect of drug advertising via the mass media on the attitude of Canadians toward the need for self-medication or on the use of drugs in general. For example, in the past decade or so we have witnessed in this country a fairly large increase in the non-medical use of drugs of various types. It seems to me that it would be useful to know whether the massive drug advertising to which we have been exposed has in any way contributed to the non-medical use of drugs, on the basis that a phychological attitude is created in people when they are constantly exposed to advertising which tells them there is a drug for every ill. This might induce people to use drugs which do them no good.


Coline M. Campbell: I would like to expand on the previous answer I gave to the hon. member. The study to which I referred examines the role of advertising and other factors in relation to the use of proprietary or patent medicines only.


Paul Yewchuk: What about other drugs such as marijuana, and so on?


Coline M. Campbell: I think that is probably another area of discussion. I would like to clarify the answer that was given earlier by saying that the onus will be on the manufacturer to provide a safe and effective product. The required data must be generated by the manufacturer which would then be studied by the department and conditions attached to the product to the extent necessary before it could be put on the market.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether this study into the effects of advertising on the sale of proprietary drugs is a limited study, or whether it includes other products which are sold over drugstore counters, such as hair preparations to make you the loveliest person in town, body deodorants, oral preparations to give you the freshest mouth in town or pellets which will guarantee that he will kiss you again, and such other products as bathroom tissue which will give your prestige in our modern society. Are such products included in this study?


Coline M. Campbell: In answer to the hon. member's question, the study applies to over the counter drugs and proprietary medicines. It is certainly up to the individual to decide on hair sprays and similar products.


Paul Yewchuk: I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would care to indicate when it is expected the study will be completed, and whether a report will be made to parliament on it?


Coline M. Campbell: The minister has already made public the first phase of the study, and it should be well over a year before the follow-up phase of the study has been completed.


Paul Yewchuk: Will it be tabled?


Coline M. Campbell: Eventually.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Am I correct in assuming that the reason the act will not come into force for over a year is to give the provinces time to make the necessary adjustments?


Coline M. Campbell: The hon. member is correct. The reason is also to allow manufacturers the necessary time to adjust to the changes.


Erik Nielsen: And the territories.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
April 11, 1975
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I must apologize to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). I indicated to him previously that he could make a motion from another place in the House. That is so in committee of the whole. However, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, he must be in his assigned place.
When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT
Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill S-20, to amend the Territorial Lands Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


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


Erik Nielsen: Surely we will have an explanation by the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Speaker?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Campbell) has amply shown that example is the best form of demonstrating a point, and I am pleased to follow the hon. member in presenting a bill for the first time on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan).
I should like to explain briefly the purpose of Bill S-20, to amend the Territorial Lands Act. I should state at the outset that this amendment relates exclusively to one particular section of the act and does not alter the original purpose and intent of the legislation. It is intended to remove an unreasonably stringent requirement and the attendant excessive and arbitrary penalty which may be imposed on an employee of the Crown for non-compliance.
I refer to section 24 of the act which prohibits employees of the Government of Canada from holding any interest whatsoever, either direct or indirect, in territorial land except under the authority of an order of the governor in council. This restriction was present in the Dominion Lands Act, the predecessor of the current act, where it was intended to assure the integrity of transactions between employees of the then department of the interior and private industry. In 1923, the prohibition which covered mining rights as well as land interest was extended to
Territorial Lands Act
apply to officials of all departments of the Government of Canada.
On repeal of the Dominion Lands Act and the coming into force of the Territorial Lands Act in 1950, the seriousness with which the government viewed its employees maintaining the confidentiality of information entrusted to them on mineral potential in northern Canada was expressed in section 24 which is under review. This section went further than the original in that it extended the original injunction to prohibit shareholding or any other pecuniary interest in any company or corporation which might have an interest in territorial lands.
Over the years, it has been the practice for Crown employees to request approval by order in council to acquire or lease territorial land for personal use as a cottage site. This form of direct interest in territorial lands can be readily controlled and regulated within the machinery established to administer the lands in question. Over the 24-year period between 1950 and 1973, inclusive, 632 such orders in council were made. On the other hand, there has not been a single instance of an employee requesting a similar order in council to purchase shares in a company or corporation having any manner of land interest in northern Canada. Short of voluntary or accidental disclosure of any such interest by the employee concerned, there is no practicable way of monitoring whether a Crown employee is in contravention of a shareholding restriction.
This leads to a further consideration which turns on the ability of a person who invests in a company to maintain the overview on its operations necessary to satisfy himself that that company has no interest, either direct or indirect, in territorial lands. Recent extensive exploration activity in the north has seen many multinational companies, insurance companies, mutual investment funds and other financial institutions directly or indirectly having acquired permits and leases on territorial lands. Rights and interests in these lands are often assigned and transferred between holding and operating companies without public knowledge or notice to shareholders. Moreover, only a very small minority of Crown employees are in a position to have access to privileged information from which they might benefit by investing in companies operating in the north. It is patently unfair to deny the majority from investment opportunities which would be made on the same basis of financial risk accepted by any member of the public.
With the promulgation of the conflict of interest guidelines, employees having any interests which could place them in a potential situation of conflict of interest are expected to make the appropriate disclosures. This eliminates the necessity for individual orders in council relating to shareholders-a requirement never practised and, in fact, administratively very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce-while at the same time ensuring the integrity of transactions between Crown employees and the corporate sector. These guidelines could be made to have the effect also of limiting the indiscriminate generality of coverage of the current section 24 of the Territorial Lands Act to the pertinent group of Crown employees who might stand to benefit from privileged information available to them by virtue of their position in government service.

