1966-06-20

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
23033-418£
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 20, 1966

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, today in Moscow the Minister of Trade and Commerce has signed on behalf of Canada a protocol extending the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement for a further period of three years. The agreement, which will now expire on April 17, 1969, is subject to renewal by mutual consent.
At the same time the Canadian Wheat Board has entered into a contract with Ex-portkhleb, the Soviet grain trading agency, for the sale of 9 million long tons or about 336 million bushels of Canadian wheat and flour for shipment during the three crop years commencing August 1, 1966.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: No intergovernmental credit arrangements are involved.
As part of this over-all arrangement the wheat board has concluded a specific contract with Exportkhleb providing for shipment of 3 million long tons, about 112 million bushels, of wheat and flour during the crop year August 1, 1966 to July 31, 1967.
This is the largest three year commercial contract for a fixed quantity of Canadian wheat and flour ever concluded. Since 1963 the U.S.S.R. has purchased 478 million bushels, valued at approximately $1 billion. The new three year contract worth approximately $800 million will bring Soviet purchases to about 814 million bushels since 1963.
The trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.S.R. provides for continued exchange of most favoured nation treatment between the two countries. Under the protocol agreed to today the two governments undertake to continue to give sympathetic consideration to any representations which either government may make concerning implementation of the agreement or other matters affecting their commercial relations. The two governments
have also renewed their undertaking to facilitate visits for business purposes between Canada and the U.S.S.R.
The Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R. have also exchanged letters concerning their discussions of trade relations and noted the importance attached by the government of the U.S.S.R. to expanding its exports to Canada. During the negotiations the delegations of Canada and the U.S.S.R. carried out a detailed review of trade between the two countries. It has been agreed that the trading framework which has been established should provide increasing opportunities for further development of mutually advantageous trade.
I am sure all members of the house will share the pleasure expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Moscow that these negotiations have been brought to a successful conclusion. It is most gratifying that the U.S.S.R. has again decided to purchase such substantial quantities of wheat. The impact of this record sale and the assurance it gives for the marketing of Canadian wheat and flour will extend throughout Canada, and will be felt not only by wheat farmers and millers but by grain handlers, longshoremen, elevator companies, railways, shipping companies and the economy generally.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this further evidence of trade in wheat with the U.S.S.R. is a continuation of a policy which during our period of office we brought about on a credit basis with communist China, and which was so widely criticized by hon. gentlemen sitting opposite.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
We do not take that stand, however. We are appreciative of the fact that with an increasing world demand for wheat, wheat is indeed king among cereals. We will be interested to learn the price. We know the contract will continue over a period of years, but within the last year and a half Canada's wheat prices were reduced by approximately 17 cents a bushel. While not wishing to do anything that would bring about an acceleration of the inflation that is with us, I wish to

June 20. 1966
Wheat Sale to Russia
point out that wheat farmers deserve higher prices than they are receiving at the present time when regard is given to increasing costs.
I hope there will be provision within the agreement entered into for increase in prices, otherwise this agreement will not give to the wheat producing farmers the benefit that it should.
My second point deals with the question of the transportation of this wheat. In the last contract that was entered into with the U.S.S.R. no provision was made for the use of the Hudson bay route. That route should be used, because it would place several cents a bushel in the pockets of the western farmer.
There are two matters then on which we require information. One is the price to be paid, whether regard has been given to the increasing cost of production to which our farmers are subjected. The other matter is whether provision will be made for the maximum use of the Hudson Bay route, thereby enabling a larger share of the ultimate return to be available to the producer.
As far as the sale is concerned, it is a large one and one that will command universal support. It is not for me at this time to make any further suggestions. On a later occasion, and in connection with the wheat board, I will deal with what the Minister of Agriculture said in western Canada, that in his opinion the time had come for the transfer of the wheat board to the Department of Agriculture. However, that will be a subject by itself.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: On behalf of our party I wish to welcome the news, as does every other member in the house, and indeed I go further and congratulate those who negotiated this agreement on Canada's behalf.
I wish to add a few words to say, first, that it seems to us these energetic attempts at establishing trade with the Soviet union should be extended to all the countries in eastern Europe and in that general bloc. Second, I know of no better way to improve possibilities for achieving peace in the world than by increasing the trade of other countries in the west and particularly of our country with the Asian, African and European countries whose systems are different from our own. It has always been the position of our party that the path to peace in the world lies in economic co-operation much more than in military threat. I am therefore glad to welcome this deal not only for the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
sake of the farmers but also for the sake of the future of the world.
[Translation1


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we are also happy to note that Canada has achieved such a wheat sale. But there is one thing about which I feel I must blame the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp); it is that we have received copy of his statement in English only, whereas all the other ministers usually provide us with a French copy of the text they are reading in English. In the future I think we would be pleased if the Minister of Finance could provide us with a copy of his statement in French as he does in English.
Another point, Mr. Speaker. At a time when the Minister of Finance announces that hundreds of million dollars worth of wheat are being sold to Russia, indications are that the Canadian trade deficit is getting larger all the time. We had a trade deficit when we did not have these wheat sales and today, in spite of these large foreign sales, the trade deficit is getting larger. It seems to me that while we are rejoicing that Canada has secured such important amounts as one billion dollars, or more precisely $814 million, the minister should make sure that we avoid paying out so much in dividends, interests or outgoing profits in order that our balance of international payments may show a surplus instead of a deficit. With such exports it is difficult to understand why we should have a trade deficit. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance, whose function it is to improve the economic position of Canada and who states that the contract with Russia will benefit the economy of the country, should also see to it that our trade balance gets back on its feet and show a surplus in the future.
So, we welcome this big deal with Russia and we hope that the same thing will be achieved with other countries. We have quantities of products in Canada, we probably have more resources than any other country in the world and, on the other hand, a number of countries need our natural resources. Therefore, we hope that such contracts will be maintained and extended, in quantities as well as in quality.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: We welcome the announcement of the protocol, Mr. Speaker, extending the trade agreement for three years, and the announcement of a further wheat sale over three years, with the
June 20, 1966

contract for the first year involving some 112 million bushels of wheat, for a number of reasons. The first is that a three year term is going to put a measure of stability into the wheat market for the future which I am sure the farmers, flour millers and people involved in the transport of this commodity will welcome. I think the flour milling industry particularly will welcome this announcement. Although the minister did not say how much flour was involved in the whole contract, I hope it is substantial. During the past few weeks some of the mills in Canada have been operating at something less than 50 per cent of their capacity. Any additional orders, therefore, to which they might look forward after August 1 will certainly be welcomed not only by the mill owners but by the workers as well.
We are not clear what the minister intended by the words "other mutually advantageous trade". I suppose this is not the time to go into the details of what these other trading relations or trading matters involve, but we would be very interested in knowing what other commodities are involved in this term.
I should like to say also, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the time has come when the Canadian Wheat Board and other participants in the international wheat agreement should have a good long look at the price. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, and I think the minister would agree, that there has not been a rise in the price of wheat to the farmers in line with the increased cost of production that has manifested itself recently. I believe the farmers are entitled to have some increase in their returns to match rising costs. Perhaps at the next meeting of the international wheat agreement countries a price increase will be considered to be justified.
We welcome the announcement, Mr. Speaker, and we hope there will be co-operation from the elevator companies, the railways and other people involved in transporting this wheat into export position so that we can make the deliveries on time.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. H. C. Harley (Hallon) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on health and welfare, presented to the house on Thursday, June 16, be concurred in.
Bank Act
1Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: On division, Mr. Speaker, because we are opposed to reducing the quorum.

Motion agreed to on division.



DRUG COSTS AND PRICES-CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Harry Cruickshank Harley: that the first report of the special committee on drug costs and prices, presented to the house on Friday, June 17, be concurred in.
[Translation!


Gilles Grégoire: On division, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to on division.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-203, to amend the Indian Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to delete those sections of the Indian Act which deal with the sale of liquor to Indians, the possession of liquor by an Indian on or off the reserve, and other similar offences. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these sections are discriminatory and should be removed. I intend to request at a later time that this bill be referred to the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration for consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK ACT


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the decennial revision of the Bank Act
June 20, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act and the extension of the charters of the existing chartered banks till July 1, 1976, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to increase a measure to provide for the decennial revision of the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the extension of the powers of the existing savings banks till July 1, 1976, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Crop Insurance Act to increase the maximum contribution payable by Canada on crop insurance premiums; to increase the maximum amount of the insurance that may be effected on any crop; to authorize the making of contributions to a province providing insurance coverage against losses arising from the destruction of fruit trees or perennial plants or losses arising when the seeding of summer-fallowed land intended to be used to grow an insured crop is prevented by excessive ground moisture, weather or other agricultural hazards; to provide further for consequential amendments in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act to increase the aggregate of the amounts that the 
Minister of Finance may credit to the Atlantic development fund from one hundred million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars, to extend the authority of the Atlantic Development Board to undertake projects alone or jointly with provinces or agencies thereof or other persons and to provide that any revenues received by the board from projects undertaken or financed by it may be credited to the said fund and expended for the purposes for which the fund is established.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,474-Mr. Scott (Danforth):-
Supplementary
Has the government received representations, letters or cards in protest against the methods being used for the killing of baby seals in the annual seal hunt off the eastern coasts of Canada and, if so (a) how many such requests, protests, etc., have been received by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries, or any government department (b) what action does the government plan in response to any such protests or representations?
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Supplementary information: (a) 15,877 postcards were also received.


AIR CANADA-ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF AIRCRAFT
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Have any DC-9's been ordered to date for service of Air Canada and, if so (a) how many such aircraft have been delivered and on what dates (b) when is the balance of any such orders for these aircraft scheduled to be delivered (c) on what runs is it proposed that they be assigned, and on what date?
2.	Is it the intention that certain numbers of Viscounts and Vanguards will be taken off service and disposed of and, if so, how many of each?
3.	What is the total number of Viscounts, Vanguards and DC-8's now in service, and what are the ages of each?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Total of four delivered, January 6, 1966; February 10, 1966; February 25, 1966; April 12, 1966.
(b)	Balance of 14 aircraft to be delivered, June 1966, 1; July 1966, 1; January 1967, 2;
June 20, 1966

February 1967, 2; March, 1967, 2; April 1967, 3; May 1967 , 2; June 1967, 1.
(c)
Planned Introductory date April 24, 1966 April 24, 1966 June 1, 1966
July 1, 1966 August 1, 1966
August 1, 1966 August 1, 1966 August 1, 1966
November 1, 1966 November 1, 1966
May 1, 1967
May 1, 1967
May 1, 1967 June 1, 1967 June 1, 1967 June 1, 1967
June 1, 1967
Route
Montreal-Winnipeg Montreal-New York Montreal-Toronto-Tampa
Toronto-Winnipeg Montreal-Toronto-Tampa-Miami Winnipeg-Calgary Winnipeg-Edmonton Montreal-Ottawa-Winnipeg Toronto-New York Toronto-Halifax
Winnipeg-Regina-Calgary-V ancouver Winnipeg-Saskatoon-Edmonton Toronto-Chicago Montreal-Chicago Montreal-Halifax Montreal-St. John's, Nfld.
Cleveland-Toronto
2.	There are no immediate plans at present for removal of Vanguard or Viscount aircraft from Air Canada service.
Questions
of the approaching April 30 deadline for the filing of income tax returns and payment of moneys due to the crown. Inasmuch as penalties are levied against those who file after the due date and who have not made the necessary payments, it is considered an obligation on the part of the Department of National Revenue to remind all taxpayers of the deadline. This notice usually forms part of the informational program conducted during the filing season, part of the program being paid advertising.
Figures for the last two filing years for late filing of returns as of December 31, are:
T1 Shorts
1964	(1963 tax year) 205,000 out of 5,300,000
1965	(1964 tax year) 154,000 out of 5,600,000
T1 Generals
1964	(1963 tax year) 111,600 out of 1,165,000
1965	(1964 tax year) 102,500 out of 1,247,000


RESIGNATION OF AMBASSADOR TO GREECE
Mr. Allard: 1.	Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs received a copy of a manuscript of the memoirs of Mr. Antonio Barrette, Canadian Ambassador to Greece and, if so, when?
2.	Has Mr. Barrette tendered his resignation to the government and, if so, what reasons did he give for such resignation?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint Mr. Barrette to another position within or outside Canada?
3.	As at May 31, 1966, there are 18 DC-8s, 23 Vanguards and 39 Viscounts in service. Their delivery dates were as follows:

1960-	7
1961-	4
1963-	3
1964-	2 1966- 2
Vanguard
1960-	2
1961-	18
1962-	2 1964- 1
Viscount
1955-	5
1956-	3
1957-	12
1958-	15
1959-	4
18	23	39


ADVERTISING OF INCOME TAX DEADLINE
Mr. Knowles: With reference to the answer to part 3 of question No. 1,320, recorded in Hansard of May 25, 1966, what is the assessment of the value of the advertising of April 30 as the deadline for filing personal income tax returns?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Canadians are reminded each year
[Translation1


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Mr. Barrette sent to the Department of External Affairs, in two parts, the manuscript of his memoirs: the first part was received at the end of July 1965, the second on August 17, 1965.
2. Under the regulations of the Department of External Affairs no member of the department can without prior permission publish articles or books or make public statements even in his private capacity; permission cannot be granted if the articles or books or statements concerned can give rise to political controversy. Since the department's opinion, which had informally been passed on to him on August 11, 1965 and confirmed on January 31, 1966 was that Mr. Barrette's memoirs came within the terms of the regulations and that permission to publish them could not be granted, he asked, on April 25,
6604

June 20. 1966
Questions
1966	to be relieved of his functions of Canadian Ambassador to Greece and his request was granted on May 5.
3. No.

ATLANTIC PROVINCES AIRPORT FACILITIES Question No. 1,589


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	How many airports operated by the Department of Transport in the Atlantic provinces have runways and other facilities adequate to accommodate the DC-9 aircraft as used for normal scheduled commercial flights?
2.	What other airports in the Atlantic provinces, if any, have runways and other facilities adequate to accommodate the DC-9 aircraft as used for normal scheduled commercial flights?
3.	What airports in the Atlantic provinces are to be brought up to the standards required with regard to runways and other facilities adequate to accommodate the DC-9 aircraft in the fiscal year 1966-67?
4.	What airports in the Atlantic Provinces are to be brought up to the standards required with regard to the DC-9 aircraft in the fiscal year 1967-68?
5.	On what date does Air Canada plan to start operating DC-9 aircraft to the Atlantic provinces, and what points will be served (a) in the present fiscal year (b) in the next fiscal year?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. 10 for DC-9; Gander; Sydney; Halifax; Charlottetown; Stephenville. 5 for DC-9-32: Gander; Sydney; Halifax; Charlottetown; Stephenville. 10 for DC-9: Deer Lake; Fredericton; Yarmouth; St. John's, Nfld.; Moncton.
2.	Chatham, N.B. operated by D.N.D. Sum-merside, P.E.I. operated by D.N.D. Greenwood, N.S. operated by D.N.D. Argentia, Nfld. operated by United States. Saint John, N.B. operated by municipality.
3.	No additional presently planned.
4.	Subject to the availability of funds runway extensions at the following airports are under consideration commencing in the fiscal year 1967-68 or thereafter to meet the requirements of the DC-9-32: Fredericton; Yarmouth; St. John's, Nfld.; Moncton.
5.	June 1, 1967, Montreal-Halifax, N.S. June 1, 1967, Montreal-St. John's, Nfld.


INCOME TAX ADVERTISING COST
Mr. Mather: What was the cost, in dollars, of the advertising campaign aimed at popularizing or expediting income tax payments?


Edgar John Benson: 




DECORATIONS ACCEPTED BY MACKENZIE KING
Mr. Herridge: Were any orders or decorations accepted by the former prime minister, the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, from Great Britain or other countries, from January 1, 1939 until January 1, 1949 and, if so, what were they?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: In 1947 the former Prime Minister, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, accepted from His Majesty King George VI the Order of Merit which is a personal award of the Sovereign.


FAMILY INCOMES OF STUDENT LOAN RECIPIENTS
Mr. Reid: What is the correlation between the average annual family income and the students taking out loans from the federal student loan plan since the beginning of its operation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Information on the annual income of a student and his family is not available to the federal government. The financial information relevant to a student's need for a loan is provided on a confidential basis in connection with a student's application for a certificate of eligibility which must be issued by a participating province before a loan can be obtained.


INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH TEACHERS
Mr. Orlikow: Of the 1489 teachers employed by the Indian affairs branch in the 1965-66 year, how many of the teachers were in the classification of (a) teacher aide or unqualified teacher who had no professional teacher training (b) the sub-level who had only junior matriculation education and one year of teacher education (c) level 1 who had senior matriculation and one year of teacher education (d) level 2 who had senior matriculation and two years of teacher education (e) level 3 who had senior matriculation and three years of teacher education (f) level 4 who had senior matriculation and four years of teacher education (g) level 5 who had senior matriculation and five years of teacher education (h) level 6 who had senior matriculation and six years of teacher education?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. (a) 109;
(b)	193; (c) 613; (d) 241; (e) 104; (f) 150; (g) 59;
(h) 20.
June 20, 1966


C.M.H.C. INTEREST AND REPAYMENT RATES
Mr. Herridge: What are the rates of interest and repayment terms extended by Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to the following (a) home builders (b) apartment blocks or other business premises (c) other institutions?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The current maximum rates of interest payable by borrowers in respect of loans made under the N.H.A. are as follows: (a) If made to a home builder, 6f per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is up to 35 years, (b) If made on apartment blocks, 6f per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment terms is up to 35 years, (c) If made under the provisions of section 16 to a limited dividend company or under section 16A to a non-profit corporation to provide housing for individuals or families of low income, 5| per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is up to 50 years.
If made under the provisions of section 35D to a province, municipality or public housing agency for the construction or acquisition of a public housing project, 5J per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is up to 50 years.
If made under section 35C to a province, municipality or public housing agency to acquire and service land for public housing purposes, 5| per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is up to 15 years.
If made under section 36B to a university, a co-operative association or a charitable organization for a university housing project to provide university students and their families with housing accommodation, 5| per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is up to 50 years.
If made under section 36F to a province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation for the construction or expansion of a sewage treatment project, 5| per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is up to 50 years.
Questions
If made under section 8 to a co-operative housing association to provide family housing accommodation for its members or shareholders, 6| per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is 35 years.
If made under section 23C to a province or municipality to assist in the implementation of an urban renewal scheme, 5f per cent per annum computed semi-annually and not in advance. The maximum repayment term is 15 years.
If made under section 23D by an approved lender to the owner of a housing project located in an urban renewal area, 6| per cent. The maximum repayment term is 25 years.


APPLICATIONS UNDER MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have any applications been received as of this date by applicants for either grants or loans under the manpower mobility program and, if so, how many?
2.	Have any applications been approved and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the breakdown for each of the provinces in Canada?
3.	Were any individuals moved to new employment from Newfoundland as a result of the special applications of this program to the Wabana Iron mine closure and, if so (a) how many (b) to what provinces were these employees moved?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	Yes, from the effective date of the program, 28 December 1965, to 3 June 1966, 944 applications for loans and 691 applications for grants have been received.
2.	Yes, from the effective date of the program, 28 December 1965, to 3 June 1966: (a) 628 applications for loans and 360 applications for grants have been approved; (b) the number of approved applications by provinces is:
Province	Loans	GraiNewfoundland	37	34Prince Edward Island	7	6New Brunswick	4	4Nova Scotia	74	35Quebec	70	55Ontario	332	154Manitoba	12	23Saskatchewan	2	3Alberta	18	13British Columbia	72	33


B606 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
June 20, 1966
Questions
3.	Yes, from 2 May 1966, the effective date of the designation of Bell Island under P.C. 1966-693 of 14 April 1966, to 3 June 1966; (a) grants have been authorized for 31 employees of Wabana Mines; (b) of the 31 for whom grants have been authorized 7 have obtained employment in Newfoundland, two in Nova Scotia, 18 in Ontario and four in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Keays: 1.	Did Mr. Cyrille Bond, of Madeleine-Centre, Quebec, act as a local agent for the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	If not, what position did he hold in the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
3.	When was he appointed to the commission?
4.	Was he dismissed and, if so (a) when (b) what were the reasons for this action and upon whose recommendation (c) does the commission intend replacing him?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	Yes.
2.	N/A.
3.	Mr. Bond was appointed an agent on 2 April, 1963.
4 (a), (b) and (c). On 21 April, 1966, the secretary of the Unemployment Insurance Commission notified Mr. Bond that, pursuant to article 5 of the agreement made between Mr. Bond and the commission in 1963, the said agreement would be terminated effective 6 May, 1966. Mr. Bond did not perform his duties in a manner required by the commission. He will not be replaced for the present as the claims load does not indicate a need for an agent's services.


COST ESTIMATES, TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Mr. Flemming: Is the federal government consulted regarding the cost of trans-Canada projects before tenders are called and, if not, by what means are estimates made of cost for any fiscal period?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


FEDERAL BUILDING RENOVATION, OXFORD, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Are renovations planned for the federal building at Oxford, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) of what will they consist (b) when does the Department of Public Works plan to carry out the renovations (c) will public tenders be called to carry out the work? 
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): No.


CONSIDERATION OF BOUNDARY TREATY OF 1909
Mr. Coates: Has the government been involved in any discussions with the government of the United States regarding the boundary treaty of 1909 and the possibility of alterations to that treaty in order to provide more effective methods to control pollution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


COMPLAINTS ABOUT C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;HUMAN CAMERA&quot;
Mr. Rynard: Were any complaints received by the Secretary of State about the C.B.C. program "Human Camera" on youth produced by Beryl Fox which appeared May 29, 1966, and if so, how many?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The answer to this question is yes. Three were received.
tTranslation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, before supporting that proposal, I wish to point out that on March 23 last I put Question No. 1,142 on the order paper. I wonder if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) could make a special effort, after three months, to answer that question?
[English1


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do my best, sir.
[Translation1


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Could the hon. lady tell me when she will be in a position to answer the questions which I placed on the order paper on April 22 and 26 respectively?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Kon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which has to do with the mystery trip of Mr. Ronning to North Viet Nam, on which
June 20. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	6607
the house has had no information. Is the minister now in a position to advise the house that the reaction of the North Vietnamese government to peace feelers is one of frigid contempt; and is he not in a position to advise whether the views of the President of the United States have been brought to his attention, as expressed at a press conference on Saturday when the President said words to this effect: "I have no information that I can make available that would give any encouragement or credence to believing any disposition on the part of the North Vietnamese to negotiate". As well, as part of the general picture, in the same press conference the President indicated that the United States might be expected to accelerate and intensify its attacks on North Viet Nam.
Has Canada expressed any views in this regard to Washington? What are Canada's views in this regard?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my right hon. friend will realize that he has
asked a whole series of questions. Mr. Running has only just reached Ottawa. I had a first discussion with him this morning. The Prime Minister and I will have further talks with him today concerning the results of his visit. For the present I am sure it is wise to say nothing further concerning this particular phase of our continuing efforts in relation to the Viet Nam problem.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What about the questions respecting the President's indication that the United States will now accelerate its air, naval and land attacks in North Viet Nam? Has the Canadian government been in communication with the United States and expressed its view in respect to this new turn of events?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian
government has been in touch with the United States government.


John George Diefenbaker: That is about as far as you will get.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I have a question for the Minister of Labour of which I have given him notice, I hope in time. On Friday my leader, the hon. member for
Inquiries of the Ministry Burnaby-Coquitlam, asked the minister some questions with regard to ten longshoremen in Vancouver who had been brought to court on charges of violating an injunction order. At that time the minister said he would look into certain questions relating to this situation.
I should like to ask him now, in view of the fact that ten officers of the international Longshoremen's Association in Vancouver have been sentenced to fines of $500 and $400 or the alternative of three months in jail, whether the hon. gentleman is prepared to propose the necessary amendment either to the legislation or to the regulations so as to avoid the danger of court action against workers who fall within federal jurisdiction and who take advantage of the statutory holidays provided in the Canada labour code.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the hon. member for having advised me of this question. I confess that it might be still better if I took it as notice, since as yet I do not have the reasons for the judgment of Mr. Justice Verchere who dealt with the matter. I find the forecast in this matter that I gave on Friday last was not too far out when I said the question involved was not so much one of interpretation but whether or not an order of the court had been disobeyed. I find, at least based on information I have received over the week end, that this was the case.
I might add that the union leaders appeared in court and made statements in which they said that injunctions are frustrating-this was part of a long statement-and that in order to protect themselves in this field they must reluctantly engage in civil disobedience. That, I say, seems to be a matter for the courts, because the law is still the law and must be respected. However, until I have seen the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Verchere and have had a chance to study them in conjunction with the debates which took place in this house and in the other place last year, when the labour code was being discussed, I do not want to give a definite answer to the hon. member's question.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the original restraining order could only have been obtained on the basis of an interpretation of the existing law-this is how the whole case arose; this is why the longshoremen were in court last Friday-would the minister consider amending the law in such a way that restraining orders of this kind would become impossible in similar cases?
June 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot give a definite answer to that question at this time. I do not wish to offer too much encouragement either, because I find that in the statement which was made on Friday last, at the opening of the motion, the longshoremen also said "It may be said we could have attended in court to give reasons. If we had, we would have been recognizing the right of employers to ask for mandatory orders..." With all due respect, surely the law is for the court to interpret, not the Minister of Labour. I would prefer not to give a further answer until I have the reasons of the learned judge stating his reaction toward this particular statement.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Bearing in mind the troubled industrial relations situation in British Columbia, will the minister do his best to expedite his consideration of this matter?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would be very glad to do so.
1Translation1



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport?
It is an important and urgent question, in view of the fact that the shipping period is now in full swing. Can the minister tell us whether his department is taking any special steps to prevent pulp and paper companies from dumping logs and pulpwood into navigable rivers, canals and waterways?
[English!


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will take this important question under immediate consideration and give an answer as soon as possible.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a scathing editorial in the Fort Nelson News concerning

the lack of participation by Central Mortgage and Housing in construction activities in Fort Nelson? This is an important matter, and I hope the minister will have something to say in connection with this article.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest this question be placed on the order paper, a course which might give the minister an opportunity to take notice of the matter mentioned by the hon. member.


Bert Raymond Leboe: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this question is urgent and I think it should be answered now. I do not ask questions in this house very often, as you know. I am asking this one because the subject is urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member for Cariboo has asked the question I would be pleased to draw the conclusion that the matter is urgent.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am glad Your Honour has seen fit to permit this question. This was a disturbing editorial, and one which shows how far newspapers can go off the beam, to use a colloquialism, if they do not know the real facts. This was a critical editorial stating that no National Housing Act loans had been made in the town of Fort Nelson by the national housing corporation during recent years. I should like to place on record at the earliest possible date that, contrary to the indications in the editorial, we have not had a single application for a loan under the National Housing Act from Fort Nelson for several years. Furthermore, our branch manager visited Fort Nelson in November last, at which time municipal officials indicated there was a housing slump and told him there would be no N.H.A. housing requirements. I had a conversation on these lines not too long ago with the hon. member for Cariboo confirming this, so I am sure the editorial was as much news to him as it was to me.
Our manager in Prince George has advised the editor that if indeed there are people requiring N.H.A. loans and needing information about the act, he will be glad to visit and discuss the matter with them.



WHEAT-TERMS OF NEW AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: would direct a question to the Minister of
June 20, 1966

Finance in the necessary absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It deals with the wheat agreement with the Soviet union, announced by the minister earlier this afternoon on motions. I should like to ask whether the terms of the agreement provide any protection for wheat farmers against increases in the cost of transportation which may take place as a result of certain settlements which have been made with the seaway workers and dock workers, and which may have to be made with railroad employees.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would prefer to answer this question after I have had an opportunity of talking to the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board. I will say this, however. The only pricing which has taken place has been in respect to deliveries in the coming crop year. Prices for subsequent years are subject to negotiation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the minister, as a senior member of the government, is aware of the trade agreement. Can he tell us whether there is any clause which will protect Canadian farmers against an escalation of transportation charges?