April 11, 1975
Territorial Lands Act
The amendment before us is intended to accomplish this purpose. It will see retained the requirement to have individual acquisitions of land sanctioned by orders in council. It will make more realistic the application of prohibitions on Crown employees in respect of any interests in territorial lands. Finally, but perhaps most important, it will remove from employees the threat of summary dismissal for an innocent contravention of an excessively restrictive and impractical requirement.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite bring myself to refer to the parliamentary secretary as the hon. woman, so I shall have to continue my practice of referring to such persons as "the hon. lady."


Iona Campagnolo: How about the hon. member?


Erik Nielsen: The explanation given by the hon. lady horrifies me in my belief that the minister is unaware of the precise nature of what is being attempted here. It is my understanding that the minister holds the belief that the restrictions prohibiting government employees from acquiring such interests as share interests in companies holding lands, or an interest in lands in the north, should be eased. This is not the case at all. The change is accomplishing the easing of any penalties associated with employees who contravene the prohibition set forth in the act, and that is all it does. It seems to me that it is an unduly harsh restriction which is placed on government employees.
I can understand, for instance, a mining recorder being prohibited from acquiring an interest in mineral claims which are contiguous to an area under active exploration. I can understand a mining recorder being prohibited from acquiring shares in a company which is active in the exploration field and which has produced results which are privy to that government employee and not to the general public. These conflicts are readily understandable, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we must impose a prohibition on a government worker in the department of travel and publicity to prevent him from acquiring shares in a mining corporation. Someone in travel and publicity is not likely to know any more about that than a member of the general public. The broadening of the sections by the bill before us now enlarges the prohibition to prevent any such employee from acquiring any interest in his own name, or through any other person, in any corporation that purchases, or acquires, or holds such lands. It seems to me this places the government employee in the position of a second class citizen and the section should not be extended so broadly.
In her comments on the bill the parliamentary secretary to the minister assured us that the bill does not alter the original intent or purpose of the legislation as it now stands in the Territorial Lands Act. I suggest to her that this simply is not true. It does alter the intent and the purpose of the section because there is no prohibition in the section as it now stands which would prevent a government employee from acquiring an interest, by way of shares, in a corporation that purchases, acquires, or holds lands or any interest therein. It does indeed alter the intent of the section to that extent.

The hon. parliamentary secretary touched on what is a sore point in the Yukon, and I am sure in the Northwest Territories as well, when she said that the acquisition of land by government employees is readily controlled by the administrative structures in place now. I am sure she is completely unaware of the impossibility-I was going to say "next to impossibility" but I think I can use the term absolute impossibility-of the ordinary citizen acquiring lands in the north at all. For years it has been difficult to do so.
A few years back when I wanted to buy a piece of land I had to have a reference from this House before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections because of some over-bearing bureaucratic decision that by buying a piece of land from the federal Crown I was somehow interested in a contract with the Crown. That was very quickly cleared away, but that is the kind of approach that the bureaucrats have in the administration of Crown lands in the north which come under the jurisdiction of this act. They feel that they own the land and that in no way is the ordinary citizen going to get a look in, so to speak.
It is simply impossible for a person to acquire any lands in the Yukon and I can cite example after example after example. A press release recently issued by the minister said that all applications for agricultural lands are now cancelled and there will be no more disposition of agricultural lands in either of the two northern territories for two to three years. That is a great agricultural policy, Mr. Speaker.
The bureaucratic mind, 4,000 miles from the site, concluded that there is no possibility of a viable agricultural industry in the north and that therefore no lands will be allotted for that purpose. Recent press reports in Yellowknife told of a family who had gone to live in the Northwest Territories from Quebec and were running cattle on slightly over 40 acres of land. Then the minister's press release was issued, the lease was cancelled and the family has to get off the land-right now. I am sure my colleague from the Northwest Territories will know the case I refer to, and there are even sharper injustices that I could cite all afternoon.
People who have been in possession of agricultural leases in the Yukon for well over a quarter of a century have found that the leases have been cancelled and there is no opportunity to have a new application considered. I know of one person, born and raised in the Yukon, whose grandfather was a member of the Northwest Mounted Police there. This man had an application for agricultural acreage approved by the branch, approved by the commissioner on behalf of the minister, and now has been told that he must get off the land, and further, that if he does not move his ten head of registered Appaloosa horses off the land they will be confiscated because they are trespassing. He was told that he should go back to Alberta where he came from and homestead there. That is the attitude of this most far seeing, thoughtful and innovative government in its agricultural land policy in the Yukon Territory.


Walter David Baker: That is the just society.


Erik Nielsen: I believe the hon. parliamentary secretary when she says that ordinary administrative structures control the acquisition of land by government employees in the north. You had better believe it. And they apply not only to government employees but to any other citizen in the north who wants to pursue agriculture as a way of life.
I can understand a certain amount of hesitation on the part of government structures which have been erected to protect all of us with respect to the disposition of our resources in the light of possible speculation. But where you have an individual who wants to invest several thousands of dollars in the bona fide acquisition of a piece of land, he should be allowed to purchase the land and develop it without direction from the government.
A few moments ago I referred to a constituent who was having difficulty in obtaining land for agricultural development. He went to the trouble of sending soil samples to Beaver Lodge, the federal government experimental farm in the Yukon, in order to have them analysed to prove that something could be grown. He received a favourable report and took it to the federal government officer in Whitehorse who is in charge of lands. It was placed on file there but he was told, "I am sorry, we do not accept soil analyses from our experimental farm. We go to the province of Alberta for them."
So he sent a sample out to the federal department of agriculture office in Alberta, and took that result in to the office in Whitehorse. He had been told that without soil samples he would have no hope of getting the land. He now had two favourable reports but was told, "I am sorry, you cannot get the land until you get your stock." Then he spent some $10,000-farmers know more about these things-on what I am told was registered, pure bred Andalusian stock.
He went back to the authorities and said, "I have my soil samples and I have my stock. It cost me $10,000-true, I had to sell my home to get it, but here it is. May I now have the land?" What do you suppose the reply was? He was told, "Well, we would love to give you land but, we are sorry, the minister last February announced that all applications for agricutural pursuits in the Yukon have been cancelled. We are sorry that you incurred these expenses in the past, but you will not be able to get the land."
That is just one small example of circumstances in the Yukon which have given rise to complaints like the one raised by my constituent. People up there are saying there will be violence in the Yukon before lands are handed back to the government. They have said, through organizations set up to convince others that agriculture is possible in the Yukon, that they will burn their barns and buildings before giving their land back to the government. I hope that, when they consider this legislation, departmental officials will take my remarks into consideration.
The parliamentary secretary made much of the fact that all sorts of multinational companies now are getting lands in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. That may be so, but the ordinary Canadian, the northerner who lives there, is not accorded the same kinds of favours which the
Territorial Lands Act
government appears to be giving to multinational corporations acquiring lands in the north.
Let me comment on the parliamentary secretary's statement to the effect that employees are expected to make appropriate disclosure. I have some information for her. I wonder if she knows that government employees in the north have been told they must make full disclosure of land holdings and interests in lands which they hold, and of all other assets and holdings, on pain of dismissal if they refuse. That general directive has been given to federal government employees in the Yukon, and I have no reason to suspect that it does not apply to government employees in the Northwest Territories. They must list all assets; if they do not, they are told they are dismissed.
That was the sort of attitude adopted by Commissioner Hodgson, presumably with the acquiescence, if not with the instruction, of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan). The commissioner told employees in the service of the territorial government of the Northwest Territories that, when Mr. Justice Berger was holding commission hearings in Inuvik, they were not to talk, not to give evidence before the commission. That shows the government's attitude and how it treats its employees. It is no doggone wonder we face labour problems in the civil service of the country.


Mr. Dinsdale:: The minister instructs the commissioner.


Erik Nielsen: Everything the commissioner does is either with the acquiescence of the minister or by his direct instruction. How high handed can the government be? Imagine telling a government employee that his ordinary freedom of speech is abridged by virtue of his employment!
I say this bill goes too far. It puts the government employee in the position of a second-class Canadian citizen. Certainly safeguards are required to prevent government employees, who acquire information by virtue of their employment, from making an unjust and dishonest profit. But the bill in its present form constitutes an umbrella-type of prohibition. No government employee can acquire any interest whatsoever in any corporation or venture in the north if, in acquiring that interest, he will acquire lands or an interest in lands. This, to my way of thinking, is too broad a prohibition and ought to be ameliorated. I am willing to see the bill referred to committee after second reading, in the hope that the government will bring forward appropriate amendments.
While I am speaking of amendments which I anticipate the government might introduce, may I ask for the relevant section to be simplified. The language at present is much too complex. I ask for another section couched in simpler language to be introduced, a section containing merely the elements which it is desirable to prohibit, and no more. It ought to say merely that a government employee should not be permitted to acquire an interest in lands when, because he has come into possession or may come into possession of knowledge by virtue of his employment, the information so obtained may enable him to make an undue or dishonest profit.

Territorial Lands Act


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, listening a while ago to the parliamentary secretary while glancing through the bill, I was convinced that it exclusively concerned government employees and officials in the Northwest Territories. I thought that if the bill merely concerned public servants and officials in the Northwest Territories, it had a very limited scope. The bill merely provides that the employees cannot become shareholders of a company dealing for example with read estate and mines to purchase such real estate.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about Quebec. I will say a word in a while about the comments of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). If the bill is not altered as far as public servants are concerned-and when I refer to civil servants I do not include owners and residents-I think that it should also prevent them from belonging to a company trading in the Northwest Territories.
Hon. members probably heard of the current investigation in northern Quebec, the investigation by the Quebec government. I suggest this will not get very far, because it is a question of defrauders investigating other defrauders in the same party. All this is caused by conflicts of interest at the public service level. Some public servants get rich at the expense of the provincial or federal governments. And everything is so well schemed that they have their spokesmen here in Ottawa, in Quebec, in our area. There is no way this could be undone. Everything is schemed, as the saying goes. Money goes into pockets all year long. People believe moneys voted go to Indians, Eskimos, Inuits. But the main part is pocketed by public servants.


An hon. Member:: What!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Somebody said: What! Why should he show surprise? He knows full well.
This is why I say that the first part of the bill does not go far enough. It should include provisions for public servants who hold equity shares in marketing companies, snowscooter companies, arms companies. They triple their salaries with what they get from their involvement with those companies.
The bill is restricted to Yukon public servants. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who spoke this afternoon, advised us of a good many things. I did not know people in Yukon could not own their own tract of land. This is fantastic. It is just as amazing as what happened in our area during land reform, where a third of farmlands were eliminated by people who did not even know what farmland is, people who said those lands were not good farmland. Second generation farms were said to be uncultivable.
I feel the problem in Yukon is much more serious than commonly believed and this is why I say the hon. member for Yukon is right when he talks about Yukon owners, people living in the Yukon, because, here, I would like to make a distinction among public servants: In the Yukon, some public servants come from the area and some do not. It is obvious that those who do not should not be entitled