Mitchell William Sharp: My reluctance to answer this question stems from the fact that this is a highly technical matter. I would simply say that the price of Canadian wheat sold to the Soviet union is determined by the Canadian Wheat Board in the interests of the western farmer, and not by the government.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: In
view of the possibility of continuing difficulties on the St. Lawrence seaway, will the minister give his personal assurance and that of the government that the dependable Atlantic ports of Saint John and Halifax will be given a good share of this wheat and flour business, in the summer as well as the winter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that in the contract between the Canadian Wheat Board and the U.S.S.R. provision is made for shipment of wheat through all ports of Canada, including Churchill.

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement he made about the sale of wheat to Russia, since Russia is a country that uses a lot of edible fats and oils would
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister not bring to the attention of the trade commission that Canada could provide them with edible oil from the rapeseed area of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that in response to the representations not only of my hon. friend but of many others throughout this broad country, the great productive capabilities of Canada in rapeseed have been brought to the attention of the whole world including the Soviet union.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the statement he made earlier today, and ask him whether the amount of flour is specified in the contract and, if so, how much in each of the three years.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position before the return of the Canadian Wheat Board to ascertain the exact answer to this question, but I can assure the house that provision is made for a very substantial quantity of flour in each of the three years.
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni (Oni.)) Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on his statement in regard to the new sales of grain to Russia, and that the matter of trade between our two nations will be reviewed from time to time. Can the minister state whether any definite commitment was asked for or given in regard to an increase of Russian exports to Canada and, if so, to what extent?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the statement I
made on motions today I quoted the exact terms of the communique agreed upon between the government of Canada and the U.S.S.R. through the Canadian minister and the Soviet minister. I suggest that this question be reserved until the return of the Minister of Trade and Commerce from Moscow.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister of which I gave him notice. In the light of recent electoral developments in Quebec, and the strong views on the need
June 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry for constitutional change that have been expressed from time to time by the new prime minister of Quebec, will the government reconsider the urgency of the appointment of a committee of this house to study, from a federal viewpoint, the question of constitutional change for Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for giving me notice that he was going to ask this question, and upon reflection I have to tell him I do not consider it should be asked at this time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Ten o'clock.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I received several telegrams this morning, one of which was delivered to me in the house this afternoon, and because of the urgency of this matter I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the government to continue the demolition of the guard row houses at Dorchester penitentiary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE OF ASSISTANCE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the government has decided to release the Donald report.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is on my desk.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is it to
be released? As a further supplementary question, can the Prime Minister say whether a cabinet committee has been set up to study this report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is going to be discussed at a cabinet meeting tomorrow morning.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a
further supplementary, under these circumstances what has been discussed between the
[Mr. Brewin.l
Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia that cannot be released to the miners and the people of Nova Scotia vitally concerned with this industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the growing anxiety among the miners and other people of Nova Scotia, will the Prime Minister make available to those people that information which was made available by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the Liberal leader of that province?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Without referring to the latter part of the question, about which I am not informed, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that we will be considering this whole matter tomorrow morning.
[Translation1



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Russell Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for the administration of ARDA.
In view of the fact that the term of the E.Q.D.B., that is the Eastern Quebec Development Board, will expire on June 30, can the minister advise the house whether he has been in touch with the new Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec to ascertain whether or not a small team of the board is expected to stay in office for some time, in order to ensure the systematic conveyance of the 11,000 files?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this question should be put on the order paper.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question is rather urgent, in view of the fact that a decision is to be taken very soon and that the term of the board is to expire within the next ten days.
[English!



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has
June 20, 1966

the minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Methodist Federation for Social Action, published in New York, which reads:
While the eyes of the world are focused on Viet Nam the Johnson administration has quietly achieved a nuclear armament-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows it is not in order to read this type of material as part of a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, Mr. Speaker, has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that it has been publicly stated that the Johnson administration has quietly achieved a nuclear armament of the West German republic by establishing a Bonn military axis outside NATO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is of a very general nature and should not be asked at this time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of which I have given him notice. Its urgency lies in the fact that we are at the beginning of the summer tourist season and also because of the consequences to the individual involved. Is the department investigating the circumstances in which Miss Masako Endo has been ordered deported by the Vancouver immigration office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the order paper.


Howard Earl Johnston: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of what some of us regard as urgency with respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, and in view of the fact that the list of questions for the ten o'clock show is becoming rather lengthy, would Your Honour permit the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to take the question as notice and give an answer perhaps tomorrow?
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



SASKATCHEWAN-JOINT PROGRAM OF HOME CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask him whether the joint program announced last year by the Prime Minister to be undertaken by the federal government and the province of Saskatchewan for the construction of homes for Indians, and which was to be on a trial basis, is still in effect; or has it been abandoned because only 10 homes were built?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I could not recognize this question. It is of a very general nature, and I suggest that the hon. member place it on the order paper.


Stanley James Korchinski: But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this information because some people are inquiring whether the program is still in effect and whether there is any point in making further inquiries about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the information should not be sought orally at this time.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister be presenting a report on the joint program undertaken by the federal government and the province of Saskatchewan in connection with housing for Indians, which was undertaken about a year ago on a trial basis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representations from the association which speaks for Canadian mortgage companies, seeking loans from the central bank to promote home building and, if so, what is the result?
June 20. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



BRITISH COLUMBIA-DAMAGE TO SALMON SPAWNING GROUNDS BY LOG RUN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether he has anything to report to the house about the court case, the writ of mandamus, with respect to the driving of logs on the Stellako river, which I understand was heard this morning before Mr. Justice Aikens in Vancouver.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I understand the matter was heard just an hour or so ago and no report has reached me as yet, so there is nothing I can add to what I said last week.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, would the minister be prepared to make public any scientific reports on the log driving in that river last year, whether they came from his department or the salmon commission?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will certainly give consideration to this request, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Prime Minister because he, in common with others, has received a series of complaints in the last few days from class B employees regarding the decision on the revision of their salaries, also asking that an interim addition be allowed at this time. Would the Prime Minister personally look into this matter and do something for these employees who have been waiting for action for a long, long time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had some communications on this matter, and those communications are now being given consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Revenue. When a statement is made on this matter can a firm assurance

be given that these group B employees will not lose out on an adjustment because of the changeover which is taking place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to remove any possible injustices in these matters.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Palferson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, asking him whether he will reconsider his recent decision which reclassifies practically all fishermen on the west coast as self employed persons for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we looked into this matter very carefully before making the decision which does classify some of the fishermen as self employed persons. As the hon. member is aware, there is a pension appeal board to which the decisions of the department in this regard can be appealed.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether he is going to follow the advice given by the postal workers over the week end.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question, which I am sure is predictable and which I am also sure has been anticipated by the Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: You will get a predictable answer.


Frank Howard: I hope I do not get the usual answer. In light of the announcement today by the Minister of Finance regarding grain sales to the Soviet union, will this transaction act as an impetus to the minister to give an early and favourable decision regarding the extension of grain elevator facilities at Prince Rupert?
June 20, 1966


John James Greene: I can assure the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that it will make my dynamic consideration even more dynamic.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the Minister of
Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. S-17, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the Minister of Justice) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that house that the House of Commons has passed the following bill, namely Bill No. S-17, to amend the Bankruptcy Act, with certain amendments to which concurrence is desired.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill No. C-197, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the time the resolution preceding this bill was accepted by the house, and this afternoon I should like to make a few remarks of the type that would normally be made at the time of consideration of the resolution. They will not infringe upon the general rules of debate.
Several general observations were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North regarding the subject matter of attendance at universities and the desirability of university education for all Canadians. That hon. member, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, read a number of statistics and made reference to a specific report. These hon. members, as members of the New Democratic Party are prone to do, arrived at conclusions in respect of university education on the basis of certain statistical information. In doing so I think they painted a false picture in respect of the desire of Canadians generally to attend university.
We know very well that on the basis of academic ability a regrettable number of students are attending universities who
Canada Student Loans Act should not be seeking a university education. It is true that many do not know whether they are able to obtain a university education until they have tried, but with proper guidance and investigation at the high school level many of them would never have gone to university because they would have realized they would be wasting their own time and the time of the teachers, and unnecessarily using already crowded university facilities.
Instead of looking for ways of providing free tuition at the university level we should be finding ways and means of increasing construction of adequate university facilities and providing increased salaries to induce more and more men and women to take up teaching in universities as a profession. What good does it do to bring thousands and thousands of young men and women into the universities when the present facilities are not adequate to provide them with the education they should receive when they get there?
I should like to correct what I think is a wrong impression. It seems to me it is wrong to conclude that because certain groups of Canadians earn so much money, a certain percentage of their children should attend university. It is wrong to conclude that the children of individuals who have greater economic means have an advantage over those without means so far as attending university is concerned. It is my opinion that of those students who have the academic and intellectual ability to obtain a university education, there are few who cannot find the means. They would appreciate it all the more.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
There are any number of members of this house whose parents did not have any economic advantages and who worked their way through university in the 1930's when there was far more economic deprivation than there is today. Today, in this affluent society, we know that in some universities bursaries and foundation funds go begging because there are not proper applicants or candidates for them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we got our heads out of the clouds in so far as university education is concerned. Let us say yes, we will provide the funds, we will provide the buildings, we will provide the teachers for these people, but first of all they must have a genuine desire to go to university and not merely look upon it as an extension of, shall we say, a period of easy existence.
If there are cases-and I think there would be relatively few today-of students who are
6614	COMMONS DEBATES	June 20, 1966
Canada Student Loans Act prevented from attending university through lack of funds, I think means can be found for them to do so. I will admit that everybody going to university would like to have more money to spend. Even the young fellow whose father is well endowed with worldly goods and gives him an allowance of say $50 a week spending money would like more money to spend. There is hardly one who could not find grounds for saying, "$75 is what I need". We are all human, and even our high school children who get $3 will say, "Well, can't you make it $5?" I am amused to hear this talk of $3 and $5 a week; it used to be something to get 25 cents a week when you went to high school.
There is in my opinion the necessity of a reorientation of our thinking with regard to providing financial assistance for attendance at university. As I have indicated in previous debates, I think we are putting the cart before the horse in this particular program and any program of free scholarships. Let us first build the universities, give them the money for libraries, laboratories and teachers, and then we will consider assisting students to further their education. Do not cram them into universities like meat into a sausage machine. What do you get out in the end? You get a lot of people who have been forcibly cut back and all too often you have too many products of the same identity and the same little sausage intellectually. In my opinion this is not the answer. A person who has a genuine desire to attend university will find the money that is necessary.
There is another point, Mr. Speaker, with which I wish to deal. It may have been referred to by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) but has not been dealt with at any great length. I refer to the question of whether the provincial governments, which control a large number of universities in Canada, are actually in a way turning aside the funds provided by the federal government for education and using them for other purposes. It is simple, when generous loans are furnished to students so they may attend university and there is a certain certificate of eligibility, merely to let the fees rise and let the students absorb a higher proportion of the cost of operating the university rather than the provincial government maintaining or increasing its relative contribution to the university. That is one way in which a provincial administration can turn aside, shall we say, moneys provided by 
the federal government and use them for non-educational purposes.
If a study were carried out in this field I do not know what the result would be. We know that fees are increasing. I am wondering whether the minister in his agreements with the provinces has made any provision for an escalation in the amounts required under the loan plan to compensate for an increase in fees. I think that in order to protect students both from the universities and the provincial governments there must be a ceiling imposed on fees, if there is one on the money that is available by way of loan, during the term of these agreements.
The minister has spoken of excellent cooperation or co-ordination between the provincial governments and the federal government. I wonder whether there has been any discussion in this respect. Otherwise the whole thing could be made complete nonsense by allowing fees to mount up without limit and at the same time limiting the amount of the loan available to a student. Remember, these are loans. We know what it is going to be like to repay these loans. There have been many instances of difficulties such as have been experienced with regard to those university graduates who have gone off on programs like CUSO. We will see how many difficulties will arise when The Company of Young Canadians is operating. We will see how many students who have taken loans under this program will be able to meet their obligations if they become members of The Company of Young Canadians. I think we will see a very interesting reaction in this respect.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, in recapitulation the questions I would ask are: What arrangements are there, either between the provinces and the federal government or between the provinces themselves, to sort of keep the lid on fees if they can? Second, is greater emphasis being placed upon capital funds being available for buildings, laboratories, libraries, teachers and, finally, for the students themselves, because in my opinion that is where the priority in respect of university education exists. It does not exist in cramming into our present universities thousands upon thousands of young people who will be artificially cut back at the end of their first or second year because they cannot continue at university due to a lack of space and teaching facilities.
June 20, 1966	COMMONS


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak generally and briefly on the amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act. When it was first introduced I of course spoke at greater length on the philosophy behind the bill and what it would mean to students throughout the country as a means of continuing their education with some sort of financial support from the federal government.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I wish to speak about three of its aspects. First of all, I want to reiterate to the house and suggest to the minister that despite the fact that this has been a very liberal piece of legislation-and has accomplished a good deal toward equalizing educational opportunity in this country-I would hope that its terms would be broadened in the future to include many students who are not presently covered.
I wish to speak in particular about part-time and night-time students. In our larger cities the number of students attending university on their own time in the evenings and at their own expense reaches rather large proportions. In two of the universities that happen to be situated in the riding of St. Law-rence-St. George in Montreal 15,000 out of the 30,000 students attending those universities do so at night time, and judging from figures I have received the same situation applies to a certain degree in the other large metropolitan sections of this country, particularly in Toronto, Hamilton and Vancouver.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister a question? He is in the rather unusual position of a minister in a cabinet advising another minister on what the latter should do. I am wondering whether these representations which he is now making to the house would not have been more effective had they been made where they should have been made by a minister, namely, in the cabinet. I have never seen this done before, but one learns new things every day in parliament.


John Napier Turner: I rather think the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would not wish me to reply to that question knowing that I am bound, as he was, by the Privy Council oath. However, I wish to point out that my intervention is in no way a criticism of this legislation. I am looking forward to the possibility of other aspects of this legislation being extended. I totally approve of the bill as it was introduced and, of course, of the reasons behind these amendments, but I am taking advantage of second reading to make a few
DEBATES	6615
Canada Student Loans Act comments on how I hope this legislation will be developed in the future and how I think we should react to the support of our students in this country.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking not in criticism of government policy but hoping, as I would imagine many members of this house are, that its terms will be broadened in future years.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the minister did not get my point. Is he saying that it is constitutionally proper for a minister, during the discussion of a measure brought before parliament by another minister, to explain that, while the measure is a worthy one, it would be a lot better if his suggestions were carried out? Surely that is not quite constitutional. I am not asking him in any way to contravene the oath he has taken as Privy Councillor but I have never before seen an instance of a minister explaining to another minister that while his legislation is good it could have been better.


John Napier Turner: I had the benefit of sitting in the opposition while the right hon. gentleman was prime minister of this country and I recall a number of such occasions then and also during the period I have been sitting on the government side of the house. There is nothing preventing a minister or member of the government from making certain comments on legislation. I can uphold the constitutional position I am taking on the basis of precedents.


John George Diefenbaker: There are no precedents.


John Napier Turner: I am sure there are precedents, Mr. Speaker, and I find myself in no unusual position. I am sure that hon. members on our side of the house will welcome in the future any criticism made at this stage of certain aspects of this legislation. I hope that some day the definition of a student will be enlarged beyond the one that is in the present act in which it is limited to a full-time student at a post-secondary institution. I hope that some day we will be able to in that definition include night-time and part-time students, especially as they are particularly deserving because after having worked eight or nine hours in a day they use their own free time to further their education.
I also wish to say that a subject which disturbs me is that reciprocity has not yet been achieved between the Canada Student Loans Act and the Quebec Student Loans Act: Despite the fact that in the province of
June 20. 1966

Canada Student Loans Act Quebec there is a piece of legislation providing for student loans and bursaries, the fact is that a student under the Canada Student Loans Act may obtain a loan from any of the other nine provinces of Canada to study at a university in the province of Quebec but it is not yet possible for a student coming from the province of Quebec to apply for a loan in Quebec for study outside that province except at a certain restricted list of institutions, one of them being the University of Ottawa and another the University of Moncton.
I would hope that we could look forward some day to students from the province of Quebec being able to obtain loans which would allow them to further their studies in other parts of Canada. I think this is essential if we look forward to mobility in our student population and if we look forward to an exchange of ideas between one province and another, especially between the French speaking and English speaking areas of the country.
ITranslatiohl
One thing is of particular interest to me and that is complete reciprocity between the students of Quebec and those of other provinces. I believe that, in the interest of Canadian unity and of our modern society, our Quebec students should be encouraged to pursue their studies in a province other than that in which they were born.
I am quite agreeable to have outside students carry out their studies in Quebec and, under federal legislation, such students should qualify for students' loans. On the other hand, I would wish that students in the province of Quebec could receive scholarships and loans from the province of Quebec to study elsewhere, without any restrictions.
[English1
My final comment, Mr. Speaker, is that I think many of us in this house realize that what we have achieved over the last two years under the Canada Student Loans Act must of necessity be considered to be an interim measure, and I hope that some day we will move toward a gradual reduction and an eventual abolition of student fees at all levels. That this act has been a useful one I do not think anyone who looks at it in a reasonable way would question. In the first year ended June 30, 1965, 42,500 students borrowed $26,400,000 under the plan, and the figures are running at the same rate in the current academic year. However, if we are to consider a university education in a world

where machinery will gradually shorten the work week, where automation will demand more skills to enable our society to compete with the broadening opportunities on the one hand and the greater restrictions of work on the other, a new generation able and equipped to deal with the larger problems of leisure time will have to have open to it as a prime requisite the full scope of education.
I say therefore, in looking at the loans as they now operate, that one of the problems which has been substantiated by the survey taken by the Canadian Union of Students is that the great majority of students who are managing to take advantage of this legislation primarily come from middle-class family backgrounds.
I think the reasons are not hard to find. There are certain psychological barriers which hamper students from less fortunate backgrounds in their ability to approach the administrations for loans. I think the figures speak very clearly for themselves. Only 9 per cent of the university and college population comes from families earning an annual income of $3,000 a year or less. When one considers that 25 per cent of Canadian families have incomes in this range, the disparity becomes even more clear. Nineteen per cent of university students come from families with incomes between $3,000 and $5,000 per year; yet over 32 per cent of Canadian families have incomes within this range. About 52 per cent of Canadian families have incomes less than $5,000 while only about 28 per cent of the university population originates from this income bracket.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think too that the survey shows, and those of us who have had the opportunity of retaining a close association with the universities and colleges across this country realize, that the majority of the students come from families whose parents' occupation could be classified as white collar, that is, professional or business. We want, I am sure, to broaden the range of the student population much wider than this.
It has been found as well that most of the students who finance their way through university and college depend upon a substantial parental contribution. Indeed, most of those who were interviewed considered this almost a prerequisite before they were able to go to college or remain there. It appears also that a majority of those who have taken advantage of this legislation come from more auspicious financial or social backgrounds. These people,
June 20, 1966

because of family training, are more able psychologically to risk incurring the debt that obtaining a loan requires.
I think the other side of the coin is equally clear. Most students who come from working class families do not appear to be psychologically geared to incurring this debt even if it is advantageously open for them to do so. Many of them reluctantly approach university administrations knowing that, no matter how good the cause, they are going to saddle themselves with debt which may take many years after graduation to discharge. I think it is particularly significant that not many girls, certainly in proportion to their numbers amongst the student population, have undertaken this obligation. If I may use the words of the brief of the Canadian Union of Students, apparently these girls do not wish to undertake obligations which may prove to be a negative dowry. I hope, therefore, it would be the intention of members from all parts of the house some day to arrange the financing of university education, and indeed technical and vocational training, on a basis that would eliminate tuition fees.
I am not suggesting that we should subsidize the small part of the population that may have the talent or initiative to obtain a university education. I hope that in the whole realm of technical and vocational education as well as university education we would move gradually toward the elimination of student fees. I say "gradually" because I think it is particularly important that we do not immediately dislocate the resources already committed to other plans of extreme social importance. I am thinking of medicare, pensions legislation and our commitments to urban renewal. I admit that at this particular moment this is the reason the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is restricted from moving faster in this field. He has to consider the important obligations we have incurred in the field of social legislation with regard to the aged, the sick, pensioners and so on, so we cannot immediately achieve the elimination of fees. Gradually we should move toward the elimination of fees for all types of education at all levels, and it should be done in such a way that the elimination of those fees does not constitute a subsidy by the rest of the population directly for students.
One suggestion made by the Canadian Union of Students interested me very much, and I am sure members of the house will want to consider it. It was that some day we might convert the loans into scholarship
Canada Student Loans Act achievement funds. In other words, if a student borrowed $1,000 per year, the maximum amount he is entitled to borrow, and successfully completed his university year he would be entitled to an automatic discharge of the obligation. In effect, this would become a retroactive, non-repayable bursary to him if he proved by his attainments at university that he had used the loan to good advantage.
As I have said, we must approach this subject keeping in mind the limits of the resources this country has already committed in other spheres. I should like to congratulate the minister upon extending certain of the provisions of this legislation and we look forward some day to the enlargement of the scope of this measure. As I said in answer to a question earlier today, I say these things not in any sense of criticism or in any breach of solidarity with my colleagues but for the future improvement of this very liberal piece of legislation.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that it is rather unusual for a member of the cabinet to enter the debate at this point. I suppose the minister has a responsibility, as the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, to the many students who go to Sir George Williams University. However, I got the impression it was a leadership speech.
I should like to make a few comments, some of which are prompted by the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He seems to be worried about the number of people in university. I think I am right in saying that these loans are available to students who attend the various technical institutes of the country today as well as the community colleges which are now coming into existence. They are not restricted to university students. I do not agree with the contention of the hon. member for Edmonton West that the universities are clogged with people who should not be there, who are not intellectually able to attain a university education. My impression is that in the last few years the universities have been raising their standards of admission. I know this is the case in my own province, so people cannot get in as easily today as they could in the past. I am glad I do not have to do it over again because I am not sure I would meet all the standards.
June 20, 1966

Canada Student Loans Act
I challenge the statement of the hon. member for Edmonton West that our universities today have a great many students who are not intellectually able to attain a university education. The standards are going up and this has automatically weeded out a number of people. However, the universities can solve this problem any time they want by raising their own entrance requirements, if indeed such a problem exists.
The other day my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), quoted the figures compiled by the Canadian Union of Students to which the Member of the Administration (Mr. Turner) has just referred. The hon. member for Edmonton West has criticized these figures. He says he does not believe they tell the whole story. It is true, however, that the upper income groups obviously have a great many more of their children in universities than the lower income groups. The basic point is still true. It is more difficult for a student if he comes from a low income family. We are trying to get some equality of opportunity in this country, and I believe the figures presented by the Canadian Union of Students are valid. We should take a very careful look at them. Despite what the hon. member for Edmonton West says, a great many people do have difficulty going to university. It is difficult to get sufficient funds. Students cannot always get summer employment, at least at rates of pay which will give them the kind of money they need to enter university.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The hon. gentleman said that there are bursaries and scholarships going begging in this country. That may be true, but let us accept the fact that many of these are for people who have a high level of ability. I am more concerned about the average university student, the sort of person who may not win intellectual honours but who makes up the bulk of the people in professions such as law, the medical profession and the teaching profession. There are all kinds of people of this sort who have the ability to go to university but do not have the ability to win scholastic prizes. These are the people, coming from families with incomes of $7,000, $6,000, $5,000 and below, who have difficulty going to university in Canada at the present time.
We have been reminded many times that we cannot afford to waste whatever abilities are possessed by those who are capable of

university and professional training. This is why we need not only a student loans fund but a system of bursaries of the type which give aid to any student who is able enough to enter university.
The hon. member for Edmonton West also suggested that the emphasis is being put on the wrong place, that we should give more money for capital construction of universities and for appointment of professors. One cannot argue with that, but it comes back to the same old question of priorities. Let us not have any hospital insurance until there are enough hospitals and nurses. Let us not have a medicare program until we have trained sufficient doctors. There is never enough in this sort of context, and if we wait for these things to come about we will never do anything. We must proceed on all fronts at the same time. If we wait until every university has sufficient accommodation and staff before we say that we can now provide free, if you want to use that term, tuition and education, then we will never achieve that situation. In the same way, if we wait until we have enough doctors in the country we will never provide medicare.
My general impression of the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West was that it was a good Conservative speech of the type we do not always hear from the members of the Conservative party, but I will go on with my own remarks having said something about his speech.


An hon. Member:: We express our views.