to buy shares in these companies or to take part in transactions. But it is another matter when we are talking about a Yukon resident, Mr. Speaker. I believe that those who live in the Yukon should be entitled to ownership just like people in other parts of Canada.
I am not saying that they should take control of the mines, for instance, and be the main shareholders, but I believe that they should have certain rights. And I believe that the act is too restrictive because it considers on an equal basis all the civil servants who live in the Yukon, those who live here in Ottawa, and then went to the Yukon or to another province in the name of the government to earn their living. Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that this bill will be referred to the standing committee of this House, but that it is essential to amend it. It is not at all advantageous for the Yukon and does not protect the public servants, wherever they may be.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is already obvious from the discussion that is taking place here today that there are a lot of anomalies in land use north of the sixtieth parallel.
Remarkably enough, even though the theme of developing Canada's last frontier, and the theme of northern development seem to be espoused by all Canadians today, the government still has the viewpoint that with respect to land use it must keep a strong, monopolistic control over the policy to the ridiculous extent that was outlined by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) with respect to total prohibition of agricultural development in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
I remember that when I was the minister of the department, to make things a little more human and humane in interdepartmental communications, of which the flow never ceased, we used to have a caption at the top of the memorandum that went something like this, "Woe unto them who sit on their frozen assets." This seems to be the policy that is being re-endorsed by the bill before us this afternoon. It does not do anything to resolve the restricted land use problems. It certainly does not do anything to deal with the bureaucratic bungling that has been typical of land use pronouncements since Canada finally became interested in the development of its great northern heritage.
When the Department of Northern Affairs was first set up, the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent said that Canada had been exercising for far too long its responsibilities for development of its northern frontier in a state of absentmindedness. I am sure that is the only description that can be used in reviewing Bill S-20 that is before us this afternoon.
I wish to expand on some of the points made by the hon. member for Yukon with respect to the unbelievably bureaucratic approach to agricultural development in northern Canada. There is absolutely no policy on farming north of the sixtieth parallel. What has happened as a result of the decree that came from Caesar Augustus on January 10 last to the effect that there was to be a total suspension of the disposition of federal Crown land for agricultural use in both the Yukon and Northwest Territo-
April 11, 1975

ries? I think it has brought the foolishness of the situation into clear perspective.


Erik Nielsen: And the cancellation of existing land leases.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. I will deal with that in a moment. The decree that came from the minister on January 10 was for prohibition of any further alienation. It also included the cancellation of existing leaseholds. The problem has been brought into focus by the Northwest Territories Farmers' Association. It is true that there is sufficient interest in farming in the Northwest Territories to have an association.


Erik Nielsen: And in the Yukon.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I agree with the hon. member for Yukon that this is developing on parallel lines in both the territories. As a result of the negative policy that was forthcoming, the Northwest Territories Farmers' Association gathered together to discuss the dilemma. They were particularly concerned about the Benoit family who had moved into the area near Fort Providence and were operating at the Horn River in the Northwest Territories. They had invested in their farm four years of their time and all their savings. The project had received encouragement from the government of the Northwest Territories. Indeed, it was the government of the Northwest Territories that encouraged the Benoits and other enterprising Canadian citizens like them to venture into the northern part of Canada and pioneer in establishing a viable agricultural industry.
It was a tip-off from a member of the territorial government that first brought this problem to my attention. I have been able to research the matter further in some of the colourful newspapers that are published in the Northwest Territories. I shall be dealing later with some of the interesting comments in the newspaper published at Fort Smith under the name The Pilot.
I should like to refer to another strange anomaly to be found within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Under the decree to which I have referred, the department ordered the Benoits off the land within 90 days-this, Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that they had invested considerable sums of money, that they had had the encouragement and support of the territorial government of the Northwest Territories, and that in attempting to assist this family in their worthwhile efforts to establish a herd of cattle, the government of the Northwest Territories had been supplying them with feed. Yet in the face of these concrete realities we have a decree suspending this activity, that forces them off the land, and which says they have to wait two or three years until an agricultural policy can be formulated.


Erik Nielsen: They were told to get off.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I said they were ordered off the land. No decision apparently can be made for a period of two or three years. This must be bureaucratic bungling gone mad.


Erik Nielsen: It is not bungling; it is intentional policy.
Territorial Lands Act


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, whatever it is, I trust that the parliamentary secretary will convey the message to his minister, who I am sorry is not here today to hear some of these comments. He is the kind of man who, if he were aware of the implications in terms of human privation, would not have anything to do with policy enunciations of this kind. I wonder whether there was any consultation with the Department of Agriculture. When you are dealing with agricultural policy in a part of Canada one would think the Department of Agriculture would be consulted.