Robert William Prittie: My point was that the Conservative party has a great many people with different political views, but the speech of the hon. member was a good Conservative speech and I congratulate him for it.
The Member of the Administration (Mr. Turner) was concerned about mobility of students in Canada, and so am I. I reread the debate of 1964 when this measure was introduced for the first time, and I expressed regret at that time that there had to be provincial quotas. It seems to me that higher education in Canada is truly interprovincial. I imagine that at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa there are students from every province in the country. Certainly at the University of Alberta there are students from all parts of Canada. This has to be so,- because our universities specialize. It would cost us a great deal more for higher education than it does today if every university in the country attempted to have every
June 20, 1966

type of faculty. Instead, Mr. Speaker, our universities wisely specialize. For example, I believe that in the whole of the country there are only four provincial forestry schools. Therefore people from the other six provinces have to go to one of these four provinces if they want to become forestry engineers. There are also a limited number of dental schools and veterinary schools. Apart from this, I think it is a good idea that students in Canada go to a province other than their own in order to obtain part of their education. It is good for them from the point of view of national unity, something which we are talking about all the time. Therefore this sort of mobility should be encouraged.
That is why I am sorry that we have provincial quotas. I should like to see a national fund set up to which all people who are eligible for university entrance in this country could apply. It seems to me that if sufficient funds were made available this would be a perfectly fair way to operate. I suppose the provincial quotas were instituted because at the time the measure was introduced in 1964 charges were made by some members that it represented interference on the part of the federal government in the realm of education. I do not want to go into that subject in complete detail today. I think one could make a good case in support of federal involvement in education. I did so earlier this year when I introduced a resolution to establish a federal office of education which was debated on February 23. However, I will leave that there.
Long before the Canada student loans fund came into existence the federal government was assisting students, generally postgraduate students. Through the means of the Canada Council and the National Research Council the government has given aid to education for a very long time. It seems to me that the Canada student loans fund is of that same general nature. There is nothing at all wrong with the federal government wanting to assist students in this country by means of the Canada Council and N.R.C. through which it has done so for many years.
There is one other way, Mr. Speaker, in which the federal government could give direct assistance to more students than it is helping at the moment. We regret that the scholarship plan which was advocated by the Liberal party during a number of election campaigns, I believe starting in 1958, has not yet been brought about and that we are still confronted with this student loans fund.
Canada Student Loans Act However, here is a way in which the government could assist.
For a number of years the federal government has been financing the education of people destined to become regular officers in the armed forces. If they passed the requirements which were demanded by the Department of National Defence these students entered university. Not only did they get their fees paid but they also received an allowance and had summer employment guaranteed them. This scheme has been in operation for personnel required by all branches of the armed forces but particularly for medical personnel. In return for this they have to undertake to serve with the armed forces for a period of years.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government could go further in this field. I am thinking particularly now of the federal civil service. This is a very large organization having a great demand for professional and technical personnel of all kinds. They have to compete with private business, with provincial governments, with municipal governments and with the universities themselves for the people who are needed to staff the departments of the federal government.
I suggest that the Civil Service Commission ought to be given authority to enter into some kind of arrangement to finance the education of students. In return for that assistance from the Civil Service Commission these students could guarantee to serve in the federal civil service for a period of years, just as the people in the armed forces who are taking advantage of the R.O.T.P. plan guarantee to serve in the forces for a given period.
Not only does the civil service have trouble generally competing for the graduates of our universities but it has a problem in one particular field, a problem which will reappear when the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism is presented. We hear the complaint that not enough French speaking university graduates are entering the federal civil service, whether to serve in Ottawa or somewhere else, but that they are working for the government of Quebec or for private industry in that province. It seems to me that this type of plan could be used to attract more French speaking graduates to the federal civil service. I suggest that a plan be instituted much along the same lines as the R.O.T.P. plan for the armed forces and that we not only pay
6620	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act the fees of the students but also give them a certain living allowance.
I should like to mention one other point, Mr. Speaker, in connection with aid to students other than by loans or scholarships. The hon. member for Edmonton West seemed to suggest that there is something all right about the element of struggle, that if you had to work hard in order to get through university-and perhaps the Minister of Finance had to work his way through university-so did a lot of other people too. I remember that when I went to university I had to spend three days a week working in a warehouse and I spent three days a week attending university, and I can testify that is is not the best system. I had to miss out on sports as well as on intellectual activities.
I think that the element of struggle is rather old-fashioned now. I think we should make it easier for people to go to university and be able to obtain the benefits of university life. I do not mind students working during the summertime but I think that while at university their attention should be centred on the activities in the classroom and outside the classroom.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Last week the Minister of Finance in his introductory remarks said that the student loans fund was one stage in the government plan for students, presumably he meant that the scholarships would have to come later. This afternoon the Minister without Portfolio made reference to the same thing. It is an interim step, and he said rather vaguely that he hoped we would be able to achieve tuition free universities in Canada. But how long will this take? The government has now been in office for three years. We have got no farther than the student loan plan. When is the next step going to take place? By next year the first group of students, those who entered university in 1963 when the government took office, will graduate. How many graduations will there be before we get beyond the student loan fund?
I know it is very easy to say that there should be tuition free universities in Canada. But if this country, which is second or third in the world in standard of living, cannot afford it, who can? We must make efforts to this end. It is being done in many places. Many parts of the United States do not charge students college fees. In France, for the most able students in any case, I believe university is completely free. I believe in

DEBATES	June 20, 1966
Uruguay this is the case. Canada should also do this.
How long will it be before we see this 1 do not know. The Liberals are frequently reminded during election campaigns that a national health insurance plan has been in their program for a long time. It was born in the same year I was, 1919. My hair is getting thin and grey and we have not yet got it. I hope it will not be 40 years before we get a scholarship and tuition free system for students in Canada.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us is another instance of the constitutional hodge-podge in which we have been plunged by the present government and it is another indication of the continued mix-up in federal-provincial relations. This bill concerns student loans.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. members who stated previously that Canadian students in all provinces need special and substantial help in the present development of our economy, of our industry and our education needs; I am in full agreement with them on this point. But where I differ, it is when the present federal government introduces a bill to amend legislation passed in 1964, to alter or increase the requirements of federal loans to students. On this point I think we are missing the boat. It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but this is not a federal government responsibility, even though I may be the sole voice to be raised in this house on that point, I am raising it now and I shall continue to do so until the end of my mandate, because we are going at it backwards and I repeat, this is creating across the country tensions and pressures that bode no good for national unity.
I was quite amused a moment ago when the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) mentioned in his argument that the central government was justified in dealing with education but that he lacked the time to elaborate at this point. Strangely enough, I have never heard a single member during this session or in earlier sessions, when I followed discussions of this house, put forward a basic argument in order to prove that the central government is justified in assuming educational responsibilities, either through student loans or scholarships, which are to be distributed shortly as promised in the platform of the Liberal party, or still by any other indirect or implicit means, as
June 20, 1966

pointed out by the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) the other day, when he suggested the establishment of a cultural division within the Secretary of State.


Robert William Prittie: You will find my argument in the official report for February 23.


Maurice Allard: Very well, I shall read Hansard for that date, after looking up the page, and then I hope to have the opportunity to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member at that time.
My position will perhaps be termed as over-simple or as anything else, but the responsibilities of the central and the provincial governments are clearly defined and specified in the Canadian constitution, and since it has always been refused to amend the constitution and even to establish a joint parliamentary committee during this session, so as to bring about constitutional reforms-which I favour-the central government must therefore restrict its responsibilities to the specific fields devolved upon it under sections 91 and following.
With regard to education, it is clear; education and teaching belong exclusively to the provinces. It is written in the constitution. The central government can intervene in only one case, and that is when a group in a province suffers some prejudice following a provincial decision, as long as it deals with a denominational matter. That is the whole substance of section 93. The central government does not have the right to interfere in the field of education, except in extraordinary cases, when a complaint is made, and by introducing and passing a compensating legislation here in this house, something no one ever objected to, to correct grievances and prejudices which arose in the past throughout the country.
But it is always the same centralizing method, always that spirit of the government, which is called the federal government, which interferes in all the fields of Canadian activity and which proves itself to be a centralizing government, a government which becomes more and more Unitarian, the provinces becoming, by its own decisions and its own implications and interference in fields of activity, mere branches which are a little like the municipalities, to distribute cheques, do unimportant things.
Well, that is not the spirit of the confedera-tive pact of 1867 and it is not the role which
Canada Student Loans Act Quebec wants to play in a Canadian federalism. That is why I say to all hon. members, who know it very well already, that the province of Quebec, not to show any separatist tendencies, not to quarrel with the rest of the country, does not participate in the unconstitutional, illegal, centralizing, antifederalist legislative measures in the fields of federal loans to students, school allowances, scholarships which the government is getting ready to hand out. I wonder why hon. members from various parties do not take the floor-particularly those from the province of Quebec-to protest against such important legislative measures which go against the supposedly autonomist and federalist views of the people of Quebec. The cure would not be complicated: the central government which controls three quarters of the big fiscal cake need only give additional amounts to the provinces when equalization payments are made. Those are technical aspects and the provinces would assume their responsibilities in this respect, under the Canadian constitution.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I think the federal government has no right to interfere in areas out of its jurisdiction as was done in many cases prior to 1949, when a final court of appeal existed to deal with constitutional matters. And the central government of that day was ill-advised to take such action, because certain decisions counteracted the centralizing steps it took. At that time, many Privy Council judgments indicated that, in a federal system, a government could not do indirectly what the constitution prohibited from doing directly. In 1964, some hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, presented a basic and important argument in answer to three Liberal members from the province of Quebec who had been given the task of selling this intrusion by the federal government and who maintained that Ottawa was not interfering in education but was merely making loans through the banks. How hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. And it was alleged at that time that loans were made to farmers and fishermen. However, they neglected to say that under section 95 of the Canadian constitution, the federal government and the provinces have joint jurisdiction in the field of agriculture. Today, also the federal government has jurisdiction in the field of fisheries. But, according to section 93 of the constitution, only the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education and teaching.
June 20, 1966

Canada Student Loans Act
Well, it has been established by the theory of the "colorated" legislation that the courts consider the purpose of the act, and not its appearance. This legislation is not a loan; it is an act to give assistance in the field of education. If its ultimate result is to legislate in a field coming under another's responsibility, it must be declared null and void.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this act is absolutely ultra vires. I may be told: "In that case, take the matter before the courts." Another anomaly in our system.
We have no constitutional court. We have no court where, in a federative system, the governments, the central and the provincial governments, appoint, in all fairness and equity, representatives to take an equitable decision on constitutional conflicts. We have a supreme court only. I do not quarrel with the competence or the various purposes of that court, but it is the absolute creation of the central government, where the provinces have no representatives; they cannot appoint representatives or judges to that court to take decisions on constitutional problems. The present federal government takes a great deal of interest to all sorts of problems, but it should restrict itself to problems which are not settled and which come under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the various ministers. There are a lot of problems, a lot of hardships and complications in economic and industrial matters in the country which come under section 91 of the federal jurisdiction. The central government should devote all its energy and its ability to settle the problems incumbent upon Ottawa, and mind its own business and leave to the provinces their own jurisdiction. The provinces can manage their own business, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Newfoundland as well as the province of Quebec. Let the hon. Minister of Finance restore to the provinces their taxing powers. Instead of keeping that pile of money, he can always set up standards of uniformity across the land. And, in the field of education, as in that of culture, the province of Quebec wants to be sole master of the orientation, the development and the survival of education of this generation and of the nation that lives in the stronghold of the province of Quebec. That is why it objects to the dictates of the central government, regardless of what party is in power. It is all very simple. That is why section 93 was inserted in the constitution, in 1867, and why confederation was achieved as a pact, an agreement between the two great founding nations of our country. But it seems


all that historical significance has disappeared. Indirect attempts are made, through all sorts of means, through tacit attitudes, to gain access to all fields without the consent of the provinces, and once established in a field of endeavour, the federal government offers the provinces to raise money and co-operate, with the help of federal statistics and federal decisions, in setting up standards.
Well, I say this is going backwards. If the central government and the nine other English Canadian provinces really want the central government to deal with the field of education, I, for my part, have no objection, since I respect the way of thinking of all Canadians.
But then, this government should assume their responsibilities and initiate constitutional reforms. They do not want to reform, they do not create any parliamentary committees, as regards the constitution, they keep on resorting to steps which widen the gap and foster misunderstanding between Canadians, between the province of Quebec and the other nine provinces.
I can well understand the English speaking Canadians from the other nine provinces not objecting to grants in the educational field, either from the central or from the provincial capital. For those Canadians, who have my respect and admiration for their vitality, the success in their personal activities and in the financial and industrial field, this question is a technical one, a mere matter of form.
Dollars may come from the provincial or from the federal capital; it is just a technical matter. They share the same culture, the same educational curricula, the same language, most have the same religion and thus they constitute a group having the same interests in the educational and cultural fields.
But in Quebec it is different. French Canadians make up a nation with rich and diversified sociological elements; they have to retain their own traits to orient their own educational programs. In order to orient the various aspects of this planning the government of the province of Quebec, no matter which one, needs essential revenues.
Thus, we see two different approaches. But why not create a parliamentary committee on constitution that would be a prelude to a national conference, grouping Canadians of good-will, from Halifax to Vancouver? I do not feel that the problem is insoluble. The Canadian people of 1966 are as intelligent as their 1867 forebears, I am convinced of that.
June 20, 1966

If there are technical aspects, tax-sharing questions, if the province of Quebec, for special reasons, wants to be solely responsible in certain fields, educational or otherwise, while the other nine provinces would rather surrender such a field of activity to the central government, I have no objection to it. All that would be needed is the necessary machinery.
As long as responsibilities are not faced and Canadians of good will are not given the opportunity to come face to face and write down a statement of practical and bicultural federalism, with the provision of a special status for Quebec, and as long as we keep on in this field of federal loans to students which seems to forecast a nation-wide system of scholarships, possibly a department of education, a cultural section in the Secretary of State department, I say that we are going backwards and that tensions, disagreements and misunderstandings are being heightened across Canada.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take my stand against the principle of this bill.
[English1


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate on the student loans fund. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). He canvassed an area in constitutional law which causes him and perhaps, the province of Quebec a good deal more concern than it causes the province of Nova Scotia.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I have the privilege of representing a constituency in which there is at least one institution of higher learning. Moreover, the province from which I come has always contributed in an outstanding way to the educational advancement of this country. 1 wish to say that the student loans fund finds favour in Nova Scotia, certainly in the constituency I represent. I have heard speakers say it favours the rich, not the poor. It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) mention priorities. As a member of the N.D.P. he should not scoff at priorities. Priorities and planning form one of the basic tenets of his party. One has to have priorities in certain areas of government and if ever there was an area in which we need a plan it is the area of education. This also applies to medicare.
Canada Student Loans Act
The one basic complaint I would make against the Canada student loans plan is that we may be putting the cart before the horse in that we are not providing the administrative equipment, the professors and buildings in advance. This also applies to medicare. The medical resources fund came before us after the government said it was going to implement medicare. I think the government should provide the facilities and buildings before starting to fill them with students or patients, but generally this measure is a step in the right direction.
As Confucius said many years ago, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step, but this is certainly not a first step because the government has already taken the first plank from the Conservative platform in 1965, thus making my task of supporting this measure easier. It can now add to that plank which advocated student loans, which is a little different from its own plank of student scholarships. The government has adopted a per capita grant of $5 instead of $2 as we in the Conservative party advocated and has followed and continued the program of vocational education which we started and stimulated. If the government can now develop a few planks of its own, so much the better. Having built upon the foundation which this party laid when in office and having adopted our educational platform in 1965, the govern-mentand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), are to be commended for their work in regard to the Canada student loans fund.
To give the lie to some of the discussion that has taken place in this chamber on the resolution stage and also today about how this legislation favours the rich and hurts the poor, I would like to quote the figures which the Minister of Finance gave on June 13, as recorded at page 6307 of Hansard, and the figures given in the 1965 Canada Year Book which sets out the total enrolment of university students in the year ended 1964. There will be a certain overlapping because I think the figures used by the minister covered the period to the end of March, 1966. There is not a complete basis for comparison but I think the figures give a certain indication.
In effect the figures support the purpose of this legislation. The province of Prince Edward Island is not renowned for its large professional or elite class. It is a largely rural, agricultural province. It is also a fairly political province at the present time, and maybe the people there need a little more education to help them solve some of their
6624	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act political problems. The Canada Year Book shows that in the year 1964 83 per cent of the students in P.E.I. participated in the Canada Student loans fund. Those to my left may say that if tuition fees were free there would not be many more students in P.E.I. to cover, but I take Prince Edward Island as an example because it does not have a large white-collar class and if a student is deserving he can qualify for aid.
Newfoundland, which also is not renowned for its established professional elite or for affluence, had 59 per cent of its students participating in this plan in the calendar year 1964. In Nova Scotia 47 per cent of the student enrolment participated, over 3,700 out of a total enrolment of 7,700-odd. New Brunswick, which also is not renowned for its elite, professional, vested interest class, had 57 per cent of its students participating.
On the other hand, Ontario, which has much more wealth than many parts of the east, had 45 per cent of its students participating, some 20,000 out of an enrolment of 44,000. In Manitoba the figure was 38 per cent. Saskatchewan, regardless of the tremendous boom given to its economy by the Conservative government by the wheat sales to China, is also not renowned for its professional elite, and 61 per cent of its students participated. In Alberta the figure was 57 per cent and in B.C., one of the richer provinces, 41 per cent participated in the student loans fund.
These figures do more than any verbal dialogue or monologue to indicate that the plan, while it may not go far enough, certainly has been a boon and an aid to deserving students who wish to further their education. In our economy and society there is pressure today to increase and expand the base. There is pressure to eliminate tuition fees but there are other priorities which come first. There are qualifications which a student who aspires to higher education should meet. With student aid, scholarships and bursaries, all deserving students can get that higher education which is so necessary in our modern-day society.
Though in general and in principle there can be no complaint with the student loans fund, administratively there have been some problems but to a large degree they have been ironed out. Initially the processing of applications was very slow. This caused difficulty but over the two year trial period that difficulty has been eliminated to a large degree.
[Mr. Nowlan.l
DEBATES	June 20, I960
The six months interest free period after graduation is pretty short. I suggest a small amendment to the administrative provisions of the act whereby the interest free period would be extended, thus providing more time to a graduate to get established either matrimonially or in business before starting to repay the loan with interest.
As I say, though not related directly, there are certain features in the student loans bill which correspond to medicare and the medical resources resolution. The government has stated clearly that regardless of provincial objection it is going to introduce medicare. Toward that end it has introduced the health resources fund. I say the government is putting the cart before the horse in many ways. The student loans legislation is running into the same problem. It is providing money to aid students to go to university but because of the tight money policy enforced by the Minister of Finance, especially as it is applied to the maritime provinces, there are universities which have not been able to get loans from the banks in order to expand.
This problem is going to grow greater unless the minister and the government in the very near future start to apply fiscal policies on the basis of regions rather than giving a blanket, castor oil treatment to the whole country.


Mr. Stewart:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will permit it but I do not
know if I can answer it.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John B. Stewart: I should like to ask the hon. member to explain to the house just what mechanism he would use to apply a monetary policy to one region of the country rather than to the country as a whole?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if I, like the hon. member who asked the question, were sitting on the government benches with the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and the advice available to him, I could devise some policy which could be applied on a regional basis with fiscal preferences in order to stimulate the economy and would do more good than a general application of the castor oil treatment. Everyone knows that you cannot give the same dose of castor oil to ten different babies and that the province of Nova Scotia is pretty close to being the financial and economic baby of this country. You cannot stimulate by giving a
June 20, 1966
general application of the castor oil treatment. In fact, you can cause many unfortunate illnesses or perhaps even constipation of the economy.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman another question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You may cause fiscal constipation.


John B. Stewart: Is the unwillingness of the hon. gentleman to answer my question an indication that he does not know of any monetary mechanism which could be applied on only a regional basis?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am sure the hon. member is well aware of the protests which have come from the eastern part of this country regarding designated areas. That is one illustration of how the maritimes could be assisted.


John B. Stewart: That is not a matter of monetary policy.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: So far as the question is concerned I will wait until a member of this party has the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance, at which time I am sure that a monetary and fiscal policy will be devised to help areas in this country on a regional basis. I had intended to speak about the principle of this legislation. If I try to answer any more questions of the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough I may lose my benign and benevolent spirit.
Basically I think the principle behind this legislation is good and I do not think there is any reason for keeping the Minister of Finance here during a further discussion. However, I know of case histories where the education of individuals has been curtailed by an inability to obtain loans from banks because of tight money. I am sure if the hon. member, who was in Nova Scotia last week, had consulted with the bursar at St. Francis Xavier or at Dalhousie he would have discovered that potential students for the first time in the history of these universities are not able to get approval for loans from banks because of the tight money policy.
The principle behind the legislation is good and the 47 per cent figure, quoted as the national average participation excluding the the province of Quebec, speaks well for the fund. It also speaks well for those students who are prepared to accept a financial burden in order to obtain a higher education and are prepared to work hard and make sacrifices in order to do so. I think we must remember
Canada Student Loans Act that there are at this stage of our development many other more pressing priorities.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex Wesi):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to speak briefly on second reading in support of this bill. A study of the results of the working of this law over a period of two years shows that 41,000 students obtained loans in the first year and over 50,000 in the second year. These figures definitely prove that there has been a need for this type of legislation and indicate that it has already played a national role in this country.
Students who obtained loans under this legislation had to meet strict provincial criteria. In some cases the criteria were narrower and more strict than they perhaps needed to be, making it difficult for some deserving students to obtain necessary funds. This is, however, a matter perhaps not completely under the control of the federal authority.
It is clear therefore that without this legislation tens of thousands of students would not have been able to pursue their studies in the manner they have been able to. The use made of this legislation demonstrates that without it we had not yet reached the stage where any student who could qualify, as suggested by one member of the official opposition, would have been able to obtain the necessary funds to pursue a university education. Contrary to what apparently was suggested by the same representative of the official opposition, I do not think there are many students in universities today who should not be there. I am sure the facts will show that the reverse is true and that there are many people not attending universities today who are quite capable of following university studies. There are many people who have accepted jobs which do not demand the full measure of their ability.
Surely the dollar cannot be used as a useful measure of vocational guidance. If we must have some system of vocational guidance in this country for directing or choosing people for attending university, the worst system of all is one related to financial circumstances. It seems to me, contrary to the views expressed by several members who have participated in the debate, that there is no reason why a student from a family of modest means should have to work after school or on week ends in order to obtain a university education when other students of more favourable economic means are able instead to study, read and partake in extracurricular activities. I do not think any real

6626	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act argument can be made today to support the suggestion that someone from a family of modest means should not have the same opportunity of using week ends and after school hours for studying as the student from a family of higher economic standard. We very seldom if ever hear those individuals who say there is something valuable and wonderful about struggling for an education suggesting that every student should earn every dollar required to obtain a higher education.
I have never heard anyone advance the argument that even a student from a family of means should prove that he has earned personally every dollar needed for his university education before being admitted. The fact that this argument is never advanced demonstrates that there is not necessarily any moral advantage in having to struggle for an education.
I support the concept that has been put forward in this house this afternoon of extending this type of legislation to those seeking higher education on a part-time basis or through evening courses. I also support the concept of making loans available to students living in Canada who are taking courses in countries other than Canada. In many cases the types of courses required are not available in Canada or in those Canadian communities in which the students normally live.
This legislation has already been of great benefit to tens of thousands of Canadian students and it is a step forward to the time when university fees, in the sense we think of them today, will be eliminated so that higher education will be available truly on the basis of ability rather than means.
There are all sorts of possible uses for every dollar the federal government has available. There are many requests forthcoming for federal assistance and in almost every case sound arguments can be advanced. The federal government must do everything it can, as must every level of government, to deal fairly with all requests for financial assistance. There is a special urgency to deal with the needs of those seeking higher education today. It is clear that only through the higher productivity which is developed by increasing the level of education and skill in our society can we generate the greater government revenues needed in order to extend our programs of social assistance for the aged and other needy groups in our society who are justly calling for more assistance today and will continue to do so in the future.

DEBATES	June 20, 1966
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I think it is also clear that no matter what the formal constitutional requirements may be at the present time with regard to taking into account the status of the provinces in matters of education, the federal government in general can be supported and should be supported in the use of its means and influence in making post-secondary education available to all Canadians on an equal basis no matter where they live in our country and no matter in what part of Canada they wish to study. Mr. Speaker, I support second reading of this bill.
[Translation1


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to unduly drag on the debate on Bill C-197, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act, because, as everybody knows, the province of Quebec keeps out of federal plans in education. It insists that section 93 of the British North America Act which provides very clearly that education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction be complied with.
No matter whether it be in a western province, in a maritime province, in Ontario or in Quebec, education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces and not at all under federal jurisdiction.
A few moments ago, I heard members from the maritimes, for instance, or from western Canada, say how pleased they were that the federal government was intervening, meddling with the field of education, they were pleased. We have no objection if all the other Canadian provinces prefer centralization in the field of education, but we in Quebec do object to federal interference in provincial matters.
It is my sincere belief, Mr. Speaker, that the new Quebec provincial government, elected hardly two weeks ago, will jealously defend its provincial rights, making sure that education will be respected in the province of Quebec and that it will fall under provincial jurisdiction as provided under section 93 of the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that the federal government cannot provide assistance. The federal government can help the provinces to solve the education problem. And the only way to help solve this serious and thorny problem would be for the federal government to make available to the provinces the amounts required to provide for the education of young people in those Canadian provinces.
June 20, 1966

The federal government would then be respecting provincial jurisdiction or autonomy and acting according to its rights, for monetary policy is a federal and not a provincial responsibility.
The provinces are precisely complaining about the lack of money to help education in their respective territory. Let the federal government deal with the financial problem which is its responsibility, not by bills entailing running into debt which will force our students to meet financial obligations in four, five or six years, when they will face other and more important ones.
In order to allow these students to meet their other obligations, it is the duty of the federal government to help us financially to provide greater educational opportunities for our young people.
That is why-and most members of parliament, whatever party they belong to, know this-an economist named Robert Theobald, attache or adviser of the government in Washington, advocates an advance salary for students, proving clearly that a student works for the future of his country as much as a factory or ordinary worker. Let the student therefore receive an advance salary, since he is valuable, representing for Canada a real source of future wealth and an almost incalculable potential.
If we consider the student as a real source of future wealth for Canada, why mortgage it, why make him run into debt by passing such bills? Why not provide education for all without exception, and give those who have the necessary qualities an advance salary to allow them to continue their studies?
Mr. Speaker, the federal government can play its part in this field, by giving to the provinces the financial means to administer their educational system; by enabling the provinces to make education available to all, not only to the rich or the average man but also to the poor among whom there are still a very large number of minds to cultivate and improve. We find some, Mr. Speaker, in all Canadian provinces.
We are now asking the federal government to play its part and not that of others. I shared the view of the former Quebec government as I share the opinion of the present Quebec government which would like to enforce the spirit and the letter of the law, with respect to education, without being discriminatory.
We are not asking for anything that would prove detrimental to the other provinces; we
Canada Student Loans Act are asking that everybody and every province without any exception be treated equally. However, as I pointed out a moment ago, if the other provinces want to get together and centralize their education system here in Ottawa, they are free to do so, but we, in Quebec, are also free in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to point out that there is but one solution to the problem, not fifty. Loans to students amount to debts they have to repay and they will not save the situation. Students should be given advance salaries, and to do so the federal government could use the Bank of Canada to finance education in the provinces. Then it would not be necessary for the maritime provinces to come to Ottawa and ask how the children of Halifax, Saint John, N.B., or elsewhere will be educated. The maritime provinces could then administer their own education system which they could finance themselves, as in the western provinces and as we want to do in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In closing, I suggest that the federal government should work in its own fields to the solution of its own problems and give the provinces the financial and monetary latitude to administer provincial affairs, this to be applicable to any province in Canada.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as to the merits of this bill I support in general what has been said by other members of this party. I think they have dealt with it adequately and successfully and little more need be said on that score. There is only one aspect I wish to bring up. The recent increases in wages and the recent welfare programs which have been introduced in this country have set the country off on a spree of inflation, and anything we can do to counter it by working toward increased productivity is all to the good. Therefore I suggest that to the extent that this program will in due course have that effect it is one which should be supported.
I listened with interest to the statement made in a very forceful and eloquent manner by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) on the constitutional aspects of this measure and its parent act, and to the statement made by the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) who in general took the same stand. I think this is something which should concern us all. It is my view that the division of responsibility between the
6628	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act provincial and federal governments should be likened to a stream of clear water with the boundary running through its middle. But the government has so badly muddied the stream's waters through a series of federal provincial conferences and through indecisive wavering from one side of the stream to the other that it is very difficult at times to decide on what side of this constitutional barrier we are. For that reason I think it behooves us, after listening to what was said by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to decide whether or not he has made a point which deserves consideration. I give full credit to his constitutional and scholastic learning.
This is my position, Mr. Speaker. As a centralist and one who believes in one nation with the requisite strength to carry out the responsibilities which a nation should undertake I want the central government to have all the powers it requires to make it a viable unit. I look at this bill in the light of what has been said by the hon. member for Sherbrooke and if this house undertakes, in breach of the constitution, to intrude itself into areas where it has no business then my position must be just as strong in defending the rights of the provinces as it is in defending the federal strength in areas where it lies. I am a centralist who believes in a strong central government for one nation.
On examining this measure and its parent act I wish to note that parliament has ample authority and full jurisdiction with regard to matters dealing with banks and banking. The Privy Council in a series of decisions, in particular one involving litigation carried to that body as a result of legislation passed in the province of Alberta, gave to the words "banks" and "banking" the fullest and widest meaning. I would suggest that an examination of the original act indicates that this legislation contains to a very substantial degree measures concerning banks and banking. It simply qualifies and defines the type of person who is entitled to receive the benefits of the legislation.
If my memory serves me correctly, the only case I was ever able to find in which the right of the federal government to enact what is called the family allowance legislation was challenged was one in Quebec. I believe it was a court in Quebec which held that family allowances fell squarely within the rights of the federal government whose responsibility it was to raise funds by means of taxation and to distribute those funds as it did in the scheme contained in the Family Allowances

DEBATES	June 20, 1966
Act. I think there is some comparison between that case and the present legislation.
This is the second aspect of the legislation which we consider can be supported. Any doubts on this score can be dispelled by an examination of the interpretation section of the original act. In section 2, subsection (1) (e), it is provided that a "certificate of eligibility" means a certificate in prescribed form issued by a provincial government. In subsection 1 (k) it is provided that a "specified educational institution" means an institution of learning prescribed by a provincial government. In other words, as I read the pertinent sections of the legislation it is only when the provincial government and the proper authorities of that government see fit to prescribe the type of institution which can be covered and to give a certificate of eligibility to the student that he can become eligible for a loan. While I listened with great respect to the hon. members for Sherbrooke and Villeneuve, under those conditions I must say that I can see no reason why this parliament should not deal with these amendments as it did with the original legislation in 1964.
I have felt it necessary to make these remarks because of my very strong feeling with regard to the need to ensure that this parliament retains the full right to deal with those matters which are completely essential to the proper government of this nation and that there should be no interference with and impairment of those rights by any provincial government. I think it is equally incumbent upon us to be the guardians of the rights of the provinces in all of those areas which are undoubtedly and unrestrictedly under provincial jurisdiction. However, I suggest with great deference that this is not one of those cases.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
[Translation1


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, whenever I have the opportunity to rise in the house to take part in the debate on a bill, whether Bill No. C-197 or any other, I always think of the French saying: "Criticism is easy, Art is difficult." This helps me to broach the question with moderation and matter-of-factness, and to criticize only in a constructive way, and not with overwhelming praise, in an effort possibly to improve the proposed legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at any length: Only some unconnected observations, I should like to endorse some statements previously made. I should also like to express
June 20, 1966

some opinions at a variant from those already uttered. For instance, I was astonished when I heard the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), Member of the Administration, say that it was unfortunate to note that in the case of Quebec, there lacked what he called reciprocity. As if, for instance, Quebec students benefitting from certain loans, were to be deprived if they were to go and study in other Canadian institutions or in institutions outside Canada. That is not normal. On the whole, the purpose of this legislation is to help education, and it seems to me all opportunities should be given in any branch of learning which a Canadian student might wish to undertake. I myself have in my files many cases of students from my constituency who have complained of what might be called discrimination.
Now, with regard to the federal government, I think that this discrimination is much less prevalent and that there might not be any reason to intervene strongly even if there are still some cases which should be corrected.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) stated that our universities are full of students who do not seem qualified. I do not know if that is the case out west, but in the provinces which I had the opportunity to visit, namely Ontario, Quebec and the Mari-times, I do not think that it is. I think that our institutions of higher learning are full, that is true, but it cannot be said that they are full of unqualified young people, far from it, because I go as far as thinking that quite a large number who would be qualified, who would like to continue their studies are refused because facilities are lacking. It might be a good idea then to step up also the financing programs for the development of universities or the construction of new schools.
Mr. Speaker, a little earlier I listened to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who said this, more or less: Each government should mind its own business. He repeats it differently: Cobbler stick to your last. There seems to be something illogical in what he was saying. After stating that he had nothing to complain about as far as the province of Quebec was concerned, since it is not covered by this bill, he insisted strongly on the fact that the provincial jurisdiction should not be interfered with.
I agree with him, just the same, that if our friend from the Ralliement Creditiste succeeded in solving what can be called the financial problem, or in operating the financial 23033-4201
Canada Student Loans Act reform, there might be fewer problems, but I am not competent enough in that field and I have no suggestion to offer him. I listen to him with great interest but I must admit just the same that I do not see yet any practical conclusion, even if I see some very theoretical ones, to his undertaking.
Mr. Speaker, I come to another remark made a while ago by a member of the opposition. He said, and I had noticed that myself in the legislation, that those loans must be granted simply for students who register in institutions approved by the provincial governments. I feel that such an intervention is not warranted. I think that the limits should be extended. I even believe that if it wanted to no longer lay itself open to criticism with regard to constitutional matters, the federal government should try not to interfere and the provinces should do the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word about the attitude of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). Hon. members might find amusing that, apparently, I do not share his opinion; this simply proves that we are two independent members but, by and large, my opinion is not so different from his. Now, my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, a constitutional law professor, an expert in constitutional law and a perfectionist, at least in matters pertaining to the constitution, somewhat reminds me of what goes on in most Christian religions. Some Christians try, in good faith, to be as virtuous as they can, although not necessarily trying to be heroes; on the other hand, some religious orders tend toward perfection, often with an exemplary stubbornness which is not always realistic.
I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke is probably right in raising his voice every time constitutional matters come up in the house, but the laymen, and I among them, who are not too familiar with the fine points he discusses, believe he should be a little more realistic.
Students today should not be deprived of what they are entitled to, while endless constitutional disputes go on. As far as I know, these arguments have been going on for the past 30 years and there are just as many problems today as there were then or will probably be for the next 25 or 30 years. Therefore, I think that today's generation should not be deprived, on account of constitutional scruples, of that to which it is entitled.
6630	COMMONS
Canada Student Loans Act
Now, some maintain this is interference in the field of education on the part of the government. With my little knowledge-Mr. Chairman, I admit my incompetence-I do not think this is federal interference in the field of education. It seems to me that the ten provinces have their own education departments and look after their education problems. The only thing is that the federal government is putting what I call a temporary measure, which will certainly not last indefinitely, at the disposal of the provinces that do not have the financial resources to provide for the needs of their students.
Until these constitutional problems are settled-it is to be hoped they will be settled one day-I for one once thought that the time had come to do so, but I note, for instance, that we should start by being in agreement in the province of Quebec.
There are two or three trends, and I believe that as long as Quebeckers do not learn to agree among themselves, at least on what they require as standards in the Canadian constitution, it will be quite difficult for them to sit together with Canadians of other provinces to try to reach a formula. Otherwise, we could have the opinion of a group, and the other would not be satisfied. I think that the time has not yet come.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to my main conclusion, while hoping that these constitutional questions will be settled as soon as possible.
The federal government must fully carry out its responsibilities under the constitution. The federal government has understood since it entrusted the province of Quebec with administering this student loans fund. Thus, the matter is settled from the constitutional standpoint. If the other nine provinces want to carry on with the central government-I am under the impression that agreements have been reached with the federal government-then there is no violation of the constitution or if there is, it is by mutual consent of the parties concerned. As I am from the province of Quebec, I have nothing to say about what is going on in the other provinces.
But, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the federal government should encourage banks to grant loans to sutudents, until education is free at least at the upper level. That would be desirable until we have what has been called the advanced salary. The federal government should encourage loans and should force banks and caisses populaires to lend money to students for education purposes.

DEBATES	June 20, 1966
And all this bona fide, without any federal or provincial control or restriction. Any Canadian businessman can borrow from the bank to operate his business, to make improvements to his buildings, he can get a long-term loan, for four years. Now, why should the federal government not give the banks the right to make 10-, 12- or 15-year loans to students who want to prepare themselves to become leaders in the Canadian community, and why could the government not intervene, by paying the interests for instance? If the total amount of loans came as high as $58 million-it could reach $75 million with the additional amounts that would be authorized in each case-and even $100 million, or yet $200 million, that would mean that at 5 per cent interest, the federal government would pay out $10 million interest annually. It would be paying very little to train the experts we need. We are being told that we lack almost 1,500 to 1,800 technicians and engineers every year in Canada.
I feel the government should make such loans easier to obtain and do away with the red tape such as we find here: "such amount must not be exceeded; the institution must be approved by the province-". Why not let the student attend the school of his choice where he may get the specialized training he needs to become a leader. Let us help him by paying the interest involved and extending the period of repayment until he begins to earn his living. On the other hand, he should be assured that if death or illness should prevent him from repaying his loan, his estate or his family would not be charged the costs he incurred to attain a higher level of education enabling him to be a Canadian, a leader. In short, Mr. Speaker, those are my views on the subject.
In conclusion, I say that the government proposal contained in Bill No. C-197 is a worthy effort which should surely be encouraged, even though it is still not perfection itself, keeping in mind that it is easier to criticize than to accomplish, in the hope that the government will implement all the constructive suggestions made to help it attain perfection in that field, since it is one of the most vital fields requiring our attention without delay.
[Englishh


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the consent of the house to close the debate on second reading, as I am acting for the Minister of Finance-
June 20, 1966

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is acting for the Minister of Finance and wishes to conclude the debate, then I want to say that there are other members who wish to speak on this subject. I do not want to utilize my opportunity at this moment, but with the departure of the minister I thought that on a matter as important as this the government might feel constrained to move the adjournment of the debate. I think that would be the proper course. It is not very conducive to parliamentary debate to continue in the absence of the minister. I know he has to be away but my understanding was that the debate would be adjourned until his return. However, I do not know whether I have any foundation for that belief.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get unanimous consent I believe there is no alternative but for me to move adjournment of the debate at this stage. Therefore I move that this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-200, an act to amend the Customs Tariff-the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Monieiih:: Mr. Speaker, I think it was probably intended that the customs tariff and excise tax bills should be left over until the return of the minister also.
Order stands.



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian Film Development Corporation for the purpose of fostering and promoting the development of a feature film industry in Canada; to empower the corporation to invest in individual Canadian feature film production, to make loans to producers thereof, to make awards for outstanding accomplishments in the productions of Canadian feature films, to make grants to film-makers and film technicians, to otherwise advise and assist the producers of Canadian feature films; to provide for the administration of the said corporation; also to appropriate for the purposes of the measure a sum of $10 million to be paid out of the consolidated revenue
Development of Film Industry fund from time to time and to establish in the consolidated revenue fund a special account to be known as the Canadian film development advance account to which amounts may be charged or credited as the case may be.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this resolution has been on the order paper for some weeks and arises by virtue of the announcement made in September last year by my predecessor. This is the first opportunity the house has had to deal with the matter. Perhaps I might deal with the thought behind the resolution and the bill which it will support.
I am informed that in Canada there are some 1,400 movie houses which offer film fare to local patrons. At the box offices of these cinemas something close to 100 million admissions will be sold this year. By the end of the year audiences will have seen several hundred different feature films. Of that total fewer than half a dozen, perhaps as few as two or three, will have been made in Canada by Canadians.
The fact is that there is at this moment no feature film industry in this country. It is true that there is an occasional full-length motion picture made, usually on a very modest budget; but there is no continuity of production and no industry as such. Hence there is no real opportunity in this universally popular medium for Canadians of talent and technical skill to make their careers.
Several factors account for our dependence on entertainment films from abroad. We in Canada have always been keen moviegoers, but our home market simply is not large enough to sustain domestic film production at an economic level. The importation of foreign films has never in this country been restricted and our screens have always been amply supplied-one might even say inundated-with films of all levels of quality from the vast output of the studios in the United States of America and Europe. Against this kind of overwhelming competition Canadian producers have never been offered by their government compensating advantages.
Elsewhere the governments of nearly every country except the United States have recognized that the growth, and indeed the very survival, of a national film industry will require state support. This takes a number of forms in different countries, including remission of entertainment taxes, grants tied to the
June 20, 1966

Development of Film Industry level of box office activity, awards for quality, guarantees and various kinds of help in financing of productions. One or another form of assistance is available to producers not only in countries of relatively small population but even in the larger countries as well such as Britain, France and Italy.
In recent years film activity in Canada has grown steadily, but motion picture companies are engaged almost entirely in making industrial and documentary films and television commercials. Films of that kind as well as feature films call for a wide range of skills and technical facilities of the first quality. With the kind of knowledge and experience gained in that way an increasing number of film-makers and technicians are seeking to move into the field of major productions.
The creation of a major feature film industry will offer to Canada a new dimension of opportunity for those who are engaged in all branches of the performing arts. There are in Canada many fine actors and actresses, dancers and singers, who appear on stage and on television, and behind them are many theatrical crafts, such as set and costume designing, lighting and sound technicians, whose prospects should be very materially enhanced by this program.
[Translation1
May I, Mr. Chairman, emphasize the major contribution my colleague, the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne), and the former Canadian film commissioner, Mr. Guy Roberge, now delegate general of Quebec in London, have made in the launching of this project.
My predecessor as Secretary of State initiated this plan to help the film industry. The Canadian film industry will owe him the financial machinery required for its establishment and development.
The Canadian people as a whole have him to thank for making available such an essential cultural medium.
Without the enthusiasm and the devotion of Mr. Guy Roberge, the seventh art might still be marking time.
Indeed, it was under his capable chairmanship that an interdepartmental committee set to work and, in August 1965, submitted a report that served as a basis for this bill.
I am confident the house will join me in expressing our thanks to these two promoters of Canadian culture.

lEnglishl
After close study of the existing situation and assessment of the potential of Canadian creativity, the government is introducing this new measure to promote and help the growth of the film industry. It is proposed to establish a $10 million development fund and to set up a business corporation to administer it.
Because the production of a feature film is a high risk undertaking, Canadian filmmakers encounter great difficulty in obtaining sufficient financing to enable them to undertake major projects. The new agency will be empowered to invest in film productions which, in the judgment of the corporation, show promise of being intrinsically worthy and likely to succeed in commercial distribution. By the terms of investment the corporation will share in the proceeds from the distribution of the films and will be entitled to reinvest this income in further productions. The corporation may also meet some part of film budgets by loans to producers. To encourage and maintain continuity of the industry, awards are to be available for outstanding achievement in feature film productions. Film-makers and technicians may receive grants as well to assist them in improving their skills through study, experiment and research.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We should, Mr. Chairman, be under no illusion about the difficulties which Canadian producers will face in building up a commercially viable industry in this country. They will have to make it commercially viable by exporting their work, which will have to be done by virtue of profitable distribution arrangements. Canadian films must prove good enough to win their own place on world screens.
Even in Canada home producers will continue to face stiff competition from imported films. Many countries, in order to encourage the distribution of their own films, have applied quotas. This has guaranteed to their own producers a certain share of the market. We have chosen, however, not to introduce this kind of restriction in the bill at this time. Canadian films must, therefore, make it on their own merits. But in rejecting quotas we are counting on film distributors and cinema chains to give more than ordinary support to the aims of this program. It is extremely rare for a feature film to begin its screen career in Canada. Every important film reaches our theatres on a wave of publicity

June 20, 1966

which is started well before we see it in Canada. Canadian films will lack that advantage and must therefore have bigger and more aggressive promotion by distributors and exhibitors here and abroad.
Canadian producers will have to give the closest attention to the problems of distribution abroad. In the questions I am asked today it seems to me that ones relating to distribution arise most frequently. In Canada there are already companies in this field which have valuable links with other markets in other countries. It is intended that the film development corporation should help facilitate trading arrangements. Canadian producers will need the good will and good offices of these established interests to ensure that film distribution becomes a two-way process in Canada.
The production and distribution of feature films is increasingly international in character, the product of agreements between collaborators in separate countries. This device of co-production can have marked advantages for the Canadian producer. The joint resources of the producing organizations provide a wider choice of talented performers, directors and technical participants and effectively strengthen distribution of the completed film. These should prove especially important considerations in the early stage of the industry, which we hope will soon begin to grow.
The goal of this resolution goes well beyond the immediate practical aim of giving financial support to the development of film production. Motion pictures are an important element in our cultural life. They should serve a national purpose and reinforce our Canadian identity. Over the years Canada has achieved an enviable reputation for the quality of documentary and short films but not for feature films. It is time the gap was closed and that audiences everywhere, within and outside the country, should come to know the range and the depth of our Canadian expression.
I suppose there is not a child in the country who cannot mention at least one screen luminary of the past 50 years who has come from Canada. Unhappily our artists have all had to go in the past to France, the United Kingdom or to the United States in order to find opportunity and gain recognition. A flourishing feature film industry will give Canadian film-makers, performing artists and technicians of all crafts associated with filmmaking a role to play in the cultural development of the country. It will be a stimulus for
Development of Film Industry authors and composers to direct their creative energies to a new field. The process of making motion pictures and the wide exhibition should serve to bring Canadians into a closer and more fruitful association and help us to gain fuller awareness of our immense spiritual resources.
It is not intended, Mr. Chairman, that the $10 million fund to be set up should be used to make two or three men rich. It is not intended that we assist in the commercial development of an industry already well able to stand on its own feet. On the contrary, it has been demonstrated that in Canada the film industry has not been able to stand on its own feet by virtue of our small population and huge geographical expanse. Nor is it intended to hand this money out to individuals as a sort of charitable assistance. It is intended and hoped by the government to assist in this country, along the lines followed in other countries, in the bringing about of a viable industry. That industry will have to export. We think that Canadian artists, directors and technicians have something to say which the world wants to hear. We as the government are prepared, should the house agree, to assist them in saying what they have to say to the whole world.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I set the hon. lady's mind at rest by indicating to her that we of the Conservative opposition support the resolution she has just presented. When I examine the resolution I think of the phrase, "excite the bold and encourage the daring", which was used some time ago. This resolution is the first manifestation of those words. What the minister had to say about legislating artistic and fiscal success in such a high cost industry as the motion picture industry is refreshing. It is also refreshing to hear that a fairly toughminded approach is going to be taken toward this problem, and for that the minister is to be commended. However, I must ask whether it is possible to legislate artistic and fiscal success. I shall have several other questions to ask in my brief contribution to this debate.
I should like to see this corporation placed on as firm a foundation as possible consistent with good business practice. This is good Conservative philosophy. We should like to break the four minute mile record but as Conservatives we want to see that the track is well laid before starting down it because we might break our necks.
June 20, 1966

Development of Film Industry
Most of the problems to be solved were detailed by the hon. lady in her contribution. She said that we have small audiences in Canada in relation to the cost of the product we wish to develop and that we would have to show these films abroad if they were to be successful financially. We shall expect that some films will never pay their way but this should not be a criterion against producing them. I think financial loss should simply produce a go slow sign against accepting any idea from any production source.
There is the problem of getting the films into the mainstream of the 1,400 Canadian theatres that the minister mentioned. She indicated that while the quota system would be initially rejected and the distributors, which are largely United States companies, would not initially be required to show a certain number of Canadian films in Canadian theatres, this aspect would be reviewed. I commend this approach. If hinting to the distributors does not work we may have to take a second look at this matter.
The point that occurs to me is that the Canadian Film Development Corporation must be set up very carefully. Personnel should not be appointed to this corporation as a reward for some misadventure on the political scene. They will have to be knowledgeable people. They will have to be people not only from the world of the arts but also from the world of business.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We have themes in Canada which suggest themselves for production. I think of Laura Secord, that fine, homespun heroine whose memory marches on in the pages of history books and on the covers of candy boxes. I would not wish on the minister the chore of walking through the woods leading a cow and shouting "Excelsior, the Americans are coming." There might be a danger that wide-eyed amateur enthusiasts would take to the corporation themes which, while of great Canadian interest, would not prove to be artistic successes. We look at the films which are successful today and I am sure the heroines are far removed both bodily and spiritually from heroines like Laura Secord.


Mr. Graffiey:: Explain.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will not fall into the trap set by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi by explaining further. I had thought of a heroine for a film dealing with very current Canadian history. But I forbear. She did live in Canada for a while.


An hon. Member:: It might be a smash hit.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There is the question of investment in Canadian films. When I first saw the resolution I considered alternative approaches which might be used to ensure that finance was made available for Canadian productions without tying up part of the federal revenue. I thought of insured loans from the banks. Then I decided this would be impracticable because some films would obviously take a long time to break even and bankers do not want to wait a long time for their money. A second approach could be through an institution such as the Industrial Development Bank on a longer term basis. Perhaps what the minister proposes, a corporation with a certain amount of money of its own, will achieve the same result if certain of the principles applied by the Industrial Development Bank are followed.
I do think we need certain principles here. The minister has indicated it will not be possible for everybody to come off the street with an idea and have that idea translated into an expensive film production. I think she is definitely on the right track there.
I wonder whether the hon. lady has recognized that the cost of film-making is high. We read every week about United States productions which began with budgets of a few million dollars and ultimately went over the $10 million mark. In short, I doubt that the $10 million suggested by the minister will be adequate to accomplish all she hopes may be done. Perhaps at a later stage in this debate there will be some indication of the budgeting proposals in connection with the operation of the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
Another suggestion I wish to make is that we should have the benefit of the views of those now engaged in the film industry in Canada. I realize they have made representations to most, if not all, of the parties in this house and that in general they are in favour of the setting up of the Canadian Film Development Corporation. After all, they have made films in this country for some years. They could tell us about the costs likely to be involved, distribution problems and so on. It is for this reason that I suggest the bill should be referred to the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts where we could hear the views of some of these film companies on the legislation.
I think it has always been recognized that the maintenance and fostering of Canadian arts must often receive generous support
June 20, 1966	COMMONS
from the state. We are breaking no new ground here. I support the resolution. I say that we in Canada have the talent and that it is now up to us to encourage it in connection with the important film production industry.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, we join in welcoming this legislation to help establish a Canadian feature film industry. It will not guarantee its establishment but it may make it possible. The minister dealt briefly with the reasons we have not had a feature film industry in Canada. She correctly mentioned our proximity to the United States. The Americans have produced so much in English on film that we have not made the effort. I think this is true of many fields including scientific and educational research. So much has been going on in the United States that we in Canada have felt there was little use trying to compete.
This branch-plant thinking is part of the answer but I do not think it is the whole answer. Lack of ownership and control of Canadian movie theatres is one factor. The minister said there were 1,400 motion picture theatres in this country. Very few of these are Canadian owned and the whole question of profitable film production is closely tied to the facilities available for distribution.
The minister also mentioned the number of Canadians who will attend motion picture theatres this year. I do not recall whether she told us how much money they would spend, but over the years a very large sum has been accumulated by motion picture theatres in Canada and as far as I know none of it has been plowed back into the Canadian motion picture industry as has been done in a number of other countries.
It has been said that if the majority of people in Canada spoke some tongue other than English we would by now have a film industry in this country. The fact that we speak the same language as our giant neighbour has been an inhibiting factor.
Look at what has been happening in some other countries. Consider Sweden which has a thriving motion picture industry. If the Swedes are to have films in Swedish, that is the only place where they can be made. If the people of Holland are to have motion pictures in which the actors speak Dutch, then obviously they will be produced in Holland as, indeed, is the case. Surprisingly enough, Hong Kong, a British Crown colony, is one of the leading film production centres of the world. I say nothing as to the quality 23033-421
DEBATES	6635
Development of Film Industry of these pictures but certainly the quantity is great. The other great United States neighbour, Mexico, has a much larger film industry than we have in Canada although it can get films in the Spanish language from many places in the world. Again, this suggests a close relationship between film production and the language spoken. Necessity is the mother of invention. This adage often occurs to me when I think of the French language productions of the C.B.C. in the television field.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
At the time the French television network of the C.B.C. was started there was practically no French language television in the world. France had just begun its television program but there was no French television in Switzerland or in Belgium. Our people had to produce television programs from their own resources. They did so and produced some very good programs. Now there is a large corps of technical people, producers and artists in Montreal and it is the leading French language television production centre in the world. Again it is a question that if one has to do it one can do it. The talent is here in Canada.
The reason these people were successful was that the market was assured. Their own network took up the programs they produced. The distribution of their production was excellent. This is an all-important question to which I will refer later.
We in Canada have a film industry, both public and private, but not a feature film industry. The National Film Board has been in production for a great many years. Its work is well known. Its quality is good. It has won many awards in different parts of the world.
We also have a private motion picture industry in Canada producing films of different types including television films, commercials, industrial films, training films and films for government departments. The people in that industry have built a number of studios throughout the country which are quite adequate for feature film production and they have the necessary technical and directing staff.
Both the National Film Board and the private companies have provided a good training ground for Canadian personnel who can be used to produce feature films. A number of the private companies are well known for their technical excellence. Crawley Films of Ottawa are known throughout the
June 20, 1966

Development of Film Industry world for the type of work they do. Incidentally, they have produced at least one feature film. "The Luck Of Ginger Coffey", which is now getting commercial distribution. I know the actors were imported for that film and also the director, I believe, but the company put up much of the financing and the resulting film has been shown in different countries.
A number of French language feature films have been produced in Montreal. One which is receiving commercial distribution at present, "A Tout Prendre", was produced by Claude Jutra. It has been shown by the C.B.C. and is at present playing in New York. All this shows that we have the ability to do these things in Canada, but the production of non-feature films by the film board and the private companies has not been sufficient to keep some of our best people in this country. They are working in London and Hollywood. Some of the ablest Canadian producers were trained by the National Film Board or the C.B.C. I refer to Norman Jewison, Sydney Newman, Graeme Ferguson and Sidney Furie who, as I say, are working in both London and Hollywood.
One remarkable man among those I have mentioned is Sidney Furie who is now a leading producer in the United Kingdom. This man was so interested in making feature films here in Canada that he produced two with whatever type of financing he could obtain.
In this connection I wish to quote briefly from a broadcast I heard a couple of years ago on this subject. It was made by Gerald Pratley in July, 1964, and referred to the efforts of Mr. Furie:
Most of you know what happened to Sidney Furie. He was determined to make films. With the assistance of family and friends he raised the meagre sum of $50,000 and made, "A Dangerous Age," in 1958, the story of a young couple who tried to get married too early in life. When it was finished, and it wasn't a bad little film by any means, he found he couldn't get it shown in Canada. By this time I should add we now had a circuit of British controlled cinemas, the Odeon, formed by Lord Rank, because British films found it difficult getting a showing in this country in the face of American competition. An official of the Rank organization in Canada told Furie that he would never get his film shown anywhere in the world; it was not good enough. Turned down by other exhibitors in Canada, he went to England where he sold his film and where it was shown by none other than the Rank organization in its Odeon theatres.
Furie came back to Toronto and made another film, "A Cool Sound From Hell". His ambition was to break the jinx which hangs over film production here, to make his name in Canada and to give

Canada a reputation as a film producing country, and above all, to make it easier for those who came after him. But he couldn't get his second film shown either. This time, when Furie went to England with it, he remained there.
I would like to think that when this new feature film corporation is established Canadians like Sidney Furie, who have shown this type of initiative and raised capital on their own, will have the assistance which they deserve.
The minister stated that there would be no quota system established but she did say in quite strong terms that the established distribution companies would be expected to give some co-operation in the distribution of Canadian films, always provided of course that the films have some merit. This is impor-tand and I would agree with the minister on this point. I have done some reading on the matter of quotas as they are applied by other countries and if we can get some other system to distribute our films so much the better.
I certainly hope co-operation will be forthcoming because without distribution we need not think about establishing a feature film industry. It occurs to me that the C.T.V. network can also be of some assistance. Every year it buys hundreds and hundreds of films. Some of them do not have much merit but they are bought in a package.
When we are given the bill I shall be interested to see if there is anything in it with regard to Canadian content. There is such a provision in the United Kingdom. If a producer there wants to benefit from any government assistance, quite specific percentages as to British content are required respecting actors, production staff and so on. This prevents a foreign company from simply setting up a dummy corporation to take advantage of whatever government aid may exist. The question of Canadian content should not be overlooked.
As the hon. member for Halifax has said, different people from the film industry have been here to interview members interested in this subject. They have made certain suggestions about what would be a reasonable Canadian content in order to qualify for the aid which will be available through the film corporation.
This legislation and aid it provides have been a long time coming. It is regrettable that for so many years so much money has been taken out of Canada by the film industry without any coming back. But we are
June 20, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	6637
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act
pleased that finally this step is being taken to give assistance to those Canadians who want to make a name for Canada in the feature film industry.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it
six o'clock?


The Chairman:: It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), National Defence-making of speeches on politics by armed forces personnel; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Old Age Security-request for statement in increased pensions; the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Immigration-Vancouver-deportation of Japanese girl.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Notices of Motions:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in promoting increased trade between the Atlantic provinces and such traditional market areas as the New England states of the United States and those islands formerly comprising the British West Indies.
Mr. Nesbill:: Mr. Speaker, with reference to motion No. 23, which is first on the list today, may I say that the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) is unavoidably absent. I wonder whether by unanimous consent I could request leave on his behalf to have this motion retain its present position on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to allowing motion No. 23 to retain its present position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
23033-421J



CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so as to permit all persons who are in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the said act to enter into employment in any branch of the public service of Canada without suffering loss of pension benefits.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of my notice of motion is partly under consideration as a result of government Bill No. C-193. In accordance with the rules of this house I should withdraw my motion and I shall do so, but before I do I hope you will permit me to make a few remarks about the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and pensions generally.
It is being proposed that two sections of the act be deleted which have been working against retired servicemen who wish to work for the government in not permitting them to draw full pension as well as full pay. As I understand the situation, a section will be substituted which will permit the Governor in Council acting by regulation to consider various cases. At the present time the act states that warrant officers second class and above or their equivalent ranks and chief petty officers second class and above may work for the government but their pay and pension combined must not exceed the present level of pay for the rank they held on retirement.