Erik Nielsen: That would make things worse.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not think it could be any worse, and I hope it would be better. I also wonder what has happened to the excellent experiment that had been going on for a period of 20 years at Fort Simpson. I read with some degree of concern that this experimental station, which I had the opportunity to view when I was minister, had been phased out, and at the time it seemed to me that this was a retrograde step. However, I was not at all aware that the situation had deteriorated to the level indicated by the problem that was outlined here today.
Let me deal with the matter in terms of the colourful writing that comes out of the Northwest Territories and Yukon by the people who are actually grappling with the real problems of human and resource development north of 60. In its issue for February 20, 1975, The Pilot carries this headline: "There's an awful smell of bull manure and it's not from the farmers' feet." The article goes on to report the meeting of the Northwest Territories Farmers' Association which tried to get some justice and to find a sensible solution to the problems facing the farmers in the Northwest Territories. More to the point, Madam Speaker, in the editorial column the subject is dealt with under the heading "Is democracy dead in NWT?" The editorial stated:
The plight of the farmer in the Northwest Territories, as reported on page 1, only goes on to prove even more conclusively the need for immediate provincial status for the north.
The fact that one department of government can control everything in the north from development of land to the development of nonrenewable resources, almost without reference to other government departments, and most certainly without reference to the people who are most directly involved-us-is nothing less than a complete and utter waiving of our rights as Canadian citizens.
If I may interpolate, how many times have we heard that complaint as we have travelled, for example, into the north as representatives of the Indian affairs committee? Then further along in the editorial:
Again it is a case of the civil servant sitting behind his Ottawa desk, who has probably never been further north than his television set, dictating what we can and cannot do north of the 60th parallel.
The whole of Canada was built by people with a little imagination, a little money and a hellofa lot of hard work-a term which most of the Ottawa oafs think means bending paper clips into grotesque shapes. The west would still be buffalo range if there were not a few adventurous souls willing to "take a chance" on making a living outside the boundaries of civilization at that time. Today, the north is no different. It is still going to take people with a little imagination-
They mean people like the Benoits, who are being persecuted because of their initiative.
-a little money and a hellofa lot of hard work to make a viable living in the north if they want to retain any semblance of independence.
4744

April 11, 1975
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
At the recent "Focus North Conference" in Edmonton, the delegates sent a strongly worded telegram to Judd Buchanan, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in support of territorial farmers.
Perhaps Mr. Buchanan would like to live up here and pay $1.17 for a dozen eggs, or $2 for a loaf of bread as is common in many northern communities. If he had to survive in the north as an independent businessman he would soon find out that there is precious little heat or food in the bureaucratic bullshit that his department continuously serves the north.
I trust that having referred this bill to the committee on Indian affairs we might be able to bring in some amendments and also get some answers regarding the negative attitude toward agricultural policy, so as at long last to make it possible for any Canadian to live in the parts of Canada north of 60 with the same opportunities, rights and privileges as Canadians who live in other parts of Canada.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. This is an important bill to amend the Territorial Lands Act. I think it is imperative that people from the north be given the opportunity to express their views on it. It is an extremely important measure in view of the many happenings that have taken place in the north in regard to land claims of native organizations and in view of the fact that a large number of civils servants, both federal and territorial, are presently in the north. I think it is important that the bill move on to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and that that committee ensure that there be some representation from the north, particularly from the councils of both territories. That is all I have to say at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

« (1540)

Hon. Andre Ouellet (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-30, to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, ordinarily the business of repealing an act that has been on the statute books of Canada for nearly 40 years would be a regular matter of housecleaning or housekeeping, but this particular act has some things which I think will cause us to ask that this bill be delayed. Let me make my reasons clear.
In all fairness I think I should say that this act was placed on the statute books as a result of the efforts of the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner before the war, and many people look on it as his monument. When a man has moved on he likes to look back at something he has done as his own. I should think that the Right Hon. Mr. Gardiner, who sat for 20 years on the government side of this House and one year in the opposition, had the right to consider the

PFAA as a very worthwhile piece of legislation. We are now meeting here some years later to dismantle this monument to that long time minister of agriculture.
The act itself seems irrelevant today because the maximum payment under the act was $800. The act was the result of 10 years of depression and drought on the prairies, and its purpose was to give farm families enough money in case of a crop failure to pay their taxes, to buy their groceries for the winter, and have enough to seed their crop the following year. It should be said loudly and clearly that this act was a lifesaver for the many families that survived the 10 worst years in the history of agriculture in western Canada.
In addition the act gave those of us who were interested in policy precise crop figures for every quarter section in the west, and on the basis of that information we were able to do many things. We were able eventually to set up crop insurance legislation and to decide which areas would be good for community pastures and which would be good for other purposes. It was one of the first steps in a sort of land use policy which has slowly taken hold among governments in the western world. The PFAA should be given the credit it deserves.
It is true that the machinery of the act was awkward in the beginning and it was necessary to reform it. To get crop insurance in the event of a crop failure you had to be farming within a block of land where the crop yield was below a certain number of bushels. These blocks were too large in many cases and there could be several families with terrible crops, no income, and facing a difficult winter because the average for their block was higher than the minimum allowed under the act.
In this reform to the legislation we made these blocks smaller and we changed their size to allow for different types of land with different types of crops because of different weather, and I think that in the last years of its operation it was working reasonably well.
There are other things I wish to say about this act. It required inspectors to visit each farm where the crops had failed. Unfortunately for the history of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, some of the inspectors, if not all of them, began to relate their duties in inspecting crops and the yield to the political persuasions of the farmers involved. This became what the political scientists describe today as "the Gardiner machine". This political machine set up on the prairies matched in efficiency, interest, and detail Tammany Hall of New York City, which is over 100 years old.
It fell to the lot of the Diefenbaker administration to clean up this legislation, and this was done without the dismissal of a single inspector, supervisor or senior employee under that legislation. All we did was ask them as fieldmen to refrain from political activity at the time of an election. In fact we went further and instructed the supervisors to hire the best men in each district, regardless of political persuasion, and we set an example, which I think will be admitted freely by the farmers in the west was good, by trying to pick reeves or councillors, men who had been elected in local areas and who were highly regarded for their integrity and ability. As a result, the farmer whose farm was being inspected would know he had a fair inspector and did not have to pass the test of
April 11, 1975