Mr. Chatterton:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did I understand the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., to say that he is asking for leave of the house to withdraw his motion? If that is so I should like to raise the question of the hon. member being allowed to speak now.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. member has made a motion and that motion is now before the house. He has indicated that eventually he will ask leave of the house to withdraw it and at that point he will require the unanimous consent of the house. At the moment he is speaking on the motion itself, as I understand it.


David Walter Groos: I will be very brief in my remarks because I am interested in the motion to come before the house immediately following this one. All I wish to say at this

June 20, 1966
Pensions
point is that I will be watching very closely to see how the government acts in respect of the changes proposed. I believe that half a loaf is better than none but I am afraid we are buying a pig in a poke. When the government comes to acting on this change in the regulations, having deleted two offensive sections, I hope it will leave it so that an individual who has earned a pension and has decided to work again for the government will be entitled to receive a full pension and not have it diminished in any way by regulation. I should now like to ask leave of the house to withdraw my notice of motion.


Mr, Chatterton:: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I give my consent to the request of the hon. member, but that I will have something to say about the motion to which he has referred when it comes before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to withdraw motion No. 27 standing in his name?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PENSIONS


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give the earliest possible consideration to the advisability of adjusting upwards the pensions of superannuated public servants and of superannuated members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take appropriate account of increases in the cost of living, increases in salary levels and other relevant factors occurring since the rates of pension of such persons were determined.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of members of this house who would have liked to speak on the last motion, including the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton), the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself. However, we are very glad indeed to have an opportunity of debating this particular motion.
Three times already during this session I have initiated debate on this issue and since I have no desire whatever to be repetitive my remarks will not be extended now so that other members will have ample opportunity to express their views. But this warning I proclaim; I intend to persist in pressing for rectification of the hardships and injustices
[Mr. Groos.l
visited upon the retired civil servants of this nation until this or a succeeding government acts and acts decisively.
So far this session the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) have adopted an adamant, yes, an inflexible and stubborn attitude. The first glimmer of hope came last Friday when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), in reply to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, suggested that the terms of reference of the special joint committee on the public service be extended to include this subject, and I wish to quote from page 6543 of Hansard where the minister is reported as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have no objection to doing that providing the committee completes the huge amount of work it now has before it in considering four very complicated bills.
With that incentive I am sure the committee will be most willing to complete its work as rapidly as possible, and I suggest to the minister that this resolution might be referred to that committee. Indeed, I would welcome an amendment from the other side to that effect.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The hardships and the injustices of retired civil servants have been clearly demonstrated in many briefs presented to the government and in arguments in this chamber. Pensions paid for in hard dollars have been eroded by creeping inflation and, indeed, by not so creeping inflation. The dollars drawn in superannuation in many cases are worth less than 50 per cent of the dollars used to buy the benefits. Elderly people watch helplessly while their lifetime savings dwindle into insignificance. There is really only one issue before us in this chamber. Have the government and the people of Canada any obligation or responsibility to these retired civil servants of the crown or is it just a simple matter of contract between crown and servant and must the servant endure the dirty end of the contract?
I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is an obligation, a vital, blinding, moral obligation which this government cannot escape. The issue was really resolved in 1958 by the previous government when it enacted the pension adjustment act. This set a clear, unequivocal precedent. Basically what is needed is conformity to that precedent today, the updating and modernization of the legislation of the former
June 20, 1966

government headed by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert whom I have already described in earlier debate as the best friend in politics the retired civil servant ever had.
Canada is not the only country to face this issue. The other day I put on record some statements of principle uttered by the chief secretary of the treasury in Britain when introducing the latest pension increase in that country. They are words which I wish the Minister of Finance would take to heart. Britain had legislation increasing pensions in 1920, 1924, 1944, 1947, 1952, 1954, 1956 and 1962 as well as the latest in November of 1965. No one in that country argues any longer about contract and strict adherence to the letter of the contract. They act to bring justice to their retired public servants. The latest bill in November of 1965 was designed primarily to increase existing pensions, for example, a pensioner's original pension plus increases authorized by previous legislation of a similar nature, commencing on January 1 of this year.
The percentages by which existing pensions in Britain are to be increased are as follows: For pensions beginning on or before April 1,
1957,	16 per cent; between April 2, 1957, and April 1, 1958, 14 per cent; between April 2,
1958,	and April 1, 1959, 12 per cent; between April 2, 1959, and April 1, 1960, 10 per cent; between April 2, 1960, and April 1, 1961, 8 per cent; between April 2, 1961, and April 1,
1962,	6 per cent; between April 2, 1962, and April 1, 1963, 4 per cent; between April 2,
1963,	and April 1, 1964, 2 per cent. That, sir, is the situation in Britain.
In the United States legislation was passed during 1965 to provide for certain increases effective December 1, 1965. This legislation was designed in part to remove certain anomalies arising out of previous legislation of this nature and establishes a totally new basis for automatic adjustment in the future. This I want to emphasize, that in the United States adjustment in this field is automatic in the future without further legislation by Congress.
Apart from some special provisions related to survivor benefits of employees who died prior to April 1, 1948, the main adjustment is to increase annuities which commenced on or before October 1, 1956, by llMo per cent and those which commenced after October 1, 1965, but no later than December 1, 1965, by 6 Mo Per cent. These are in addition to
Pensions
increases authorized by previous legislation. Apart from a transitional provision for those retiring between December 1, 1965, and December 31, 1966, the general rule for increases in the future is that whenever the cost of living nationwide goes up by at least 3 per cent over the monthly price index used as a basis for the last previous cost of living annuity increase and stays up for at least three months in a row, an increase equal to the percentage rise in living costs will be granted automatically. This permits such a change to be made at any time during the year whereas the previous law in the United States permitted such a change only on April 1 after a 3 per cent increase since the previous adjustment had taken place.
In Australia retirement payments have been increased from time to time. The latest act in that country which I have seen is the superannuation (pension increases) act assented to October, 27, 1961, a copy of which I have in my hand. The increases are expressed in terms of the old Australian currency, namely, pounds, shillings and pence, and I confess that I am unable to work out the percentage increases. But what is clear, and this is the only issue before us, is that while there is no automatic adjustment to the cost of living there has been a periodic review and a positive acceptance in Australia of the principle of upward revision and adjustment.
In France provision has been made for automatic adjustment in line with general increases given to active civil servants. So the situation exists generally in most western countries. At least four Canadian provinces have taken action to increase the pensions of their retired public servants and several municipalities have done so also. That is why I say this principle has been clearly and positively established.
I am not unaware of the argument which the Department of Finance makes from time to time and which had its most logical spokesman in other days in this house in the persons of Mr. Ilsley, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Harris. They argued that any increase would be favouritism to retired civil servants over other groups of older Canadians faced with the same difficulties due to the decreasing value of their pensions or retirement savings under inflationary conditions. I remember Mr. Abbott putting it very bluntly in argument that the government had in fact fulfilled its contractual obligations to its former employees and that having done so it had no greater obligation to retired civil

June 20. 1966
Pensions
servants than to other needy pensioners. As I recollect, he raised the whole issue of the extent of the obligation of a democratic government to indemnify its citizens against the decreasing value of currency.
Whatever theoretical validity this argument may have, I believe it to be wholly fallacious in practice. The pragmatic, practical approach requires, I submit, a much more humanitarian attitude, more of what I may style as being the approach of the model employer, which the government and the people of Canada ought to be. So, sir, I say that the principle of such increases is well established The precedents are manifold. The time for the government to act, I suggest, is now. If it is not ready for immediate action, I urge the government and hon. gentlemen opposite to refer this resolution to the special joint committee on the public service for further study. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that they simply cannot just stand pat on this issue. The status quo is not good enough.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak briefly in support of the principle of this motion. It is a matter which I have brought to the attention of this house on previous occasions, as of course has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am glad to know that we are by no means alone in supporting the principle of relief for the faithful, retired servants of the crown. I am not going to take up the time of the house in trying to show the need for this type of action. The need has certainly been established in this house more than once, so I shall not deal with that point again.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I believe that the minister who would be responsible for any increase has been staggered by the size of the problem he faces in attempting to raise pensions for retired civil servants. My purpose in speaking today is to try to reduce the problem to manageable proportions. I have two suggestions to make. The first one is with regard to pensions in general. The pensions that we are giving are based on very generous payments made by civil servants and armed forces personnel while they are still in the service of the crown which I believe amount to 6J per cent, with a matching sum paid by the federal government. This makes a very sizeable amount of money.
I do not believe that the present arrangement whereby civil servants' contributions

together with matching federal government contributions are placed in the consolidated revenue fund and carried at a fixed annual rate of interest is suitable in these days of inflation. I think it is an outmoded system and a very unimaginative way of dealing with pensions today. I suggest that the government give some thought to introducing a more flexible scheme. I believe that in these days of computers we can afford to make use of these machines to achieve much more flexible arrangements for pensions which will be designed to meet the individual needs of people. For example, a man should have the right to see his pension payments together with the matching payments made by the government put into a fund which would grow at the same rate as the cost of living and would not be invested at a fixed rate as the money is today but would grow at the rate of dividends acquired by investing this money in some sort of mutual fund, if you wish to call it that. I am thinking of a fund which could be run by officials of the government or by a private organization. However, I will not try to lay down the details of this scheme.
I only wish to point out that it would be very much in the interest of civil servants and members of the armed forces not to invest their money at a fixed rate of interest but to put it into a fund which would produce capital gain and eventually increased dividends. Of course, this may not suit everyone but I believe a lot of people might opt for such a scheme and I think they should be given this choice. It may well be that other people would prefer the present plan under which their money goes into the consolidated revenue fund with a fixed rate of interest which assures them absolute security. Another possibility might be a combination of the two. I suggest that such variations are possible in this computer age. I am not underestimating the accounting difficulties which such a plan might create but surely they are not insurmountable.
The fault I find with the present federal superannuation scheme is that it is so absolutely inflexible that it cannot possibly compete with inflation which, as every hon. member in this house knows, occurs from time to time and through a cycle of which we are going today. My suggestion is that the government should look into the possibility of starting a new type of pension fund and that the future pensioner should have the right to decide whether he wishes to enter into this
June 20, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, speaking for my party and for myself I wish to indicate full support for the motion that is now before the house, calling as it does for an increase in the pensions of retired civil servants and other government employees. I shall indicate that support by being brief, and I hope any other hon. members who wish to speak will also be brief in order that this motion may be decided on by the house. This may sound like a futile plea, knowing what usually happens in private members' hour, but perhaps this could be the day when we might do something different. After all, it would not bring down this building if the house were to agree

June 20, 1966
Pensions
to pass this motion saying that, in its opinion, consideration should be given to this matter. I urge that today this motion be allowed to pass.
Whether or not this motion passes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to hold the government to what I regard as a commitment by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) made last Friday. It has already been referred to by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). The minister stated that he had no objection to the matter of adjusting the pensions of retired civil servants being referred to the joint committee on the public service for consideration once that committee has considered the matters that are now before it. So far as I am concerned, we could keep the committee here all summer for this laudable purpose. However, I do not believe that will be necessary. I believe that we will have our other jobs done fairly soon and I intend to see to it that the government is reminded of its commitment until it keeps it.
Mr. Speaker, the house has had the facts regarding the need for these pension increases, and the facts regarding what is being done in other jurisdictions, placed before it so often that these things do not need to be repeated today. May I just say, so that the record will be complete, that on page 566 of Hansard for February 2, 1966, there are figures given by way of answer to a question of mine which give the amounts of pension received by retired civil servants and by widows of civil servants. These figures are there for anyone to look at so he may realize the extent of the problem. Shortly after those figures were placed on Hansard this year-I may say that this question is asked by this member every year and the answers are thus kept up to date-the Ottawa Journal saw fit to editorialize on their significance. I quote only the headline of the editorial because it tells the story: "Pensioners' Thin Times". This was on Wednesday, February 9, 1966. On Saturday of last week the Ottawa Citizen also came to our support with an editorial headed, "Pleas Of Pensioners", in which a case is made for the need for this whole problem to be considered without further delay.
I want to make the point that not only is there the need of these people, which is very acute and very real and which we as their former employers must meet, but also that there is a principle involved in all of this which this parliament of Canada, this society
tMr. Knowles.]
of ours, has got to face. We cannot go on putting it off and off. This principle is that when people have retired, when they are out of the labour market, they still have rights. One of the rights that they have is the right to live in the kind of society that we have at that time. In my view, this means we have to get over the notion that once a person has been put on pension he must live on the number of dollars granted to him at that time for the rest of his life. Just as workers in all walks of life feel that they have a right to claim increases and to get those increases, just as people in any section of society feel that they have the right to meet rising costs and rising standards, so in my consideration do people when they have retired have that right. It is this for which we are fighting and for which the retired civil servants are fighting, the principle that people who have retired still have rights as members of the community, as members of a society that includes us all.
The government keeps on talking to us about contractual arrangements, about these pensions being the pensions for which these people paid. When people are paying for their pensions they are not given the right to say what society will be like, what economic conditions will be when they retire. Many people who today may not be interested in this plea, who may think that the pensions they are building up will be adequate, will find that is not the case when they go on pension. This problem is going to affect all of us as our society becomes more dynamic, as prices go up and as standards of living continue to rise. This problem is going to become even more acute. I submit that those people who are pleading their case out of desperation are, in fact, pleading a matter of principle. They are fighting a battle which is one of the battles with which our society has to cope. I urge that this is the place to start.
It is all very nice, Mr. Speaker, to hear the two members who have already spoken recognize the member for Winnipeg North Centre as being involved in this issue. It is very nice to get scores of letters, as I do, from people across the country thanking me for the effort I have put into this matter during the last 20 or 25 years, but Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. I do not want simply to be mentioned as a fighter for retired civil servants. I want this battle to be won.
It is not good enough for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of National
June 20, 1966

Pensions
Revenue and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to keep on putting off the matter. The time for action on this issue is now, in this very session of parliament. Action has been taken on a good many other things. This kind of action on behalf of the retired civil servants cannot be held off any longer. I hope the house will be ready to pass this motion today. If so, I am sure that we will express our opinion that something ought to be done. Whether or not that decision is made, I insist that the minister's commitment of last Friday must be kept, and that this matter of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants must be referred to the joint committee on the public service. I hope and believe that out of that consideration there will come a recommendation and that the government will act at this session so that these people can start to have their right to live in their well-earned retirement, and so that we can establish the principle that people who retire have rights which do not end when they retire. I urge that this motion be allowed to pass.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I too will be very brief in order to allow this question to come to a vote. I am quite sure if that is done there will be a unanimous opinion that retired civil servants and retired members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. should have the support of the members of this house.
The hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) suggested that the question was whether the fund established for public service superannuation could stand an increase in the amount paid to retired civil servants. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is not the question. In 1959 a bill was introduced to provide an increase in pension for those civil servants who were retired. The question is simply this: Does the government of the day hold itself responsible for the plight of its retired employees? I maintain that good employers today do accept this responsibility. If the government accepts this responsibility toward its retired civil servants, then a way will be found to fulfil it by making amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act or by introducing a special act. But it can be done.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
There is no question of the need, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to go into figures to demonstrate the need of the retired exemployees of the government. The question simply is: Is there the will to accept the
responsibility as an employer toward exemployees? If the will is there the way can be found. I stop now to allow the house to vote, and I am sure the vote will be unanimous.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. I agree with the mover and with the hon. members who have spoken in favour of this motion. I also agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and his statement that many problems which we are facing today are problems of prosperity. But this particular problem is right at the crux of the problems of prosperity.
The worker who is organized and has a powerful union is able to change his financial position. This has become dramatically apparent in the last few days with the very large wage increases which have been granted workers to solve various labour disputes in this country. A corporation has power, in effect, to tax consumers for its expansion and additional cost of operation. We have evidence of that power every time the cost of living index figures are published. Always the people who suffer from such action are those on fixed incomes such as those about whom we are talking this evening.
One could, of course, mention the plight of our old age security pensioners, and perhaps there is a priority need there. But anyone on a fixed income is caught in this position in a period of inflation such as the present.
There is no use at all telling Canadians at the present time to save. There is very little use in suggesting this is advisable when they see what happens to people who have saved and contributed to pension funds and then come out on the short end because of inflation.
We know that inflation is inevitable until the nations of the world, including ourselves, have solved the problem of distributing their productive capacities. In a way we have to keep inflating the value of our money, reducing its purchasing power annually. We also indirectly become involved in races to the moon. In this country we must be prepared to build a war tower which is going to be higher than the Peace Tower. A great many devices are used to siphon off the productive capacity of which we are now capable.
Repeatedly we find that the government has had a hand in the inflationary spiral through its own taxation policies. I cite here by way of example the tax on production

June 20, 1966
Pensions
machinery and construction materials. Our policies should be such as to increase production; instead we have added to the inflationary spiral. Even housing built for the aged does not qualify for remission of the tax on construction materials unless it qualifies for a continuing grant from a provincial or the federal government. There are no grants for this purpose from the federal government and the grants from povincial governments are few. The usual type of grants for this sort of construction is a municipal grant, so I would suggest there is a need for legislative change here.
As I say, the policies which are set continue to produce inflation and prevent steps being taken to mitigate the position of the pensioners on small incomes. It therefore becomes imperative for the government to move to alleviate their problem directly by adjusting the pension itself. I join the other speakers in urging the government to meet this problem of inadequate pensions of retired public servants, and I also ask the house to pass the motion at this time.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain many members in this house tonight may be asking themselves why the hon. member for Northwest Territories is now rising to speak on this motion which seeks to increase the pensions of retired civil servants. To allay any possible fears on the part of some members, I should like to explain to those in the house that I was born and brought up in the city of Ottawa and have been associated with the civil service for a certain period of time. I know many people in the civil service and I am aware of the problems and difficulties relating to the lives of retired civil servants.
I think particularly of the members of the civil service who performed public service during the so-called dirty thirties and also during the war years and who immediately following their service in the second world war retired from the public service. It is no secret that particularly during the years of world war II the Canadian civil service performed in a manner comparable to the performance of our armed forces. We know that at that time our civil servants were called upon to work much longer hours than is the case at present.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that their salaries were pegged and that they were not in the position, as is the case today, of receiving increments from time to time to

keep pace with the cost of living. Come retirement they left the service on what we know was a small pension, and this has created one of the great problems which is facing retired civil servants living in Ottawa and in other centres in which the civil service has served throughout Canada.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Although we are concerned with the civil service and the superannuates, I believe we are also faced with a very difficult problem, the same problem that will face Canada until such time as our over-all pension plan is designed to meet the total needs of the nation. I am thinking of those people who were in business for themselves and who invested their earnings in annuities and Canada savings bonds, not in growth stocks and cumulative funds. I am also thinking of individuals who have worked for private corporations and who are also on fixed superannuation. Those people have the same problems as our federal civil servants. I know that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) both have said that this is fine. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the answer is not much broader? I wonder whether the problem, instead of applying just to our retired civil servants, is not a national one? This is a problem that we as legislators and as Canadians must face in time.
Many people living in Canada today are in the same position as our retired civil servants. I think of the commitment given by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), that the special joint committee on the public service would examine the problem of pensions for civil servants. In the same way I think we should examine the total problem in this field as it relates to all Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I have sat in this house and heard people speaking eloquently about the retired federal civil servants. I am only sorry that the hon. member for Carleton is not here to illuminate for us the way of applying the solution of their problems to all Canadians. I hope that this government will be able to come up with an idea or plan so that persons who have retired and are on fixed incomes can continue living in this nation as we would want to see them continue living.
I am prepared to accept the statement of the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that the problem of retired federal civil servants can be referred to the special joint
June 20, 1966

committee on the public service of Canada. That committee in examing this problem will want to ask officials of the Department of Finance and other government officials what is involved in solving the problem to which I refer. I know that if firm and sound recommendations can be made the committee will be in a position to recommend to the government a partial solution to what I consider an over-all problem.
Tonight we have listened to several members speak in favour of the proposal before us. The problem is one that I followed with great interest before entering this house in the newspapers and publications of Canada. It is one that is constantly in the minds of our retired civil servants and also in the minds of those civil servants who are in the gap and will not be eligible, for all benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. Members of the house are deeply involved. I hope that somewhere along the line ideas can be developed to allay the fears of our civil servants still in the working force. As it is almost seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I shall sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Questions.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I had some extensive remarks to make on this subject but as other members have covered the points I wished to raise I shall not speak at length as there are only a few minutes left before seven o'clock. Keeping in mind the request of hon. members on the government side to permit this motion to pass and in order to give the government some leeway to act on this matter, I shall curtail my remarks and simply ask that this matter now be brought to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any member in the house listening to the remarks of the previous speaker is without sympathy for what he said.


An hon. Member:: You are talking out the motion.


James Edgar Walker: I regret that there are some misconceptions. Having listened to members talk on this matter, with great respect I point out that there are some misconceptions which have to be cleared up. May I specifically refer to the point brought up by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) who queried the amount of money in the superannuation
Development of Film Industry fund. I do not think it is good for civil
servants to hear that there are huge sums of surplus money in this fund which will never be needed to take care of those who have contributed. As of April 21, 1965, the Department of Insurance has confirmed once again that there is no surplus in the superannuation account from which higher benefits could be paid, if parliament were to decide that they were to be paid from some source.
The superannuation account is operated in accordance with the principles of funding. This is the point that hon. members who have spoken have not merely glossed over but have not come to grips with. Under the principles of funding generally accepted for employer-employee pension plans, pension benefits are regarded as deferred compensation, and contribution rates are such that contributions are collected at the levels established to accumulate enough funds during the active lifetime of contributors to provide them with specified retirement pensions and subsidiary benefits in respect of those contributors and their dependants.
The balance in the fund, together with future interest and future contributions, will be just sufficient to pay for future benefits to all active contributors and pensioners, assuming that actual experience accords with actuarial assumptions. If, however, the present value of future benefits exceeds the present value of future contributions the fund will be in deficit by an amount equal to such excess. Thus the payment of higher benefits from this fund would simply add to the deficiency and would simply mean-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for consideration of private members business has now expired.
ITranslationl



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Miss La-Marsh-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian Film Development Corporation for the purpose of fostering and promoting the development of a feature film industry in Canada; to empower the corporation to invest in individual Canadian feature film production, to make loans to producers thereof, to make awards for outstanding accomplishments in the productions of Canadian feature films, to make grants to film-makers and film technicians,
6646	COMMONS
Development of Film Industry to otherwise advise and assist the producers of Canadian feature films; to provide for the administration of the said Corporation; also to appropriate for the purposes of the measure a sum of $10 million to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund from time to time and to establish in the Consolidated Revenue Fund a special account to be known as the Canadian Film Development Advance Account to which amounts may be charged or credited as the case may be.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, if I rise at this stage of the resolution, it is with the intention to let the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) know that I support this resolution with certain qualifications. I do not intend at this time to deal at any length with this resolution, since the Secretary of State herself has not deemed necessary to supply a great deal of information on the subject; therefore we shall wait for the bill to discuss it in greater detail.
If this resolution is considered on the basis of needs in Canada, it is obvious that it does meet a need, even an urgent one because the film industry, especially with regard to feature films, is lacking in our country. There is no dearth of artists, in fact, we have a great number of artists of repute, I would even say of international repute, and I believe that this is due mainly to the fact that television has provided these people, male and female, with an outlet for their talent.
Mr. Chairman, having said this, I believe this resolution should be adopted from that point of view; but there is another consideration which gives rise to questions; that of economics. We can now afford to pay $10 million to the film industry. On the other hand, in various forms in many sectors of our national economy numerous requests are made to the government for assistance to less endowed areas of our population; quite often people are told that our revenue is not sufficient to help adequately fields that need assistance as urgently as the film industry.
If we consider the urgency of the need, it is obvious we may be lagging. But I wonder if, in view of the economic policy of the present government, we can really afford to do this now. Obviously, the public will once more defray through its taxes and levies the cost of these developments; but I doubt that they will bring our country very much economically, other than give our Canadian artists more scope on the national scene and also in international circles.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know exactly what the bill will contain, but I think the Secretary of State should tell us how the $10 million

DEBATES	June 20, 1966
will be raised. We know, of course, it will be included in our taxes; yet, when we ask the minister for grants in other fields as important as that of the film industry, such as radio broadcasting, to allow the C.B.C. to extend its services right across the country and to serve all those areas where the population demands it, the hon. lady cannot find a way to ask the government for the money required to do so. I suggest that providing television service for the Canadian people would be as important as granting subsidies to the film industry and I think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should have priority over the film industry.
Mr. Chairman, 1 do not intend to deal any longer with this subject tonight. Before bringing my remarks to a conclusion, I must say there is another point which disturbs me a little. I do not know how the commission is going to be controlled, because a commission will probably be appointed to look after the fund. I think proper control should be established so that pictures of a questionable nature are not put out by our Canadian producers, as has been the case on some occasions for pictures shown on television. I will not go into details. I think that upon recalling recent developments members will know what I mean by that, but such a thing should be prevented in the production of feature films.
So, in general, we are pleased with this resolution but personally-I am not speaking on behalf of my colleagues from the Ral-liement Creditiste-I think other projects should have priority over this resolution, from the economical point of view.
lEnglishl


Howard Earl Johnston: I support this resolution which should lead the way to a national feature film industry in Canada. We have been aware for a long time of the quality of Canadian films, usually of a documentary kind, or the film short on various subjects. These have often risen to heights of considerable artistry. I can recall sitting in a theatre in London where a sophisticated audience had gathered to see a film by the Spanish director Bunuel. Quite by accident, I think, the theatre management had included two short Canadian films-"Cattle Country", filmed in the Nicola valley, and "Morning on the Lievre". The two films were of such startling beauty that on their conclusion the audience broke into spontaneous applause-applause which could not be heard by anyone responsible for making the films but which was,
June 20, 1966
nevertheless, an indication of how well they had been done.
More recently we have been familiar with the tentative and hesitant approach of the National Film Board to feature films through its production "The Drylanders" which was shown across the country and which met with tremendous approval. This was the first time the board actually referred to people as starring in their productions, so we know that Miss Frances Hyland portrayed one of the leading characters of that motion picture. However, there has always been a fear among those concerned with these government sponsored productions that they might accidentally create a star or discover a director who would achieve international fame. So people who have ambitions along these lines have had to leave the country and, in effect, we have been subsidizing the British, the American, and even the French film industries by exporting our talent at the same time as we have been importing films from almost every nation in the world that makes them, sending out much needed exchange in payment.
Canadians generally have, I think, been naive about the way in which films are produced in other countries, assuming that they are always the product of private enterprise alone. Well, most countries abroad subsidize their film industries. I think this can be done while leaving room for private enterprise. I trust the bill which will be presented to us will emphasize the value of a co-operative arrangement between the government and people who are prepared to enter the Canadian film industry.
As one who comes from British Columbia, I feel our province will have a particular interest in the making of feature films. The climate and the natural beauty of the Vancouver area would tend to concentrate much of the production there. At least I hope this would be the case.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Of course the beauty of the interior of the province would lend itself admirably to film locations and in this respect I am thinking particularly of the Okanagan Valley. There is no reason why we cannot come up with a Canadian equivalent to "The Sound of Music" that would catch on film some of the qualities that endeared that motion picture to millions of people around the world.
I would also hope Canadian stories would be used. There are a great many, and some have already been filmed elsewhere. We
Development of Film Industry should try to film some of them here in Canada where the stories originated. I support this proposal. I know there are a number of things upon which we could insist that the government spend money first, but I would join with those hon. members who have reminded the committee that, by adopting this legislation, in effect we will be putting a very small finger in a very large hole in the dike through which we have been losing talent and money for a long period of time.