belonging to or working for the Liberal party. So the PFAA, administered fairly, became a very useful act.
I mention these things because no party suffered greater complaints than did we at the time. It was only natural and human that after 22 years with one administration all the available jobs went to supporters of that one party, and the people felt that when a different party formed the government it should take over this operation. We were criticized by members of our own party for following this practice of not dismissing those who had been appointed by the previous administration, and for going out of our way to see that the very best men of all parties were selected to be field inspectors.
One of the men who was appointed to head up the PFAA as a director was Mr. Howard Riddell, known over the province for his honesty and integrity as municipal secretary. His instructions by the minister involved only one thing, and that was to run the PFAA honestly and well.
I remember a quarrel that developed in this House in 1962 over the appointment of an individual to investigate charges that certain farmers were abusing the PFAA. The matter was sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. At that time I was the minister. I appeared before that committee, threw away all my rights as a minister, and said that my records and communications between myself and the PFAA were available for the examination of the committee. There was no hiding of documents.
What I am saying is contained in the records of that standing committee. When members of parliament from all parties on the committee heard the evidence and saw the record, they immediately dismissed the charges. One member was not satisfied. I hear an objection. This was in the period of 1964 when the charges finally came up in the House. There was no Liberal majority of members on that committee. It was a minority parliament. Members from all parties agreed that the PFAA had been run well. There was one exception. One member said that politicians were scratching each other's backs and suggested that the charges should be brought before a court. They were. Once again, this time as the ex-minister, I threw all my records and personal communications into the hands of the courts. All the officials gave evidence.
The judge in his ruling threw out the charges on the basis that there was no evidence of malfeasance and that, on the contrary, all the evidence was clear that the instructions always had been that this act was to be administered honestly and fairly. That particular member of parliament sat on this side of the House. I refer to the member who made the request that the matter be taken before a judge. He received his pay-off by being called to the cabinet on the other side of the House where he became Minister of Agriculture. When the people caught up with him in 1972 he went back to the farm where he is today. I give this history because this particular bill to repeal this legislation is a matter of some interest to many farmers.
We now face a situation in the west where the political machine that we hoped we had destroyed in the years between 1957 and 1963 is being built up again. This time,
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
however, there are new ministers. This situation started when the government decided to believe, in 1969 and 1970, that the information it was receiving from the experts, Statistics Canada and Statistics Washington, showing that there was too much grain. The government decided to take the farmers out of production. It said to them that if they did not go out of production they would lose their right to sell wheat, but that if they did as they were told and summerfallowed they would be paid $6 an acre, or if their land was put into grass they would be given so much per acre.
One can see the possibilities for corruption creeping up again. The power of this parliament was being used to take away the right of a man to sell his grain unless he did what he was told. If he did what he was told then he might be paid these sums of money. Once you start a system of telling farmers what they have to do, you must have a force of field inspectors to see how much land is in grass and how much is in summerfallow. Planes flew over the prairies photographing every square inch with cameras which could even see a golf ball.
After time had passed and all the money had been paid out for the grass program and the summerfallow program, it was discovered that there were overpayments. The government announced that it would take back the money. So, once again an army of inspectors had to be organized to go out and collect the overpayments that were made to the farmers. To add to the confusion of having all these inspectors going out, elections were being fought and funny instructions were given to inspectors. They were told that if an argument developed they were to juggle the figures for the benefit of the farmer. This type of thing does not pass unnoticed in western Canada.
On December 9 last year I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I asked it with the knowledge of the quick action the government took in responding to a request for an inquiry in the province of Quebec when trouble developed there. I asked:
Would the minister take personal note of the disturbing events in the administration of Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the west? I am referring specifically to unauthorized payments for field men during the election period, information about which the hon. member for Red Deer has in his possession. In view of these disturbing developments, would the minister consider asking Mr. Howard Riddell, who was for 14 years the head of PFAA and who is now working for the Department of Municipal Affairs in Saskatchewan and who has the confidence of the farmers, and who is well known for his honesty and integrity, to come back and check out this very smelly situation?
I made no charges and named no names. I simply asked the Minister of Agriculture last December to check out this smelly situation. The minister replied:
I do not know what the situation is, but I will certainly check on it and ascertain what the facts are.
Then I went on and suggested that he might consider asking Mr. Williams, the then Deputy Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, to do the checking. I suggested that he let someone who is impartial, and known for his honesty and integrity, check on these facts. Later on in the week the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) asked the minister about the possibility of asking the RCMP fraud squad to take this matter under investigation.
29557-25V2

April 11, 1975
Youth Appreciation Week


@Acting Speaker: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on the order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.


John Mercer Reid: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe you will find there is agreement to take up Bill C-221 standing in the name of the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, before we do that I might mention that a bill standing in my name is first up today. I would be prepared to move the adjournment of the debate on Bill C-234 standing in my name on the order paper if we could have unanimous consent for Bill C-3 to come before the House now so that we might get it into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I admire the hon. member's persistence, but that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


John Douglas Reynolds: that Bill C-221, respecting National Youth Appreciation Week, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have spoken to the House leaders of the various parties and I believe there is agreement to my withdrawing Bill C-221 respecting National Youth Appreciation Week. I believe I also have agreement to put the following motion:
That this House request the government to give consideration to continuing their practice of designating one week a year as National Youth Appreciation Week.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there unanimous agreement to Bill C-221 being withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise this time to say there is consent.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's motion to be put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is so moved.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Madam Speaker, I thought perhaps the mover of the motion would introduce it with a few words, but since he has not done so I should like to address myself to the matter for a few minutes.
I commend the admirable sentiments of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) in presenting this motion. In calling for a national youth appreciation week the hon. member is expressing his respect and concern for this country's youth which, I am sure, all hon. members share. I am glad that he has chosen to change his bill to a motion because otherwise I would perhaps have had to question the usefulness of such proposed legislation. When a subject becomes law, it is a serious matter that goes onto the statutes of our country, and this would open the door to all kinds of groups wishing to have a law passed in order to back their favourite cause, whether it be a week for senior citizens, a week for young farmers, or a week for another group in our society.
It is of course impossible to argue against the sentiments that underlie this motion. However, I would like to see a little more detail, something more concrete, and a better explanation of what lies behind the motion. What effect would this motion have on the different segments of our youth? For example, what specifically will a child of 12 or a senior high school student derive from this motion? I believe that there is always the danger of negativism.
Not very long ago students on a great many campuses, in this country and elsewhere, were exceedingly vocal in their criticism of the establishment's so-called mindless rhetoric. The criticisms may be less vocal now but I believe they persist, and with some reason. I would not like to see this kind of idea, which we all support, being placed in the category of what is sometimes called mindless rhetoric. It has become platitudinous to associate youth with cynicism, but platitudes are often platitudes simply because they are true.
Surely we must take care not to excite youthful cynicism by needlessly indulging in empty rhetoric. I am afraid there is always this danger when we provoke motherhood type resolutions in the House. Therefore, I would like to see something more specific suggested in this respect. The sentiment, of course, as I said before, is shared by all members of the House, and is certainly shared by the government. Indeed, it is the underlying motivation of several of the government's programs that are oriented toward the youth of Canada. So perhaps, rather than a week being dedicated to our youth, in practice perhaps all the year round is so dedicated so far as many of us are concerned.
This year the government's Summer '75 program involves 12 government departments, with an expenditure of over $67 million. The summer program is expected to provide direct and indirect employment and activities for almost half a million students. This certainly shows the feelings that the government has in trying to encourage our young people and to show our appreciation of them.
The Department of the Solicitor General will employ a number of students in connection with its participation at the 5th U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. This will take place in Canada later this year. Other federal departments are involved in
April 11, 1975

providing student employment and activities for the coming year.
We are all familiar, of course, with the OFY program which started a few years ago and went through many birth pangs. Many people criticized it when it first began, myself included, but it is something that has had many of the wrinkles ironed out of it, and it has given an opportunity to many young people to develop their own kinds of projects. It has allowed them to express themselves. I think this in itself is a great show of appreciation on the part of the government for our young people. Of course, Opportunities for the Youth is again the major component of the government's summer program this year. The OFY program has an estimated budget of $27.5 million, and it should provide some employment and useful activity for about 20,000 of our young people.
The Department of the Secretary of State is also sponsoring other summer programs this year. The student community services program is designed to support and encourage the activities of voluntary organizations serving the community by enabling these organizations to employ young people. That program has a budget of $5.7 million and will employ over 2,000 students. It will also involve several thousand volunteers. The department is also responsible for organizing a youth hostel program and a travel and exchange program. This travel and exchange program, in my view, is something that should be expanded much more. I feel that it is one of the greatest boons to Canadian unity. It permits the young people to travel about in our country, to get to know and understand people from other parts of Canada, and certainly understanding is what is needed to foster national unity.
LIP, although it is not directed primarily at young people, is a significant improvement over traditional winter works programs, and it is the kind of innovative community-oriented concept that would have been a welcome suggestion had it come from any party. I take pride in the fact that it has come from the government side of the House. Of course it has received much support from all sides of the House.
Apart from these important programs for summer employment I believe there exists a need and an opportunity for greater direct involvement of federal departments and agencies in the lives of young people, especially in the areas of education and the arts.
In light of the rather depressing results of recent surveys undertaken by the Committee for an Independent Canada with regard to students' awareness of their country, I believe that the government should give consideration to expanding the programs of the various cultural agencies as they affect young people. The very successful museumobile is a concept which deserves to be explored and expanded more fully.
The principles of democracy and decentralization which are the professed aims of government policy in the areas of museums, the performing arts and visual arts, are yet to be adequately acted upon, Madam Speaker. The need for greater activity in this area is acute, especially as it affects the lives of our children. We have a responsibility to promote participation among our youth in the affairs and
Youth Appreciation Week
activities of the community which surrounds and often dwarfs them. Their considerable energy and imagination needs to be harnessed, for their sake and for ours, and put to good use. We need, further, to encourage that element of our youth that at present is not organized in the way youth groups are. There is a crying need to respond in very concrete and realistic ways to that wasted youthful energy which devotes itself to outward destructive, and ultimately self-destructive, pursuits. The euphemism we often use is delinquent, but they are our children, and they are troubled. We have an important responsibility to them.
There exists in the east end of Montreal a huge project taking shape, a grand sporting complex intended to accommodate the Olympics. It is ironic that it should be located in that particular part of Montreal where children play in the streets. It would be a travesty if those magnificent facilities were to lay dormant after the Olympic flame is extinguished, and that is the fear of many people in this country. They say that in Munich the facilities which were made available for the Olympics there have not been used nearly to capacity, and I hope that this will not be the case in Canada.
I do not know if this is the proper time to mention it, but since we are talking about appreciation of our youth, and since we are talking about sports and other things which are good for our youth-because we know the old saying, which is perhaps a cliche, that a healthy mind exists only in a healthy body-we should be concerned about the future use of the Olympic area in Montreal, and I would suggest that perhaps it could become an ongoing national sporting centre for our young people from all over Canada and kept in good use for the benefit of our young people.
In closing I simply want to repeat that I admire the sentiments being brought forth in this motion. I simply wanted to put a few words on the record in order to show my support for that kind of sentiment, and also to underline the fact that we must be more specific when we suggest this kind of thing, whether it be for young people or for other elements of our society.