Mr. Ormislon:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome for a number of reasons, the opportunity to participate in this debate, the first of which is to suggest to the minister that most of us view with satisfaction the introduction of this resolution which will eventually pave the way for a bill to give us the Canadian Film Development Corporation. In this day and age in which we subsidize so many fields of endeavour, here is a field which has been sadly neglected, and when this legislation comes into effect it will prove to the country at large the vast potential talent which exists in Canada today.
The sum of $10 million hardly seems adequate for the effort which will have to be exerted to provide a film industry for Canada, and I think the minister will agree with me that when this project gets off the ground further resources will have to be found.
Great Britain, which has had considerable experience in this field over many years, has its National Film Finance Corporation, which has given a great deal of assistance to film producers and worked very well to provide funds in that field. I am sure if that corporation were investigated we ourselves may find some means to overcome some of the difficulties which no doubt will ensue in the early stages of the Canadian film development project.
I realize full well that the resolution only speaks generally of what is anticipated and what assistance will be given. This will all be spelled out in greater detail in the bill, but I would suggest to the minister that it might be a good idea to consider the formation of a Canadian federal film council, set up to review the progress of the film industry throughout Canada and to report its findings to the minister. This is not too much to ask. It could also produce an early report for publication on the prospects of the film industry in Canada.
Up to the present we have had film producers working for the C.B.C. and producing

June 20. 1966

Development of Film Industry films for that corporation. But because of the bureaucratic attitude of the C.B.C. and some of its officials difficulties have arisen. With the advent of this development corporation it is possible that many of those producers will go into private business and provide for the Canadian public, through private enterprise, the type of films they have been producing in the past for the C.B.C.
I shall mention only one such film, the one which was produced on the Columbia river. It was one of the best films produced by a Canadian producer in many years, possibly in all the years since films have been made in Canada. But the producer of that film is no longer with the C.B.C.; they did not see fit to continue his contract. Here is an individual who was a great asset to the Canadian film industry, and we can anticipate that under the provisions of this bill he may provide future great art benefits for Canada.
I am sure that when she introduces the bill the minister will consider among other things greater detail regarding payment to producers, the establishment of a standard film production budget, guarantees for distribution and continuity of production and many other aspects which are not mentioned in the resolution. With those few remarks I shall look forward to the introduction of the bill to see what it contains.


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps because I am a romantic at heart I like the idea of this particular resolution. I would like to think of Canada vying with the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries for some of the international stars-I can think of some very lovely ones-to come and star in our feature films, produced, financed and distributed from Canada. This is the romantic view; but in the light of sober second thought I wonder whether a government film corporation is the answer. We have heard the hon. member for Melville discuss the method used in Great Britain, one which has proven to be eminently satisfactory there. Perhaps that would be the answer here, too; I do not know.
Just because the government steps in, will this guarantee greatness for Canada on the silver screen? This is the question I would like to have answered, although I assume it is practically impossible to answer it at this stage. We have the talent, yes. We have many famous producers and directors, already mentioned by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. We have many who are still here.


Douglas Leiterman has already won international recognition as a producer on television and has expressed a desire to get into the film making field. Then there are the names of Patrick Watson and Beryl Fox. She has recently won two outstanding awards for her production, "The Mills of the Gods," a documentary which is in effect a film of major proportions. Neither are we short of acting talent. Names too numerous to mention come to mind of those who have made their mark in the United States and the United Kingdom. Many of our best screen writers have left Canada to use their talent elsewhere.
I have not mentioned the technical people, the cameramen and the sound specialists, but we know from the films produced by the National Film Board, Crawley Films and other companies, that they are excellent. We have the ingredients. So far we have stirred them in small quantities and produced some of the best short films ever made in the world. It is a truism to say that our documentaries are legendary and have taken the highest awards at the best film festivals around the world. Now we want to take these ingredients in larger governmental quantities, stir them in a larger governmental pot and come up with that be all and end all, the feature film.
Can this be done in a country the size of Canada? Is it enough to have the talent? Is it enough to give governmental encouragement and support?
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Let me propose these hypothetical questions to the minister. Would it have helped to have given this support to the J. Arthur Rank organization when in 1948 it quietly contemplated setting up film studios in Canada for the production of feature films, and then just as quietly dropped the whole idea? I wonder why that happened and whether the minister has investigated this matter.
Would it have helped the National Film Board in putting over their feature length film, "The Drylanders"? We have heard that film mentioned by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, but I must say that I cannot entirely agree that the film was a great spectacular success, as he seems to think it was. It was undoubtedly an artistic success, whatever that is. Surely in actual fact it never did get off the ground. Come to think of it, the National Film Board did have government money, if not for this film, for other purposes; but despite this, even with the aid of sympathetic distributors who ran
June 20, 1966	COMMONS
"The Drylanders" in theatres across the country in an effort to support the Canadian feature film industry, it never did prove to be successful. "The Luck of Ginger Coffey" has already been mentioned, a feature film produced by Crawley Films. How will it do? The reviews seem to be mixed and I think only time will tell.
The idea of a feature film industry is not new to Canada, but like "The Drylanders" it has just never got off the ground. I wonder how feature films are financed in other centres in other countries. Are they financed by government? We have heard about aid being given in Great Britain, but how much aid is given to the actual feature film industry itself? I understand that in the United States, and certainly in Britain as well, the major portion of the financing is done by the banks.
I think it is only recently we learned that the financing of horrendous films such as James Bond in "Thunderball" was arranged by two relatively impoverished individuals who had a good idea, received financing from a bank and came up with one of the greatest money makers of all time. They had no help from the government.
I wonder, out loud, if the government is perhaps contemplating any change in the Bank Act to allow banks to take flyers on risky ventures such as feature films. Perhaps if the government guaranteed losses up to a certain percentage figure financing could then be done through the banks. There are many ways by which these things could be financed, and I am wondering if these ways have been considered. I do not know whether they would work, but surely they should be looked into. I do agree with the hon. member for Halifax when he points out that representatives of the film industry should appear before the committee on broadcasting in order to give their views. This could be a public forum for the expression of their ideas as to what they think would be a good way of setting up a feature film industry in this country.
Despite all the ifs and buts that I have thrown out this evening, I am anxious to see the bill itself to ascertain just how independent the Canadian Film Development Corporation will be. The hon. member for Melville has suggested that there may be the same type of indefinite ground rules as apply to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. These rules certainly hamper that corporation and I hope similar ones will not apply to this new organization.
DEBATES	6649
Development of Film Industry
As I have said, I like the idea behind this resolution, but I think it would be very wise before we go overboard with enthusiasm to have a look at the bill, to see what happens. The idea is good, but is it practical for a country like Canada? I have yet to be absolutely convinced that the method proposed here by the minister is the very best for carrying out this development. I will be happy to be proved wrong in this matter because I should like to see this type of industry in Canada, but as yet I will have to adopt the old policy of wait and see.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in rising this evening to make some comments on this resolution proposing the establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation I would not be surprised if people were to ask what I, as a mere private member sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker, might know about the plans of the cabinet-and they would be well justified in their queries, because I can assure you we are told little.
I have been waiting for an opportunity to speak on this matter since August of 1964 at which time the previous secretary of state for the Dominion of Canada, Hon. Maurice La-montagne, passed some remarks in Montreal on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the National Film Board.
As an ex-newspaperman I am very glad that newspapers are published in this dominion because, if they are not, private members on the right side of Mr. Speaker would not know what they are supposed to vote for, or what great forward step they should support next. We are never told in advance what the earth shaking event is that will be submitted. As for being given time to consider the matter in its pros and cons, that is not to be thought of.
This speech was made in Montreal on August 5, 1964 by the former secretary of state, in which he announced that a $10 million loan fund was going to be established to aid in the development of a feature film industry in the Dominion of Canada. I thought to myself: This is terrific, absolutely terrific. We have so much money in the national treasury that we can throw $10 million into the development of a feature film loan fund. We can tell the aged and the infirm that we have not enough money to increase old age security pensions to $100 per month, and we can prove that we have not got enough money. We are still running on an
June 20, 1966

Development of Film Industry annual deficit. Did we not have terrific deficits under the previous government? The Liberal party government has cut these deficits down drastically, but we are still operating on a small deficit. We can always tell the aged and the infirm that we have not enough money to increase pensions from $75 to $100 a month, which we should be planning for every hour of every day. We have not enough money for that, but we have $10 million to aid in the development of a feature film industry in this Dominion of Canada.
I notice that the resolution is prefaced by the usual remark in its introduction in the house. It starts off by saying in the habitual way-
-that it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
It goes on to point out that the first sum cast into the pot will be in the amount of $10 million. I do not like that word "expedient". That word means the useful or the politic thing to do, as opposed to the just or right thing. Frankly I am too fond of the right to pursue the expedient, and I would sooner see the pensions of the aged increased from $75 a month to $100 a month than to see $10 million put out for the development of a Canadian feature film industry in 1966. I want everyone who is over 65 years of age living in Canada to know there is at least one person in this house who is not going to vote for putting $10 million into a national feature film loan fund before the aged have their compensation increased from $75 a month to $100 a month.
I made some inquiries among elderly people over 65 years of age during the past few weeks, asking them whether they would sooner have $75 a month and a feature film industry in Canada or $100 a month and no feature film industry. Do I have to tell you what their answers were? I do not think I need to inform the members of this house what those people who receive $75 a month to live on told me when I asked them if they would not be happy with a feature film industry and $75 a month rather, than an upgrading of their compensation to $100 a month.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is no relationship.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thought this money all came out of the taxpayers' pockets. The British Columbia boys are hopeful of having a second Hollywood on the B.C. coast, but we


cannot pay too much attention to their support for this idea. I am speaking for the aged from coast to coast, not particularly those from my riding, as are some of those members from the west coast who are hopeful of having this development located in their own ridings.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Might I tell them that I am of an age where I can remember that Canadians were going to develop a feature film industry in the town of Trenton, Ontario. They went to great lengths, and considerable sums of money were spent down there to develop a feature film industry around a central point. Where is the feature film industry in Tren-tion? Some would be Canadian film developers took over the old Ravina rink in Toronto some years ago. They were going to develop a feature film industry there. It has gone with the wind. Ravina rink no longer stands today; the site has been turned into a park. The fallacy in saying that Canada will become a centre for the feature film industry is well epitomized in those two cases. I could give further examples, because over the course of the years many people have advocated the development of a feature film industry in this country as opposed to the importation of films from other areas.
The former secretary of state when speaking in Montreal pointed out that Canada has become one of the richest countries in the world, with which I have to agree. I believe that because of our wealth we should be paying the aged $100 a month rather than the $75 a month they are now getting. But of course we are told that we cannot afford to do this-let us start a feature film industry and we will share the profits of that with the aged.
The former secretary of state passed the further remark that one must say that in cultural matters a country cannot continually live by borrowing its material from others. Well, we talk about having two cultures in Canada. Personally I think there is only one culture; it is a blend of all the refinements of different civilizations, tongues and races. Some people like to say bicultural, but I say cultural. I thought we drew on matters of a cultural nature from such sources as Israel, Greece, Rome, Canterbury. We still like the works of Liszt, Brahms, Wagner, Beethoven, Cervantes, one of the world's great writers out of Spain, Hugo out of France, Coppee, that great French writer with whom is connected the expression that all of you know.
June 20, 1966

He rose to the peak of his profession, of course, at a time when there were many personal jealousies against him.
Many remember the phrase that is associated with Coppee, that he did not lack the French Academy but the French Academy lacked Coppee. I am quite prepared to draw culturally from people of this reputation no matter what part of the world they come from. I think of Rembrandt, Constable, Van Gogh. Yet we are told that one must say that in cultural matters a country cannot continually live by borrowing its material from others. I for one am quite content to borrow my material from the sources I have just mentioned, and I do not think there is a man in the house who would quarrel with that statement. But no, we must go and throw $10 million into the pot to develop a feature film industry, when we know that the feature film industry is in the poorest financial shape today in the world that it has ever been. Hollywood is only a quarter of what is used to be. The attendance for films is not one quarter of what it used to be before the advent of television. But this is the time that Canada should leap into the breach, and let us Canadians show the rest of the world that when the tide is against us we will swim against the tide.
We are told by the hon. member for Outrement-Saint-Jean that Canadians seem to have been unable to bring forth a film industry in Canada which could find its inspiration in a Canadian setting and produce and distribute a Canadian-made product. The Secretary of State stated this afternoon that, because of the geographical position of this country, the divisions into which it falls and the linguistic separations, it was difficult to establish a feature film industry in this dominion, and that the government should endeavour to help it become established. If I noted one of the statements correctly, it was that we should be under no illusion about the difficulties Canadian film producers are going to have to face in establishing the industry.
I also say, let there be no illusion in this respect. Let us realize that this is an industry into which the Canadian government should not be pouring $10 million at this time. If there is a possibility of the industry's being established in this country, I have enough confidence in free enterprise and the private investors to believe that they would have established such an industry if there was an opening for it.
Development of Film Industry
The former secretary of state, as I mentioned, spoke in Montreal on August 5, 1964. I shall be making further references to those remarks. Under date of August 10, 1964, we have the Montreal Star writing an editorial the heading of which is, "Government In Show Biz?" The article says:
Mr. Lamontagne's announcement of a loan fund to assist the production of feature films in Canada puts the government in show biz, notoriously the most risky form of artistic enterprise . . .
We hope this will include a study of the fact that nobody knows what a big film will be like until it is written, directed, produced, and the money spent. Then outlets for distribution are needed before the cash registers begin ringing in the box office. Very many people have gone broke in show biz. A few people and a few film companies have made a packet.
Then continues the Montreal Star:
But let's ask who is going to pay to see them and where? The Canadian market is small and divided culturally and linguistically.
The movie houses are mainly tied tight to the big Hollywood companies. Will they be prepared to show the Canadian-made films? This should be included in the proposed study of the loan fund which otherwise will find all its money going out and nothing coming back.
Then following the remarks made by the member for Outremont-Saint-Jean the Toronto Globe and Mail on August 8, 1964, had an article headed, "Money to Burn?" This article said:
Canada's taxpaying public may well be disturbed by the Pearson government's announcement, made through State Secretary Maurice Lamontagne, that it intends later in the session "to ask parliament for the necessary authority to establish a loan fund to assist in the production of feature films of high quality in Canada".
The production of feature films, and especially those of high quality, is a most expensive, and most uncertain, business. Millions of dollars have been lost in it, sometimes on a single picture. Has the Pearson government, have the Canadian people, so much money that they can start pouring it into the making of full-length movies?
The article continues:
Mr. Lamontagne's announcement was accompanied by two interesting developments elsewhere. The Commons public accounts committee expressed concern-and properly so-at the rapidly mounting cost of new facilities sought by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Montreal and Toronto.
It goes on to talk about the mounting cost of the C.B.C. Consider this. This is supposed to be the first step in establishing a feature film industry and it will cost $10 million. We have a hole in the ground at the corner of Sparks and Elgin that was originally to cost $9 million when completed. We have the hole in the ground, and we are now told we will
June 20. 1966

Development of Film Industry be able to complete it for $31 million. This is the estimate for the National Arts Centre.
If the artistic world's estimate for this theatrical centre was $9 million and it has now gone up to $31 million, figure what $10 million will be by the time we get our necks caught in the wringer of the feature film industry. It will be somewhere around $35 million, and I would prophesy that the end is not yet come. The Globe and Mail continues in its article of August 8, 1964:
If the C.B.C. (which does a lot of moviemaking) is so expensive to maintain, and if members of all parties are disturbed at the amount it requires, why is the Canadian government going into another money-devouring venture?
Then it says:
Government assistance, whether in loans or subsidies-or loans that turn into subsidies- is the wrong way to go at it. The government should let Canada's feature film industry develop itself, in its own way, with its own money. If there is room for it, it needs no help. If there is not room for it, all the tax dollars in Ottawa will be of no help to it.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
The subject seems to have lain quiescent for a time from August 1964; and then, on April 5, 1965, the following words appeared in the Speech from the Throne: "and a measure to help the development of a feature film industry in Canada". Those few words brought on another flood of editorial comment, some of which I believe should be read at this time when we are being given the first opportunity to discuss this matter in a serious vein.
On April 7, 1965, two days after the Speech from the Throne, the Ottawa Citizen, which is reputed to have an "in" with the cabinet, published an item headed "A subsidized Film Industry", and reading as follows:
Judging by the Speech from the Throne, the government evidently will go ahead with its intention to help the Canadian film industry, presumably through some form of subsidy. When the legislation is introduced, it deserves the closest and most critical possible examination in parliament. For on the face of it the plan is ill-conceived, and the merits of the government's proposal will have to be demonstrated to the hilt before a penny of public funds is appropriated for this scheme . . .
During her visit here recently, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, a member of the Indian government, expressed doubts that India's experiment in subsidizing a domestic film industry had been successful in terms of quality-
I am referring to this because Mrs. Gandhi referred to the quality of feature films which is the subject matter of this resolution. There is nothing cheap about the films we intend to develop; they have to be feature films. Mrs.

Gandhi says that in subsidizing the domestic film industry India has not been successful in producing quality films. The article goes on to say:
Certainly, the scheme had succeeded in terms of quantity. But the government has found itself subsidizing mediocrity and sensationalism.
The Citizen goes on to say:
On the other hand, is the Canadian government to begin supervising the quality of the commercially produced films it subsidizes? That would make the federal government virtually a censor and a producer in the commercial field. Surely public funds could be put to better use than that.
Parliament was dissolved in September of 1965 and we had a new election on our hands. In October a meeting of the Canadian Conference of the Arts took place in Toronto. The Globe and Mail of October 14, 1965 made reference to it in an article headed: "Lain ontagne Announces Crown Corporation; Film Industry to get $10,000,000 Ottawa Aid" and stating:
The Canadian government will establish a Crown corporation with an initial capital of $10 million, to assist the Canadian private film industry in the production of feature films.
Maurice Lamontagne, Secretary of State, told a luncheon meeting of the Canadian Conference of the Arts in the Royal York hotel yesterday that the films should be "of commercial value and good quality".
He added that he hopes that within a short period of time the Canadian film industry will prove to be a $50 million a year industry-
If there is any hope of this developing into a $50 million film industry I am sure that private investment and private funds would jump into the breach to cut into that $50 million for themselves; but as the present Secretary of State has said, let us be under no illusions as to the difficulties we face in trying to develop a feature film industry in this country.
The report in the Globe and Mail continues;
The corporation, Mr. Lamontagne said in his speech, "will be empowered to make agreements with private producers under which it will make loans or investments without, however, becoming a legal partner".
It would be interesting to know how you make investments without becoming a legal partner, but that was the statement of the former secretary of state and I read it to you for the record.
Again, on October 14, 1965, the same Ottawa Citizen which on April 7, 1965 commented on the Speech from the Throne, returns to
June 20, 1966	COMMONS
the subject following the statement made in Toronto. The editorial reads as follows:
Federal Aid for Film Firms
There is no justification for such action-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to express my support for the spirit and purpose of this resolution. I have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for York-Humber, in which he informed the house that hon. members on the government side are told very little by the cabinet. Later on he said hon. members on the government side of the house were never told in advance what was to happen in the house, that it takes occasions such as these for these secrets to leak out.
However, I do not think that is a valid argument against the resolution. His argument was based on the fact that he had apparently written to persons who are naturally anxious to get an increase in their old age pensions to ask them whether they would rather have an increase from $75 to $100 a month, or see the establishment of a feature film board. All of us could write such letters. Naturally in the majority of cases the reply would be that these people would rather have an increase in their pay cheques, because that is what people want at this time. There is no relationship between the amount of expenditure required by this government to increase pensions and the amount required to form this board. It is just the same as when we in this house get up day after day and complain that the government is spending $5 million or $10 million on a public building that is required. I do not think that is a valid argument.
While I have always realized that the member for York-Humber is an honourable gentleman who on some occasions expresses his point of view without fear or favour-and on some occasions I have agreed with him -I must say that on this occasion I simply cannot accept his line of reasoning, his argument or his approach to this question. I think he failed to appreciate the fact that this, similarly to other legislation which we have passed in recent days, is somewhat in the nature of an experiment. He fails to appreciate what can be done along these lines if it is pursued in a sound manner. I might say at this point that I do not claim to be a cultured person, but I am always inclined to
DEBATES	6653
Development of Film Industry look at the practical side of things. I do not think for a moment that a minister of the government would rush into such a decision overnight. I presume that in administering this legislation the government will feel its way and gain from experience in association with those persons who wish to take advantage of this resolution providing for investments in feature films, in loans for the development of feature films and in awards to be given to those who make productions which are of great interest to the Canadian people.
I think the hon. member has completely failed to realize that all civilizations are based on the culture of the period, and I think this resolution provides an opportunity for the Canadian people, for the government, for private industry and others, to co-operate in building a Canadian culture in support of our civilization. Those are the things we are trying to develop. I think he completely failed to appreciate what can be done in this direction.
Let me emphasize once again the fact that when he relates this bill for the expenditure of $10 million over a period of years for the development of a national film corporation with the necessities of those persons who are naturally looking forward to an increase in their old age pension, which all of us support on this side of the house and have done so repeatedly, I think he is using a very unsound argument indeed, and one that I was urprised to hear him use. I think he went to great trouble to write those letters and get those replies in order to support the position he has taken this evening.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this measure does provide an opportunity for the development of Canadian talent. We may get some of our talent to return home from other countries. I believe somebody mentioned Lome Greene. I do not know whether we want to carry on with the Ponderosa, or something like that, in Canada. However, this measure will provide the opportunity for the development of Canadian talent, Canadian technicians and script writers. It will develop a sort of national opportunity if we can only coordinate all these efforts, the C.B.C., the National Film Board and what can take place under this resolution, for giving the Canadian approach to our history and to take advantage of the Canadian scene.
Before concluding I do want to suggest to the minister that British Columbia presents the greatest opportunities in Canada for the
June 20, 1966

Development of Film Industry development of a Canadian film industry. There is a great deal of talent in British Columbia and it is fortunate in having the scenery and background required to develop the industry. I am not suggesting for a moment that our industry should be entirely confined to British Columbia. I am sure that Canadians in all provinces will want to see all provinces receive similar recognition in the efforts of this industry. The development of a Canadian feature film industry portraying Canadian life will provide an opportunity for the development of unity in this country and will promote the cause of understanding.


Mr. Soulham:: As one of those who have been directly interested in the motion picture industry in this country for some years, I thought I should like to make a few comments this evening concerning the introduction of this measure to establish a corporation known as the Canadian Film Development Corporation. Like all hon. members of this house, I am in favour of the further development of the arts and culture in our country. I am looking forward to the time when Canada can establish its own identity in Canadian literature, music, art and other things cultural.
However, I have some grave doubts about this resolution so far as the development of a feature film industry in this country at this time is concerned. In the first place, $10 million is a paltry amount in relation to a job of this kind. It is like sending a boy to do a man's errand. Hollywood is the centre of the United States film industry, and with the vast millions that have been put into it, that industry has run into grave difficulties in the last few years. The reason for this has been the impact of television. Television has cut very deeply into this private industry to the extent that in Canada-I have not got the exact figures-hundreds of theatres have had to close their doors. I know that in Winnipeg, the gateway to the west, as a result of the impact of television, no less than 11 theatres closed down in one year.
This does not mean that I am injecting a gloomy note into our discussion. There is still room for motion picture production. However, I feel we have to look at the matter carefully in a young country like Canada that has many more important responsibilities at this time to which reference has been made. It is a curious fact that the minister recently suggested paying $6 million for one painting, but now she suggests an amount of only $10


million for the establishment of a motion picture industry.
The motion picture industry, for instance, is divided into four main branches. First, there are the stars. A few years ago the cost of these stars did not run into too big an item because the motion picture producer could hire a top star on an annual contract. As a result, he might be able to produce anywhere from five to ten pictures with the one star. Now these motion picture stars of top calibre insist on getting into the production end before they will even lend their talents to a production. They usually insist on a contract under which they will make only one or two pictures a year and will take a large share of the profits, sometimes 50 per cent. I do not believe Canada would be in a different position if we were to establish a motion picture industry.
We would find ourselves in the same difficulties as private industry has in this regard. Then, too, these production companies with unlimited millions of dollars behind them have, in the last several years, found it necessary to amalgamate in order to remain in business. Then, you have distribution which is a very important part of the whole motion picture industry. It is all right to produce a picture, but you have to have a whole chain of distribution centres in order to get this film to the next stage, which is the exhibitor himself. All in all, Mr. Chairman, I think we should take a very serious look at this resolution before we support it 100 per cent.
For instance, I think the hon. member for Saskatoon mentioned that back in 1948-I recall reading about this-Mr. J. Arthur Rank, one of the great producers of England, came to Canada to look at the potential of this country for the motion picture industry. I must remind you this was before the advent of television and its impact on the motion picture industry. This top executive from that great country came to the conclusion that we were too young, and we did not have a large enough population to support a motion picture industry. He withdrew from Canada, and I believe we should learn a lesson from that action. I just wanted to voice this note of warning to the minister, Mr. Chairman. This government project, even though it may sound laudable, could prove to be a boomerang if we do not give it serious consideration.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman-
June 20, 1966


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for York-Humber but the time allotted for his speech had expired. I must recall to hon. members provisional standing order 61-A(2), which reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other standing order, no member shall speak: for more than 20 minutes during the time when a resolution preceding a bill involving the expenditure of public money is under consideration in the committee of the whole house.
Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. More:: I should like to say a few words on this resolution. Frankly I must tell the minster that I feel this resolution, at this time, is ill considered. The sum of $10 million which is involved in starting a new venture could be used in many other ways by existing cultural establishments. I am speaking of our live theatre, our ballets and our symphony orchestras. We hear from the Canada Council that there is a shortage of funds to meet their requirements. We know that television is the strongest medium of communication we have today, yet we do not have very much Canadian developed programs in that industry. One can think of "Seaway" which was Canadian developed, and then one is at a loss to think of any others except perhaps "Milk and Honey". We do have some Canadian television, but there is not very much.
I suggest that rather than start a venture with such an uncertain future at this time, if the government has $10 million to be used it could be used to develop Canadian talent. It could be channelled into cultural establishments which exist now and which are suffering because of a shortage of funds.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that if we have this sort of money to invest at the present time we should give more encouragement to our television industry and enable them to increase the scope of their enterprise, which would be more rewarding than trying to make feature films which, at best, are products with a very uncertain future and for which we do not appear to have any definite market.
I also suggest to the minister that there are already under way centennial projects which were instigated by this government but which have now run short of funds owing to the inflationary pressures and increased costs which have been brought about by the policies of this government. Yet the government now refuses to increase the supply of funds and enable completion of these projects.
Development of Film Industry
I think it would be strange indeed if this house were to vote an expenditure of $10 million for a feature film industry when there are steel skeletons of centennial projects in various parts of the country which are supposed to serve the cultural interests of the country. We have live theatre and other establishments already in existence, but we have insufficient funds to complete these projects. The government now washes its hands of any further responsibility and tells the municipalities, if you please, that these projects are now their baby and they should go ahead and do what they can with them.
We have in Ottawa what is referred to as the "hole" in "confusion square", the cost of which started out at $9 million. I referred to this in a question to the minister the other day. Now the cost is, not $31 million, but I understand that $34 million is the probable cost of completion of this project; and for this the government must take full responsibility.
However, let me get away from Ottawa. As I say the steel for these projects is lying on site because no funds are available to complete the projects in time for centennial year. The minister says that the government has given $2.5 million; that these projects are now the municipalities' baby.
It seems to me that it would look very peculiar if we started to develop a feature film industry with an initial expenditure of $10 million-and God knows what the cost will escalate to-while we leave these skeletons on view. This steel is lying on the ground, of no possible use, at a time when perhaps $10 million at the outside would enable the people who accepted these projects, and who started to develop them in all good faith, to complete them. In view of the time clause placed by the government in the contracts for completion in 1967, these people went ahead with their plans but now find them stalled.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that rather than this highfalutin interest in a feature film industry, the minister should look at the present centennial programs which are under way but which remain unfinished owing to lack of funds. I suggest she should devote this $10 million to the completion of a program which has already been started.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Miss LaMarsh thereupon moved for leave to introduce BUI No. C-204, for the establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation.
June 20, 1966

Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DAIRY COMMISSION


John James Greene: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a Dairy Commission for Canada to administer funds made available to it for the purpose of stabilizing the price of milk and cream so as to provide efficient producers of milk and cream with the opportunity of obtaining a fair return for their labour and investment and to provide consumers of dairy products with a continuous and adequate supply of dairy products of high quality; to provide that all expenditures for the purpose of the said measure, excluding those that in the opinion of the minister are directly attributable to action taken by the commission to stabilize the price of any dairy product, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament therefor; to provide also for the establishment in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of a special account to be known as the Canadian Dairy Commission account, for credits and charges thereto; and to provide further for the making of loans to the commission and for the terms and conditions thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the resolution and bill presently before the committee breaks new ground in agricultural legislation for Canada. It is the first bill that will provide a legislative base for the establishment of a commission with Canada-wide responsibility for an agricultural commodity.
One of the major problems of the Canadian dairy industry, a problem common to dairy industries in all countries and in fact to agricultural production of almost all types, is the cyclical nature of production patterns and, with it, price instability. While the length of the cycle may vary from product to product, the cycles have common characteristics: a period of high production coupled with falling prices; then a period of readjustment which often results in excessive curtailment of production and subsequent high prices. This period seems to be inevitably followed by surging production induced by the high prices, which in turn generate consumer resistance and decreased consumption. And so the cycle starts anew.
Many devices have been and are being used to meet this problem. Paramount among these are support measures and rational marketing. Earlier this year a major change in the government's approach to dairy support was announced. This announcement

represented the first stage in the government's dairy program. Under it, shippers of manufacturing milk will receive direct payments from the government of 75 cents per hundredweight, which will result in a national average return of $4 per hundredweight for 3.5 per cent milk, f.o.b. the factory. An equivalent payment will be made to shippers of farm-separated cream.
This program was implemented because producer income from dairying was such that there had been a sharp cutback in production. In other words, the production cycle was approaching the stage where curtailed production and high consumer prices would result. The program has been in effect only since April of this year and production patterns in the dairy industry change slowly. But it is of interest to note that figures for the month of May indicate that the downward trend in butter production has been curtailed, restoring a measure of stability to this product.
The second phase of the government's dairy program is the establishment of a Canadian Dairy Commission, and perhaps it would be useful at this point to review briefly some of the events leading to the development of this legislation.
In 1963 the Canadian dairy industry was plagued with low prices and surpluses. At that time a meeting was called at which the various segments of the industry, both producer and processor, as well as federal and provincial governments, were represented. The conference agreed that the forming of a body or organization to perform a co-ordinated and advisory function for the dairy industry was a requirement. The conference recommended that a co-ordinating and advisory committee called the Canadian dairy advisory committee be established with representation from the various groups. Subsequently this committee met on many occasions. Subject matters covered by the committee included research, dairy quality and marketing. A basic recommendation in the latter category was that a national dairy authority be developed.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
On March 26, 1965, when the dairy support program for the forthcoming year was announced, the announcement included a statement that it was the intention of the government to introduce legislation to provide for a Canadian Dairy Commission. Many groups, including the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, have
June 20, 1966	COMMONS
supported, by means of briefs and submissions, this intention.
Under our constitution, the responsibility for agricultural production and for marketing controls lies largely with the provinces. However, when agricultural commodities cross interprovincial or international boundaries, federal authority is involved.
With the growing complexity and sophistication of marketing techniques in this country, very often it is not known when a product is produced or processed whether its ultimate destination shall be within the province of production or elsewhere in the country. With this development in marketing procedures, there has been increasing need for legislation to complement that of the provinces in order to ensure orderly marketing procedures.
The bill that I shall introduce this evening will establish a commission, one of the primary functions of which will be, in co-operation with provincial agencies, the co-ordination of such marketing matters.
This commission will also have authority to administer the dairy support program, to engage in the promotion of dairy products and in general to take such action as will result in the development of a dairy industry best suited to the needs of the country. The commission will consist of three members appointed by the governor in council and will have available the services of a consultative committee of nine members. It is the intention that members will be representative of the various segments of the dairy industry in Canada.
In order that it may meet its objectives, funds will be provided to the commission from three sources. First, the amounts required for the implementation of the federal dairy support program will be provided to it under the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act; second, the amounts required for the commission's own administrative operations will be provided to it by a vote of parliament and, third, the commission will be empowered to raise funds through levies and licences.
While the commission will be able to perform any provincial function that might be delegated to it under provincial legislation, it should be stressed that one of its major roles will be to work in co-ordination and co-operation with provincial boards in meeting its objectives.	*
It is not possible at this time to indicate, other than in a broad way, the manner in
DEBATES	6657
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices which the commission will operate. The dairy industry is a complex and ever changing entity, and with these changes, different approaches will doubtless be needed on the part of the commission.
The legislation has been drafted to provide for sufficient flexibility to permit the commission to meet the objectives set for it, despite changing structures in the Canadian dairy industry. A healthy agriculture in Canada must be predicated on assurance to producers of returns commensurate with their labours and with their contribution to society, and equivalent returns to other segments of the population. In recent years this has not been the case.
Broad government agricultural policy toward this end is on a three fold basis. First, producers must be able to establish efficient and viable production units. Here government action has been taken through upward revisions in the funds available under the Farm Credit Act and through the introduction of the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. Complementary to this is the ARDA program that in essence will provide for those unable, for whatever reason it may be, to develop a viable production entity.
The second cornerstone for an efficient agriculture must be that of marketing. Production, no matter how efficient it may be by itself, cannot stand alone and is useless, unless the fruits of production are marketed at a price commensurate with their costs. The present legislation represents a very significant step in this latter direction. No matter how efficient production may be, or how well marketing may be conducted, the agricultural producer still requires protection against losses beyond his control.
Despite the advances we have made in technology, little or no protection is possible against the vagaries of the weather. Herein lies the role of crop insurance. Already the government has made a significant change in the legislation through an amendment providing for re-insurance of a portion of the province's risk. The results of this change have been a very significant increase in the utilization of this federal act, and thus in the protection provided to producers.
I suggest that in these three areas lies the importance to the general well being of the economics of the agricultural community, towards which the objectives of this government in an agricultural sense will be directed. I suggest that the measure presently before the house at the resolution stage will
June 20. 1966

Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices help in the area of marketing which, to be effective, must have a federal complement to any provincial jurisdiction. We hope and believe that this measure will provide that, with respect to the dairy industry.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
[Translation1


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, aware of the urgent needs of the farmers, we on this side of the house will not do anything to delay the earliest possible implementation of the legislation now before us.
I shall consequently keep my remarks down to a minimum so that consideration of this legislation is not delayed.
The minister told us that this was something new. At last, after waiting two and a half or three years, the present government promises something new. But, in introducing the legislation he calls new, it seems that the minister is relying upon numerous legislation and measures that have been adopted and put to the test by the former government. We are very happy to note that the present government in order to achieve something, must rely upon the work done by the preceding administration.
We have also heard the minister tell us that this legislation was becoming urgent due to the fact that cost of production by the farmer is constantly on the increase, thus putting him in a very difficult situation. Unless I am mistaken, we have been telling that for at least three years, to the present minister as well as to his predecessor who claimed that sufficient income could be derived from six cows and two hogs, in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada to ensure the livelihood of a family.
However, we on this side of the house know quite well the problems, the needs of the farming community and, while we were in office, we tried to give the farmers their just share of the national income. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) does have to go very far if he wants to find out exactly what the eastern farmers thought of the Conservative team. He has only to visit one or two concessions, and there is no doubt that he will find out through his conversations with the farmers that we took the necessary steps to get the farmer to a degree of prosperity which was not only for his own good but also for the general good.
And since the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) seems a little worried or seems to disagree with what I am saying, I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture to take him along

because it will certainly do him a lot of good to find out the truth.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has the floor seems to insinuate that I made some allusion to his remarks. All I said to the Minister of Agriculture is that in spite of the seriousness of the matter, the hon. member could not refrain from indulging in petty polities.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I am always surprised to hear those sacrosanct people like the Minister of Fisheries make such statements because he, for one, cannot open his mouth without going in for petty politics. Therefore, if he only had the decency to listen to what is said, he might be able to refrain for indulging in petty politics when he gets the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Chairman, while discussing the steps taken by the present government to try to help the farming community I cannot but see things as they are, and 1 think that La Terre de Chez Nous, a publication which is essentially concerned with farming, does not indulge in petty politics. However, I have here the issue of June 15, 1966, and on page 5, I see the following title:
Ottawa's dairy policy is unsatisfactory and unfair.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the Minister of Fisheries that all I am trying to say is that the farm policy of the present government is not realistic and, moreover, according to a publication which has expert knowledge of farming, the policy of the present government is unfair and unsatisfactory.
And since I have this opportunity, 1 should like to read into the record part of a telegram recently sent to the Minister of Agriculture by the executive committee of the C.F.U., and I quote:
C.F.U. executive committee considers present Ottawa policy clearly inadequate since it will not guarantee selling price of $4 per cwt. for all industrial milk and particularly unfair for large groups of producers, such as cream shippers, producers whose milk is processed into powder by cylinder process or into casein, etc-
I am not quoting my own words, but a newspaper representing opinion of the farmers in the province of Quebec.
And further this communication says:
Under circumstances, C.F.U. executive committee decided to inform and alert all Quebec farmers and their district and local organizations, who will advise necessary means to obtain satisfaction, i.e. the guarantee of $4 per cwt., from Ottawa government for all industrial milk-
June 20, 1966

Now, referring to page 2 of the same publication, I find an announcement published by the federal Department of Agriculture, which refers to an average price of $4 per cwt. of milk. Well, it is not $4 per cwt. of milk that farmers and associations want, but a guaranteed price of $4 per cwt. of milk. The people now sitting on the government benches are not entitled to tell the dairy industry what to do.
When we came into power and became the laughing stock of those who now form the government and base their policy on the proposals we put forward at the time, we took the required measures to give the farmers what they expected. We succeeded to a large extent and we would like this prosperity, which begun to be felt by the farmers under the Conservative government although it is marking time momentarily, to be restored. Farmers, in particular, are fed up with election promises.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

Farmers especially have had enough of election promises. They now want the present government to act. This is not asking too much. They want the great promises made by the Minister of Agriculture during the election campaigns to be fulfilled. It can be recalled, for instance, that the 1962, I think, election program of the Liberal party mentioned distribution of milk in the schools to promote consumption of dairy products. They who made this suggestion surely knew that this was not incumbent on them, that it came under provincial jurisdiction. Milk distribution in school is a local matter. For a reason I do not understand, they were trying then, probably to win votes, to promote this idea of milk distribution in schools.
Since this government came into office the dairy industry has been so neglected that a great number of farmers got rid-as they say-of their dairy herd, because they were afraid that the income would go on decreasing. The farmers thought: there is no use to carry on with the dairy industry, since the Liberal government does not want to help us. This is so true that today, in one parish in my riding. Ste. Madeleine for instance, many farmers got rid of their dairy herd.
The dairy production has decreased so much recently that the time is not far when we will probably have to import dairy products, especially butter.
It seems abnormal to me that in a country so well endowed as Canada, Quebec and
DEBATES	6659
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices Ontario especially, such a situation should have developed.
Before concluding, I would simply like to ask the minister, even if this forces him to humble himself, to revise his former statements and admit that perhaps he does not have all the answers to problems, as he claimed. I urge him to get information from a former minister of agriculture who has the reputation of having been the best minister of agriculture Canada has known, I mean the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). I ask him to turn to his knowledge, because he is really a specialist in this field of agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, for a few minutes this evening the minister dealt with crop insurance which was put on our statute books thanks to the former minister of agriculture, the member for Qu'Appelle; he referred to the ARDA act, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, all measures we owe to the member for Qu'Appelle.
I am not surprised to hear the laughter of people who have always kept away from the farming class. The member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) must know what I mean, since at one time the people from Beauce stayed away from him. I am not surprised to learn that-


Mr. Racine:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I certainly did not have the privilege of being appointed to the cabinet during an election campaign, like the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And you probably never will either, my friend. It is a title that the member can certainly not take away from me.
Then, Mr. Chairman, as the minister admitted himself, this resolution will be implemented in co-operation with the provincial authorities. We know that a change took place, even though I must open old sores for the member for Beauce and a few others from the province of Quebec, we know that a change took place in the Quebec government not so long ago and that those in office at present are aware of the problems of the farming people and will certainly resort to all their knowledge and make every effort in order to improve the farmers' situation.
As the minister and others in this house are aware, one of our former colleagues who represented the electoral district of Nicolet-Yamaska is now minister of agriculture and colonization in Mr. Johnson's cabinet, in Quebec. He is a practising farmer, who is
June 20, 1966
6660	COMMONS
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices familiar with farm problems; he will undoubtedly make the federal Minister of Agriculture profit by his knowledge.
I therefore urge the minister to get in touch officially and without delay with his counterpart in the province of Quebec. I know that the present provincial minister of agriculture and colonization and former member for Nicolet-Yamaska is desirous to serve the agricultural class in particular and the population of the province of Quebec in general. I also know that he wishes to cooperate with the Minister of Agriculture to make sure that his fellow citizens in the agricultural class may again enjoy the prosperity that we had begun giving them when we were in office.
Mr. Chairman, there will surely be other remarks it will be disirable for me to make when the measure comes before us as a bill; I therefore reserve the right to come back and discuss again this legislation which will surely have a great impact on the agricultural class, if it is well prepared.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as one who wakes up every morning at five o'clock to milk cows that are not there, I would like to say a few words on this resolution. I must say I was in B.C. at the time when I first heard that the Minister of Agriculture, who I understand is a lawyer, was appointed to that portfolio and I had grave doubts about how this would work out. Now, I find I was mistaken. I can truthfully say that never have I known a Canadian lawyer in history who could communicate so well with farmers.
I find out now that he would much prefer to pray with farmers than prey on them.
First I want to congratulate the minister for the prompt action he took with respect to the measure to stabilize the price of fluid milk. That has been appreciated by the farmers in the dairy industry. I say that, as a member of this party that is always willing to give the government credit for anything it does to the advantage of the Canadian people, whatever their occupation, and also as a member of this party that criticizes the government when we see it fall short of doing just that. I am sure the minister realized at that time that this was an answer to an immediate problem, and that something more would be required.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The minister knows that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, farm unions and other farm organizations have for some time


been urging the government to adopt legislation of this type which will bring about some order, so far as the marketing of dairy products is concerned. We in this group are very pleased to support the principle and purpose of this resolution.
I was very happy to hear the minister indicate that it is the intention of the federal commission to work in co-operation with provincial boards. That is very necessary indeed, if this type of legislation is to be successful so far as dairy farmers in Canada are concerned. It was also very satisfying to hear the minister state there would be arrangements for democratic representation. This will in effect mean there will be democratic control of the legislation and its application in respect of the dairy industry. I was also pleased to hear the minister say that the legislation would be flexible, and I understand from that he means it will be the intention of the commission to learn from experience, and amend or improve the legislation as experience indicates.
This legislation is, I am sure, a good step toward overcoming the hazards of weather suffered by dairy farmers, and the hazards of marketing suffered by the dairy industry in general, both of which are beyond the control of the individual farmer or small organization attempting to market dairy products.
I shall look forward to the introduction of the bill, at which time we will have an opportunity of making further inquiries as to the administration of this act. I wish the minister every success in the appointment of this commission and in all it undertakes for dairy farmers and the dairy industry in Canada, once this resolution becomes law. [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity given me by the introduction of this resolution to say a few things to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) as well as to the house.
In October 1964, the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous, a farm paper well known in the province of Quebec and which brings useful information to the farmers, published an article with a heading that I found amusing:
Farming, from bad to worse.
Now, in 1966, I think that the same article could be entitled: "From worse to worse", because it can be said that since then, though the government tried to improve the lot of the farmers and the dairy farmers, it has not really succeeded.
June 20, 1966

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) read a few minutes ago a telegram sent to the Minister of Agriculture and which clearly indicates the dissatisfaction of the dairy farmers, especially in the province of Quebec.
In May 1966, the Department of Agriculture published a leaflet entitled:
A letter to the farmer-it pays to know everything.
It explained the federal support program for dairy products and it said:
In 1961, the butter consumption left a surplus of 63.8 million pounds; last year, Canada consumed 19.3 million pounds more than it produced. The surplus from previous years made it possible to avoid a shortage of butter but that surplus is almost exhausted. Even if Canadians do not increase their consumption of dairy products this year, a production equal to last year's would result in a shortage during 1966.
Thus, the Department of Agriculture was using that leaflet's title to justify its new farm and dairy production policy, that is a price of $4 cwt., to invite the dairy farmers to produce more milk than in the past.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if we consider how the government found it possible to pay that price of $4 per hundredweight, we see that it did not try very hard, especially in the light of an advertisement such as the one published in dailies and weeklies, and especially in the Echo of Val d'Or on Wednesday, May 11, 1966, where the following lines appeared:
However, the government does not have the power to set up the price paid by the processors to the producers. It is your responsibility to negotiate the best possible price for your milk through your farm organizations.
To my mind this means that the farmers must negotiate with the processors-with the processing industry, if you prefer-prices that will make it possible for them to obtain $4 per hundredweight for milk. In this event, then, the industry or the processor will have to increase the price of butter or of casein, if you wish, or of powdered milk so that the consumer once again will have to foot directly this increase in the price of butter and of sther milk products to make it possible for the milk producers to obtain a satisfactory return for his production.
Mr. Chairman, recently I received copy of i letter that was being sent by the Agricul-:ural Cooperative Society of Sainte-Rose de Poularies, in my constituency, to the Minister if Agriculture in which it was complaining of ;he difficulty the processing plants had in paying $3.25 per hundredweight they will
6661
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices have to pay if the farmers are to get $4 per hundredweight, because the subsidy, as the minister stated a while ago and as it was announced in the press, is only $0.75 per hundredweight. Here, now, is the wording of this letter and I quote:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Honourable Minister,
According to your new milk policy, manufacturers should pay a minimum price of three dollars and twenty-five cents ($3.25) per hundredweight of milk; to that price will be added a subsidy of seventy-five cents ($0.75) per hundredweight to reach an average of four dollars ($4.00) per hundredweight of milk, and you ask the producers who supply industrial milk to negotiate this price. Now, we get an average of three dollars and eighteen cents ($3.18) per hundredweight of milk testing 3.5 per cent butterfat. With butter, selling for fifty-nine cents ($0.59) per pound and casein selling for thirty and a half cents ($0,301) per pound, this requires four pounds and twenty-three hundredths (4.23) of butter and two pounds and one quarter (21) of casein per hundredweight of whole milk. So we are asking you, in our name and on behalf of all our producers and suppliers of industrial milk an increased subsidy on casein or a higher price for butter.
Obviously, as this letter says, producers, or rather processors will not be able to pay $3.25 per hundred pounds as the hon. minister asks in published announcements and letters to the processors.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether this resolution to establish a Canadian Dairy Commission is not again intended to put some officials in high places, so that if something goes wrong, if the farmers, the producers or processors complain too much, the minister will be able to say: go to the Commission. Thus the minister would be relieved of his responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I think the minister and his officials should be able to find a way to stabilize prices of milk products so that farmers are paid decent prices.
Mr. Chairman, the resolution reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a Dairy Commission for Canada to administer funds made available to it for the purpose of stabilizing the price of milk and cream so as to provide efficient producers of milk and cream with the opportunity of obtaining a fair return for their labour and investment and to provide consumers of dairy products with a continuous and adequate supply of dairy products of high quality;
If I have understood this first part of the resolution, this means that the Canadian Dairy Commission will be able to decide what producers of milk are competent. This Commission will be the one to determine whether a certain producer is competent for
6662	COMMONS
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices the production of milk. This is a form of control which smacks of socialism and I was not at all surprised a while ago to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge), I believe, approve this measure right away.
I think that instead the department should take the responsibility of stabilizing the price of milk in the best interests of farmers, in accordance with their request, in short that the Board itself should not determine the price which farmers should get for their production, but that this decision be reached as a result of the farmers' demands. And when we consider the pressures exercised for a few years by farm organizations such as the C.F.U. in the province of Quebec, we easily realize that farmers have not failed to state to the federal and provincial Departments of Agriculture their needs and the price they must get to meet their obligations. Farmers have growing obligations to meet; the cost of farm machinery is constantly rising and to such an extent, that they can no longer make ends meet with the prices they get for farm products.
So, Mr. Chairman, the price the processing industries can now get for butter, powdered milk and casein is obviously inadequate to allow them to pay $3.25 per hundredweight, and to pay the $4.00 the farmers could get with the government subsidy.
I feel that, instead of establishing a dairy commission for Canada, it might have been wiser for the minister to suggest an increase in the present subsidies, high enough to enable the processors to pay producers $4 per hundredweight.
Perusal of the available literature and what is published in La Terre de Chez Nous reveals that the government, through certain prices, has agreed to purchase for a basic price unsold surpluses of casein, powdered milk and other milk produce, to sell them, if need be, to another country or on foreign markets for a lower price. If that be the case, once again the Canadian taxpayer is paying dividends to foreign countries to purchase Canadian production.
Mr. Chairman, I am personally totally dissatisfied with this resolution; to my mind, it does not answer the needs of the agricultural class, particularly in the province of Quebec; in fact, the farmers of Quebec are not asking for a commission to stabilize prices, but rather for a decent price for their agriculture and dairy produce, so that their income might be comparable to that in any other sphere of
[Mr. Laprise.l
DEBATES	June 20, 1966
activity or industry in our province or our country.
I feel that when we have the bill, we will then know better what policy the hon. minister intends to apply or recommend.
Once more, the hon. minister was not too explicit in the explanations he gave us at the start, when he introduced the resolution; we hope, with the bill, to better understand the objectives of the hon. Minister of Agriculture; we can then make more representations and recommendations to him.
IEnglish1


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would say to the Minister of Agriculture that we wish him well in his attempts to carry out what appear to be two major achievements in so far as the dairy industry is concerned. It seems to me that he is trying to raise the whole price structure to the fluid milk producers, the manufactured milk producers and the cream shippers, and second he is trying to provide an additional measure of stability to the dairy industry in Canada. Both objectives are desirable and in our opinion the action by the federal government to achieve these ends is long overdue.
I should also like to refer to the minister's statement that production in the month of May shows that the downward trend in dairy production in Canada may have been arrested, and we are now perhaps moving into an era when Canada will again be producing her own requirements of dairy products. The minister did not explain whether this takes into account the yearly average for the month of May, because I think we all know that dairy production always goes up in May due, of course, to the arrival of spring, greer grass and higher nutrition levels for animals almost all across the country.
I believe we should have policies in Canade that will induce dairy producers to produce all of Canada's requirements. I think it woulc be an added strain on our international bal ance of payments and other economic fields 1 we were to become a net importer of dairy products, because certainly it is physically possible for us to produce not only all ou! own requirements but dairy products for ex port, if the price structure made this attrac tive.
When the minister was talking about tb new Canadian Dairy Commission I believe hi said he was at this time only outlining it
June 20, 1966

functions and general structure. I can understand that, at the resolution stage. The minister went on to say that he wanted to have sufficient flexibility within the program so the government could meet the changing conditions that arise from time to time in the production and marketing of dairy products in Canada. A large number of questions have been left unanswered, even though one takes into account the statement made by the minister today and the one he made some time in March when he announced the subsidy that would be paid on milk. For example, this evening he said that the new dairy commission, working in co-operation with the provinces, will also have the power to engage in the promotion of dairy products. At least, I interpreted what he said to mean that, al-thought they are perhaps not the exact words he used.
We would like to know where the dairy commission will obtain the funds for the promotion of dairy products in Canada. The minister mentioned three different sources of funds in this respect; first he referred to amounts that will be paid under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, second he said the administration costs would be paid by the federal government, and the third source of funds suggested was through levies and licence fees that would be imposed upon some in the dairy industry. The minister did not say whether they were to be imposed on the producers or processors. We are curious to find out whether any of these levies and licences will be the source of funds that will be used for the promotion of dairy products in Canada or whether levies or licences will be imposed for other reasons.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think the minister also suggested that marketing control of agricultural products lies largely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. According to section 95 of the B.N.A. Act it does not seem that the provinces have any greater jurisdiction in the matter of dealing with agricultural problems than has the federal government, because it is said in that section that-
-in each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture-
Section 95 then goes on to say that these laws that are made by the legislature of a
Stabilization of Milk and Cream. Prices province relative to agriculture or to immigration-
-shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only it is not repugnant to any act of the parliament of Canada.
I suggest that in fact this section gives the federal government at least a little priority or a little superior jurisdiction over the provincial governments in the field of agriculture. I know that the provinces have an almost equal right with the federal government to legislate in the field of agriculture. The reason I bring this up Mr. Chairman, is that there still seems to be some reluctance on the part of the minister and of the government to say anything about how they are going to keep the price of manufactured milk at $3.25 per hundred.
There is also the problem that if the price that the processors pay to the producers falls below this $3.25, then there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not the subsidy of 75 cents will be paid. I suggest to the minister that he is perhaps being a little timid when he attempts to transfer all of the responsibility in that matter on to the provinces and expects them to keep the price paid by the processors up to the $3.25 level for 3.5 per cent milk. I am not advocating at this time that the federal government should move out of this field and enforce a price of $3.25 to be paid by the processors to the milk producers, but I think it is perhaps a little unfair to suggest that the provinces are the only ones to have this responsibility.
I suggest to the minister, and I am sure he knows this, that a lot of problems would arise if the Canadian Department of Agriculture were to pay the subsidy regardless of the price paid by the processors to the producers. I am fully cognizant of that problem, but I believe that in some parts of Canada the idea still exists that it is somehow up to the provinces to move into the field of floor prices and to tell the processors that they should pay the $3.25, otherwise the government will not pay the 75 cents subsidy.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of questions that are still unanswered and perhaps we will get some answers to those questions when we come to a clause by clause consideration of the bill.
The minister went on to say that the Canadian agricultural policy would only be satisfactory as long as the prices paid to the farmers are commensurate with the cost of production. I should like to suggest to him that he has a great task before him if he
June 20, 1966
6664	COMMONS
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices wishes to extend this policy into all the fields of agriculture. We all recognize the magnitude of the problem, and I should like the minister to know that if in fact he intends to try to raise the whole price price structure in other areas of production and then provide a meassure of stability, then we in this party are not only ready but willing and anxious to give him our support.
This is not the time to go into a long discourse respecting the way in which the costs of production in agriculture have risen far beyond the comparable increases in the profits made by the farmers, because I am sure the minister is well aware of this. I also hope he is well aware that this has happened in many other fields.
The minister suggested we need to have efficient and viable farm units and that action has been taken in this regard through the Farm Credit Corporation and ARDA. I fail to see how making additional credit available and getting the farmers deeper into debt will assist them, unless we take a more active part in marketing and particularly in giving greater protection to our home producers.
The minister suggested that the setting up of this new Canadian Dairy Commission is a significant step in the marketing of some agricultural products. Perhaps that is so, but in his explanation of the functions, powers, and duties of the Canadian Dairy Commission he did not give us any detail other then that of providing a subsidy of 75 cents per hundred to the processors, who are paying $3.25.
As I said a few moments ago, the minister said something about the promotion of dairy products in Canada, but so far we have not heard any details on whether this promotion will take the form of advertising programs or other types of promotion campaigns.
The other point about which I am particularly concerned is whether the minister and his officials have clearly determined what action they will take to keep the processors paying the producers at least $3.25. I think it will be very unfair if some processors were found to be paying less than the $3.25, because this would deprive the producers not only of the difference in the price they were getting but also of the 75 cents subsidy.
As I said, I realize that many problems are involved here, because if there were no cut in the price then perhaps the processors would allow the federal government to take over a large very large part of the total price of milk paid to the producers in those areas.