John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to say very much because I think I spoke about this motion in the last parliament. I have certainly done much work on it. I think most hon. members have received letters from Optimist International, and I want to make sure that all hon. members realize that great job Optimist International did for the members of this House when we played the members of the press gallery at our annual hockey game. They are the ones who sponsored it and treated us very well and did an excellent job, and we would like to thank them for that assistance.


An hon. Member:: Who won?


John Douglas Reynolds: Of course the members of parliament beat the press gallery, and I think we are all in better shape.
I would like to read one thing into the record. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has organized national youth appreciation week every year, and he puts out a very nice press release, as does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think many members of parliament participate. I know that in my riding I present trophies to boys

April 11, 1975
Youth Appreciation Week
and girls who are recognized for their achievements within the community.
Of all the letters I have read I thought the letter from our Governor General was very apropos to read into the record, especially at a time when it is to be hoped, this motion will pass. It reads as follows:
Government House Ottawa
It gives me great pleasure to join hands with the members of Optimist International to pay tribute to the Canadian youth during this Youth Appreciation Week.
In view of the growing complexities of the problems that assail us, it is encouraging to see more and more young people involving themselves in community activities, thereby sharing heavy responsibilities in many fields. Moreover, it is only by your skills and initiative that you can attain your rightful place, that of co-builders of a new society.
In the mid seventies we are faced with the uncertainties of a new era brought about by many recent changes in our social structure. Our hope for the future is that the young people of today will involve themselves in the search for the answer to our problems.
Every year in November, the Youth Appreciation Week offers us an excellent opportunity to observe and appreciate those young Canadians who have accepted the challenge of a new Canada.
I offer my warmest congratulations to all those whose merits will duly be recognized this week.
Jules Leger
I think that letter says it better than anything anyone can say in this House. I will take my seat and hope that the House will let this motion pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, in just a very few words I should like to commend the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) for bringing this matter before the House at this time. I am also pleased that he has withdrawn his bill and given us a resolution instead. I say that, if for no other reason than because the resolution has a chance of being passed, and I think it is better for the House to say yes this afternoon than for it just to talk a matter out and leave it at that.
I want also to underline the view expressed by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) when he said that it is important that we do more than indulge in rhetoric. If we want to show appreciation of the youth of Canada we must be very specific. I will put it in as tight a nutshell as I can. I believe that if we want to show appreciation of our youth we must see to it that the Canada in which they are living and the Canada of the future will be one in which there is full employment, along with equal educational and cultural opportunities for all. It must be a place in which the housing needs of young people and their families, now and in the decades to come, are met. It must be a country in which there is full and complete health care and security down the road. It must also be a country and a world in which the air and the water are clean and where there is a secure peace. These are the kinds of things we ought to work very hard for if we really want to show appreciation of our Canadian youth.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be brief. As a young man who, some years ago in my early teens, happened to play organized hockey

in leagues and clubs supported and sponsored by Optimist International, and also as one who, from this side of the House, was very fortunate and enjoyed participating in the game between the members of parliament and the press corps, I want on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House who participated in that game to second the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond Delta (Mr. Reynolds) in our gratitude to the Optimist club for its sponsorship and for inviting us to participate. It was with a great deal of pleasure that each of us received from that club a very beautiful scroll and the presentation of a medallion. Certainly my gratitude is very deep.
I think it may be trite to say that the disappointing or sad things that a few of our young people get involved in sometimes receive a great deal of attention in the press, and it may also be trite to say that more good publicity on their behalf is needed and deserved. While these things might be trite to say, I do not think the truth of any of them is diminished in any way. With these few remarks I add my support for the hon. member's motion.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the mover and tell him that we fully support his motion. I think Canadian youth well deserves to have its own week, and the government must take concrete action to show the interest attached to sports since youth sport is somehow the preparation of the future, the preparation of our athletes.
We are always proud to see a Canadian team able to face other competitors in true sportsmanship. I do not want to delay at all the passage of this motion, and I simply want to say that we are very proud that it was introduced before the House. We support it.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) and other hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is good to see that he has reached his second childhood and is with us once more.
I think that I may be more appreciative of this becoming a motion rather than a bill than some hon. members. A bill is something like building for the future, and the young people today do not think that way. Some of them are saying, "I have seen the future and it will not work". That is not a bad thought because it means they are going to do something here and now about the future. They are not going to have five, ten or twenty year plans, but are setting about changing their world now and in a very successful way.
We should not forget, Madam Speaker, that boys and girls are just men and women in the cocoon. Any of us here may one day face one of them as a banker and try to borrow money from that banker, or may face one of them as a lawyer. One of the girls may be the person who comes into the room to put a large white funnel over my head, or indeed she may even be the surgeon. We have to face the fact that they are the future.
April 11, 1975

I like the idea of saying each year that we recognize the youth of the country-because each year it is a different youth. Youth passes very quickly and they should not be classified as one group. As the poet, John Oxenham, said: For every man there openeth a way A high way and a low And every man deeideth The way his soul shall go Some souls choose the high way And some souls choose the low And all the rest on misty flats Drift to and fro
But every man and woman deeideth The way their souls shall go.
I am pleased that the hon. member brought the motion forward, and pleased too that he is so anxious that all of us should agree. I am most pleased to associate myself with the motion worded in this way. I think we should remember that what we do or say is of little importance because we are really in their hands, the hands of the generation called youth; the future is theirs, not ours.
Youth Appreciation Week


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Reynolds) agreed to.


John Douglas Reynolds: I should like to thank all hon. members for speedy passage of this motion and suggest we toast the youth of this nation in Room 431S after the House adjourns this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two p.m.
At 4:28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Monday, April 14, 1975