[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I wish to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that we support this new dairy program. We know that there will be some difficulties in administering it, but we hope that since this plan has been in effect since April 1, this trial period will have bought to light some of the administrative problems that will be encountered and that the department will have found ways and means of dealing with them. I want to say also that if there are any other areas of agricultural production in which the minister feels the government can provide the necessary action for raising the whole price structure, we in this party are willing and ready to give the kind of support that we think agriculture deserves.
ITranslationl


Jean-Paul Racine: In an election campaign, a candidate is somewhat like a traveling salesman, trying to sell his fellow-citizens, his electors, the merchandise prefabricated by the party he represents.
Now, during the last campaign, two important aspects of the government program were of special interest to eastern farmers, the amending of the Crop Insurance Act and the creation of that Dairy Commission for Canada. Our dairy industry, as everybody knows as was pointed out by the opposition parties, was not very prosperous. We must nevertheless admit that the hon. minister, and I wish to agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), even though he is a lawyer, understands very well the agricultural problems. We have become aware of that even after a few months and since he has assumed that responsibility, he has already done much for the dairy industry, by increasing the price of milk and particularly the subsidies already granted to casein, thereby helping many factors in the eastern areas.
I think that a dairy commission for Canada will provide dairy farmers with the same services that are provided to the western farmers through the Canadian Wheat Board. The eastern area had been neglected for a long time, and now at last, a Minister of Agriculture deigns to consider the main problem, the one concerning the dairy industry.
I cannot help congratulating tonight the minister and his government. I am sure most of the farmers, if not all of them, will be very
June 20, 1966

pleased to learn that such a piece of legislation, advocated by us, will soon be added to Canada's statutes. As was said previously, that dairy commission for Canada will group representatives from the dairy industry throughout Canada, and I am sure results will be forthcoming and that, as was also pointed out, the dairy farmer will have access to the income to which he is entitled.
I heard a while ago the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) speaking of election promises. Well, let us say for once that with respect to farming, we had promised two legislative measures which will be passed and implemented.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot dealt not only with a dairy commission for Canada, but he gave a general picture of farming and stated that conditions were bad in Canada. Nevertheless, while he was speaking, he mentioned that when it was in office, his party had done everything. I wonder how everything had been done, since he now says that nothing is being done. I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that he spoke about crop insurance, but we, in eastern Canada, could not even take advantage of that measure.
I remember that that legislation was passed by the former government in office from 1958 to 1962, while I was sitting in the house. And I remember that hon. members from Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes rose to request the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), who was then the minister of agriculture, to amend this Crop Insurance Act so as to make it applicable in the provinces where mixed farming existed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, even after such a request from members of various provinces, the Crop Insurance Act had remained the same; so I am happy to see today on the order paper of the house that this act will be amended in order that the eastern provinces, which are engaged in mixed farming, might benefit also.
It was said that we had promised milk distribution in the schools. I am not at all surprised at this promise, Mr. Chairman, since we had a surplus in the country at the time it was made. We had butter and milk surpluses. The situation is not the same today, since some hon. members of the opposition, including the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, have even recognized that production might not be adequate in a few years.
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices
As concerns the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), who appeared to criticize this dairy commission for Canada and said that the sole purpose of its establishment was to create higher administrative posts, well, I believe that an hon. member from the east who says such a thing concerning the dairy commission for Canada, which will render the same services as the Canadian Wheat Board, practically commits a sacrilege.
The farmers have been asking for this Canadian dairy commission for several years, and when the member for Chapleau says that this measure smacks of socialism I wonder whether he believes that the establishment of a Canadian Wheat Board was also a somewhat socialistic measure.
He suggests grants to raise the price of milk. I would advise him to talk about it with the farmers of his region when he goes home for the week-end; he will see that the farmer, today, does not want to live off grants any longer, he wants to run an economic farm and he wants commissions such as the Canadian dairy commission to be established so that he, an honourable man who wants to earn his living, may have an economic enterprise without government subsidy, like any other citizen.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding, for I shall not speak much longer, I should like to congratulate the minister on this proposal to establish a Canadian dairy commission. I do not doubt that his work will result for dairy farmers in benefits which will help them to operate profitably and live decently, like their fellow-citizens who work in other Canadian industries.
[English1


Mr. McCulcheon:: I should like to take part very briefly in this debate tonight. At the outset I want to congratulate the minister upon introducing this resolution. I thought he did an admirable job in presenting his material. I believe part of the resolution is so good it should be repeated, and I propose to read into the record the first paragraph in which we find these words:
so as to provide efficient producers of milk and cream with the opportunity of obtaining a fair return for their labour and investment and to provide consumers of dairy products with a continuous and adequate supply of dairy products of high quality.
This is a most commendable objective. As a matter of fact, I think it is just wonderful. I will bet the minister is against sin and in
6666	COMMONS
Stabilization of Milk and Cream Prices favour of motherhood. In his explanatory remarks the minister went even further and referred to the Farm Credit Corporation, the farm machinery act, ARDA and several other beneficial pieces of legislation. My only comment, for the benefit of the city people, is that the minister used an extremely wide brush in painting the scene, and for the benefit of the farmers like myself, I would describe it as using a five tine fork. As far as I can see from the material in front of me, everybody gets something. The government gets three more commissioners on the payroll; the consumer is mentioned in dispatches; and the farmer gets some more promises.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The minister referred to the function of the commission as advisory. This is fine in itself, but I am wondering how it is going to work out. Who is there to advise, and how? The minister also mentioned liaison with the provinces, which I think is all to the good.
Another matter mentioned was that the commission has to administer funds. It seems to me that these funds are already being administered by the stabilization board. However, if this resolution does what it says it intends to do, it will be a milestone in the advancement of the agricultural section of the Canadian economy. I think it is only fair, however, that we reserve judgment on this matter at this time, until it is shown that by the mere appointing of the commission the dairy farmers of Canada have received $4 per hundredweight for milk.
The hon. member for Kootenay West said he was in favour of this advisory commission and that he felt it would be very helpful to the dairy farmers with their weather problems. I do not quite follow his reasoning in that regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the hon. member never weathered a financial storm?


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I have been in a financial storm all my life; and the advisers take more out of the kitty than I do.
I trust that my remarks will not be construed as being negative. I should like to suggest to the minister that, although I am not from Missouri, I do hope that he will be able to show that this measure will do some good. I will promise him this, that I will support him in the appointment of this commission all the way, if it will accomplish that which is outlined in the resolution.

DEBATES	June 20, 1966


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the announcement of the minister that a Dairy Commission is to be established. It will be easier to comment on this matter of course when the details are known. However, it is an admission that the dairy industry is in trouble.
Great hopes were raised at the end of March when the new dairy policy was announced. The dairy farmers believed that they were going to get at least $4 per hundredweight across the board for their milk; that was to be the guaranteed price for all milk. This price of course, has not been realized by many producers. There is really no guaranteed price of $4 per hundredweight; there is only the hope that with the subsidy $4 will be realized. For example, the cream producers are not getting $4 per hundredweight for their cream in relation to the equivalent price for milk, even when the value of skim milk to the farmer is added.
In this regard, it should be realized in the first place that on many farms skim milk is of little value commercially, and perhaps of no value for feed purposes. Certainly it is not worth the price quoted for the production of skim milk powder. Only in certain cases can this price be realized. Naturally the fluid milk shippers get $5 per hundredweight for milk sold on quota, but they are in trouble with their surplus milk. In the first place, a subsidy is paid only on the surplus over 120 per cent of the quota, though why that figure was arrived at I do not know. It is certainly confusing to a lot of farmers. There must be a money-saving device involved here.
I remember a year or so ago that this was the reason which was given by the former minister for removing the subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight on surplus milk over quota. The dairy farmer certainly did not get the money, though he needed it at that time. Perhaps the government did save the odd million dollars, which the dairymen certainly could have used. That may be one of the reasons so many dairymen decided to go out of business in the last year or two-that and the high production costs and tremendous boom in land values which make it almost impossible for a dairyman to pasture cattle or even to cut feed on high-priced land.
If the statistics are examined one would be amazed to find the number of dairymen who have decided to shut down businses in the last few years because they could not make a living at dairying, whereas they could in some other branch of farming. No wonder we
June 20, 1966

are facing shortages of dairy products. It is my hope that this dairy commission will have the power to act in the very best interests of the dairy farmers.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Greene thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-205, to provide for the establishment of a Dairy Commission for Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


George James McIlraith: I suggest we move on to the crop insurance resolution.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder whether the house leader will consider disposing of item No. 5, which is rather inconsequential, the amendment proposed by the other place.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the business indicated for today included the crop insurance resolution.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think that was on
the list.


George James McIlraith: Yes, it was. A question has been raised by some hon. members owing to the fact that the notice on Votes and Proceedings referred to the "house in committee at its next sitting thereof". At the moment I do not recall how the motion was put. I had asked on Friday that it be put in the form of the house in committee of the whole later this day. Which way it was put I do not know. In any event, I had indicated it on Friday for consideration today.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Where was that?


George James McIlraith: In Friday's indication of the business of the house for today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer is in standing order 21(2).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Following the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if we look at standing order 21(2) we see that it reads:
When any other government notice of motion is called from the Chair, it shall be deemed to have been forthwith transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders in the same or at the next sitting of the House.
The wording is quite important. It is "in the same", notwithstanding whatever way it may have been put at 2.30 this afternoon.


George James McIlraith: I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with the crop 23033-423
Crop Insurance Act
insurance resolution on the basis that it was the item of business we had indicated we would ask to bring before the house today. If that is not agreeable to the house, then we shall proceed to other business.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has asked for unanimous consent to bring this resolution forward. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CROP INSURANCE ACT


John James Greene: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Crop Insurance Act to increase the maximum contribution payable by Canada on crop insurance premiums:	to increase the maximum
amount of the insurance that may be effected on any crop; to authorize the making of contributions to a province providing insurance coverage against losses arising from the destruction of fruit trees or perennial plants or losses arising when the seeding of summer-fallowed land intended to be used to grow an insured crop is prevented by excessive ground moisture, weather or c 'her agricultural hazards; to provide further ft r consequential amendments in connection with the administration of the Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the Chair.


John James Greene: In speaking in support of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, I intend to confine my remarks to explaining the reasons and the necessity for the type of amendments which will be proposed in the bill and to give a general outline of the matters to be dealt with. I shall be prepared to go into the matter in considerably more detail when the bill comes before the house for second reading.
Hon. members will recall that the Crop Insurance Act was passed in 1959 to permit the Minister of Agriculture, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with any province to make contributions to the administrative costs incurred by the province in the operation of an insurance scheme and to provide 20 per cent of the amount of the premiums which would be necessary to make the insurance program self-sustaining. Under the original legislation three provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island, entered into

The bill also provides, as I have mentioned-and this should encourage participation by the provinces, and it should encourage participation by individual farmers-for an increase in the federal contribution to premiums from 20 to 25 per cent.
As I have indicated, I shall be prepared to discuss these amendments in detail when the bill is before the house. I trust hon. members will give their favourable consideration to the resolution at this stage.
I would also point out that the amendments proposed provide for insurance coverage which will reimburse a farmer for costs incurred in preparing summerfallow which the farmer could not seed in the normal seeding season because of excessive moisture. The bill provides for extended coverage of this type to be provided in agreement with a province.
There are two other minor amendments which I shall not mention at this time; they can be dealt with on second reading. Before closing I should like to express my concern about some remarks which have been made in connection with crop insurance in recent weeks. There have been suggestions that the present act does not provide for spot coverage on individual crops. This is interpreted to mean that under the present federal legislation a province cannot produce a program which will provide for the settlement of claims other than on an entire farm or an entire crop basis. While it is true that present programs in effect in the prairie provinces make it compulsory to insure all of a specific crop and provide only for indemnities on the basis of the entire acreage seeded to that crop, the federal act does not in fact prohibit the issuance of insurance which would provide indemnities on the basis of losses pertaining to a portion of that crop or with respect to selected fields. It would, however, seem evident that premium rates based on spot settlement would possibly be much higher than those based on the loss related to the entire acreage seeded to any crop on any farm.
There has been some criticism, too, that the federal act does not provide coverage for forage crops such as corn, hay and pasture. In actual fact, the act places no limitation on the crops which may be covered and defines the term crop as meaning an agricultural crop declared by the regulations to be a crop for the purposes of the scheme. The crops listed under the regulations at present are: (a) wheat, (b) oats, (c) barley, (d) rye, (e)
Crop Insurance Act
flaxseed, (f) grain corn, (g) buckwheat, (h)
soybeans, (i) potatoes, (j) sugar beets, (k) tobacco, (1) sunflower seed, (m) rapeseed, (n) apples, Co) pears, (p) peaches, (q) plums, (r) cherries, and (s) apricots.


Mr. Danforth:: Members on this side of the house have certainly listened with interest to the Minister of Agriculture introducing this resolution on the subject of crop insurance. We can well appreciate the reason the government has been placed in the position once again of having to amend this particular piece of farm legislation. For many years all major farm groups have been advocating that crop insurance be provided to each farmer on a basis which would afford him recompense for losses due to nature.
The fact that so few farmers have so far taken advantage of the Crop Insurance Act, even though four provinces have now agreed to accept the principles and work it out with the federal government, indicates that amendments were needed. The fact remains that farmers still did not feel that this measure provided the necessary protection. As a result they have not been taking full advantage of the crop insurance provisions even though, as was pointed out by the minister, by the 1964 amendment the federal government did agree to pay 20 per cent of the farm premiums.
Farmers today are keen businessmen. If something were offered to them as a bargain, the government paying 20 per cent of the premiums, they would certainly investigate it thoroughly. Nevertheless farm groups in Ontario, after investigating the farm credit insurance provisions put forward by this government, did not feel they could recommend to the provincial government that full advantage be taken of this particular measure.
I was interested tonight to hear the Minister of Agriculture say he had held consultations with various provincial ministers of agriculture and that this subject had been discussed in depth. I have no doubt it is because of these meetings and because of the views expressed by the provincial ministers that the amendments of which the minister spoke tonight are to be incorporated in the new legislation.
I hope that these meetings have been responsible for amendments to the act which will make the legislation adequate to provide for the losses which can be expected every year in some part of every province of Canada.

June 20. 1966
Crop Insurance Act
I am sure that because of the nature of the special crops grown in many parts of this country, the 60 per cent coverage of the long-term average was one of the stumbling blocks against a greater adoption of this particular insurance plan. I am pleased to note that the minister speaks of increasing this coverage to 80 per cent of the average yield.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I think farmers on the whole agree with this principle of spot settlement because in many instances when hail, drought or rust strike they do not affect a whole farm. The loss is confined to one particular part or section but the insurance is placed on a complete district, thus providing little recompense for an individual farmer.
The house is going to be seized of and intrigued by the minister's proposition that forage crops will be contemplated as ones to be covered by the policy, and I can see many problems evolve from this move on the part of the government. Certainly it is desirable, but a tremendous amount of work will have to be done to provide a practical method of estimating the actual loss, estimating the average crop, and determining whether or not 80 per cent or more of the crop has been damaged.
The minister also spoke of insurance to cover what he called production units. This will deal with fruit trees and other more intensified types of farming. Grape arbours, berry patches and staked tomatoes, and presumably various other high cost crops will come under this. I hope enough preliminary work has been done in this field so that an equitable premium can be established to make it possible for the producers of these high cost crops to take full advantage of crop insurance, and for the first time place them in a position where they can receive some recompense for the vagaries of nature that often cause them maximum monetary loss.
The fact that crop insurance has been implemented in only four provinces leads me to the next question as to whether, at his conference with the provincial ministers, the Minister of Agriculture was able to obtain an assurance that the provincial governments which have not yet applied this particular offer from the federal government will undertake to review the situation. I am speaking in particular of provinces like Quebec and Ontario. I hope they are interested enough in this crop insurance legislation to feel it can be utilized for their farmers.

I am rather concerned over the fact that there was an increase from 20 per cent to 25 per cent in the premium offer by the federal government. When this legislation was introduced I was interested to know why the figure of 20 per cent was chosen in the first place, and I found that this figure did not seem to entice many farmers to enter into this particular insurance policy. Now I wonder what is the basic reason behind the government's raising it from 20 per cent to 25 per cent.
Surely if farmers were not enamoured of the program at 20 per cent, an additional 5 per cent is not going to make much difference. On the other hand, certainly farmers are not going to turn it down, but it is food for thought why the government raised it just 5 per cent rather than 10 per cent or 15 per cent. Was this done on the advice of provincial ministers who felt it would make it a more successful insurance policy, or did the government have another reason?
I am not going to deal at length with the resolution tonight. The government has taken what farm orgnizations across the country felt was a necessary step. Something has been drastically wrong with the crop insurance program introduced by the federal government. I think all hon. members realize that basically it was not acceptable to the majority of the farmers. It is most necessary, especially in view of the growing costs which farmers are faced with today. But the fact that they did not adopt it universally leads one to consider that the plan in itself left much to be desired.
We shall look forward to reading the bill with real and sincere interest, and we hope the minister will then take all the time he desires to answer in detail many of the questions that will arise with regard to the manner in which the different provisions are going to be set up, the way they are to be administered, and the manner in which the various regulations and qualifications will be established as standards. A lot will have to be explained with regard to this bill, which is extending into a brand new field. It is a field of utmost importance to agriculture, and we on this side sincerely hope that for once the government has brought forth something that will be practical and workable and to the advantage of the Canadian farmer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I call it
ten o'clock?
June 20, 1966	COMMONS


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would agree to make his presentation now, something which we are all awaiting with interest, with a view to having the resolution passed tonight so that hon. members can see the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would very much like to oblige the house leader personally, but there are two or three other members anxious to speak at much greater length than I would normally, and I think we ought to be fair to them.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, if hon. members would give unanimous consent we could continue for a little while so that they could be provided with the bill once resolution stage has finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are three members who wish to ask questions on the adjournment motion, and that takes half an hour. I think we have done pretty well today.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Speaker, may we have the business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose submitting as the first item for consideration by the house item No. 45 on the order paper, the Canada Assistance Plan resolution; then second reading of the health resources fund bill, which is item No. 66 on the order paper; then second reading of the Canada Student Loans Act amending bill, then the Customs Tariff bill, the Excise Tax Act amending bill, the Canadian Dairy Commission resolution; the crop insurance resolution with the hope that we could get the resolution stage completed and the bill before the house, and finally committee stage of The Company of Young Canadians Bill.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, there are times in this house when one might rise somewhat reluctantly
DEBATES	6671
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and agree with a position taken by the government; however, I cannot do so in respect of this question, which was ruled out of order by Your Honour. It relates to a statement made by Air Vice Marshal Reyno to a local service club, and I refer to it at this time without hesitation.
Air Vice Marshal Reyno is perhaps as concerned with this question as anyone, but unfortunately he cannot participate in this debate. I make my remarks with no reflection upon him as an officer or a gentleman. I understand that in his capacity and in those areas in which he exerts influence he is recognized as a very able man.
This high ranking officer exerts influence and direction in his capacity as a member of the forces, whether combined or one of three as they existed before the minister took over his portfolio, with years of experience and training, and does so with credit to the service. I do take exception to certain remarks as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of June 11 in relation to a speech he made to a service club on Friday, June 10.
Air Vice Marshal Reyno is reported in this article as having made some very provocative, argumentative and debatable statements regarding the integration of the three forces in Canada. He is reported as having referred to morale and controversial pay increases, and toward the end of his speech he is reported as having referred to statements to the effect that every country in the world knows that it makes good, economic common sense to integrate defence forces, but that Canada was the first one with the intestinal fortitude to try to do it. There can be no debate as to the intestinal fortitude of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). He obviously has a surplus, in view of what he has done toward the integration of our three services.
I take exception to the principle in respect of which Air Vice Marshal Reyno was directing his remarks. I hope the minister comments on the reported statements of this officer to the effect that he, the minister was misinformed, ill informed or uninformed in reference to every country in the world attempting this experiment of integration.
There is no doubt that up to a point services can be integrated, but I question the statement that Canada is the showcase of the world In this respect. We have all in our junior school years looked through a microscope and been attracted by the crawling form
June 20, 1966
6672	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of life seen on the slide. I submit that the minister cannot stand in his place tonight and name one country that has examined what we are trying to do and followed our example. I cannot agree with any suggestion that we are guinea-pigs in regard to integration of forces. We may be guinea-pigs, but in a very narrow circle, and there is no foundation for the statement referred to by Air Vice Marshal Reyno in a speech made to a service club here in Ottawa, that every country after examining our experiment realizes that integration is the best thing to do, and that Canada is the only country that has had the intestinal fortitude to attempt it.
The Canadian Press carried a story that New Zealand looked at us, examined us by fluoroscope, by telescope, by microscope, by slide, and perhaps examined some of the speeches of the minister, which I would love to examine in more detail tonight; and having examined this question in some detail published a White Paper and decided as follows:
Examination has led the government to conclude that such a combined force would not make sense in terms of our principal aim, to gain maximum effect from the level of contribution which New Zealand can make.
The White Paper continues:
The force of this type which New Zealand could afford to maintain in peacetime would never be large enough to give a truly independent role in limited war.
I just wonder what type of force Canada intends. It is not an independent force. The United States and Great Britain forces have already been integrated with other forces, and it is superficial reasoning to think we can completely integrate our force in this mobile striking unit about which the minister talks.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is the factual content of Air Vice Marshal Reyno's speech to the Kiwanis club to which I take exception first, because the same day New Zealand said they were not having anything to do with it and would not touch us with a barge-pole. I understand that Britain has also produced a White Paper, which is not yet published, saying that you can integrate dental, medical and some of the supply services but you cannot take away the identity of the three services. If you take that identity away, you lose the whole morale, spirit and esprit de corps of the services. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the principle involved in a high-ranking officer of the services speaking on a controversial subject such


as government policy, and making a statement of this kind.
I believe there are other officers of high and low rank who would love to speak on these matters, and perhaps the minister will tonight give them the "go" signal. The theme for today seems to be "go" whether it be in connection with the space program or anything else. The policy seems to be that you can go-go. If this is the case, the minister cannot take exception to statements of this type, but because the statement was made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: All I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, is that if we are making basic changes in policy in this country, we would like to know what this policy is and how it applies to speeches of high-ranking officers in the services.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, there is no change in policy. The policy that has been in effect throughout the years, and is currently contained in Queen's Orders and Regulations, is as follows:
Any officer or man may speak publicly In respect to service matters with the permission of the Chief of Defence Staff or such other authority as he may designate. Opinions expressed by officers or men under these circumstances are their own and do not carry the endorsement of the department.
I agree with my hon. friend when he says that Air Vice Marshall Reyno is one of the outstanding and knowledgeable young officers in the Royal Canadian Air Force and I am, frankly, very much impressed with what the Air Vice Marshall says because I think it to be the fact. In so far as my hon. friend is concerned, I can assure him that in the next 20 years every country in the western world will pattern their military organization after Canada and we will in fact be proud that we were the first in this very important field.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The rules do not provide for questions at this time.



OLD AGE SECURITY-HEQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INCREASED PENSIONS

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, twice within recent weeks I have attempted to ask the government
June 20, 1966
whether consideration was being given at cabinet level to the proposition of increasing the old age security pension by the payment of a bonus. On those occasions, Mr. Speaker, you ruled my questions out of order. In consequence I am raising it again at this late evening sitting.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The reason behind my question can best be found in a quotation from a news story which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on June 11 and which reads as follows:
Strong pressure is developing among Liberal M.P.'s, including some cabinet ministers, for special action to assist old persons who will not benefit from the Canada Pension Plan.
The government is being urged to set up a special fund to supplement the basic $75 a month old age pension. The fund would decline as the benefits paid under the Canada Pension Plan rose over the next 10 years. This plan may be introduced late this year or next year when inflationary pressures ease off.
The government had resisted efforts by the opposition parties in the Commons to raise old age pensions to $100 a month. But an increasing number of Liberal members, led by cabinet ministers, are arguing that something must be done to aid old folk.
The reported consideration being given by the cabinet to a bonus for old age pensioners is a very welcome one, if it is indeed a fact. We can only hope that, failing a general increase in the pension rate to $100 a month-which many hon. members would like to see-a practical step would be the immediate provision of a supplementary amount in the form of a bonus. This would at least make up part of that increase in the cost of living which the old age pensioners have felt very sharply in the last three years.
In asking whether the government is actually considering such a provision I wish to add a cautionary note. In the event that a bonus will be paid we hope it will not be done at the expense of the Canada Pension Plan. We think that the Canada Pension Plan should not be siphoned off by reducing it to augment the old age pensions. We believe it is possible to increase the current old age pension security by making money available without taking it from the Canada Pension Plan or from increased taxation.
It seems to us that the government has leeway in the economies it could practise to provide the proposed bonus to old age pensioners. For example I understand that approximately $2 million a day is being spent on national defence and that something like $1 million is being spent in simply paying the interest portion of the federal debt.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We think that if the government will take measures, as we hope it will, to improve the old age pension by providing a bonus, then it should not do so at the expense of another plan which provides for old age pensioners or people who will benefit from the new pension plan. We think that the government should face up to the fact that there is a gap between the present old age pension and the new contributory one, and it should move ahead to fill that gap on a national basis.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that at least in my view today's old age pensioners are probably the last people to remain in the valley of scarcity. Thanks to their work in bygone days the rest of us are emerging into a world of abundance, and I think it is fitting for us at this time to recognize the need of our older people by the provision of this bonus. I therefore wish to ask the government to consider such a move.
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Answers to similar questions can be found on pages 6122 and 6434 of Hansard. I am sure the hon. member will realize after reading these detailed replies by the minister that there is very little I can add to what has already been said.
I should like to reiterate, however, some of the major points the minister made in dealing with those questions. I want to point out that in the current fiscal year, 1966-67 federal expenditures in respect of old age security will amount to $1,035 billion. It should be pointed out also that in 1963-64 the federal government was spending $755 million on old age security payments. This means that in a period of three years outlays have been increased by $280 million or 37 per cent. During this period of three years the level or rate of benefit has been raised and the number of persons covered has been increased by 100,000 through the lowering of the age threshold to 69 on January 1, 1966.
I think the hon. member for New Westminster will agree that it is impressive to note, as the minister did when discussing his estimates before the health and welfare committee, that 28 per cent of the federal government's expenditures are directed toward the health and welfare of the Canadian people. The largest single component of that is for our older citizens. Moreover, as my hon. friend knows the Canada Pension Plan is intended to be a long term solution to retirement support for the wage earners of Canada.

6674	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I need not say that I, too, share a strong concern, as does the government, for the older people of Canada. The Liberal party has always been on record in support of increased assistance to old age pensioners. I believe that we have gone a long way during the past three years toward the achievement of our aim. We have in effect today a substantially more generous and much broader program for old age security recipients than was in effect when this government took office in 1963.
The Canada Assistance Plan resolution was introduced in this chamber one week ago. The bill would now be before us if it had not been for the reluctance of the members of the New Democratic Party to stop talking last Tuesday. This plan will provide such services as drugs, nursing services, prosthetic appliances and income supplementation for those who need it. The medicare legislation will soon be before the house. This is another indication of the government's concern-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: -to provide the best possible medical care for all Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not stop her; she has not answered the question yet.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: It will be of special importance to our senior citizens. I would have finished within my time, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the interruptions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: She has not answered the question.



IMMIGRATION-VANCOUVER-DEPORTATION OF JAPANESE GIRL

Howard Earl Johnston: I should like, at the outset, to express my appreciation of the action of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in his seconding the question I raised this afternoon concerning the case of one Masako Endo, who had travelled from Japan to Canada with the intention of visiting here but who ran afoul of the immigration authorities in Vancouver. Apparently a deportation order has been issued to return her to Japan with her visit uncompleted.
Now, as one who has twice visited Japan, I am familiar first hand with the unfailing courtesy of immigration officials there. I know that on my second visit I made an error upon entering the country and failed to

DEBATES	June 20, 1966
declare a trunk which arrived the next day. I suppose a deportation order could have been issued against me and I would have been sent immediately from the country. However, it was possible to talk to the officials and explain my oversight. I then completed a six month visit there. I know as well the concern of the people of that country for visitors from any land.
A Canadian girl who was visiting there at the same time I was happened to have her handbag stolen on the streets of Tokyo. The incident was reported in the Tokyo newspapers. Within a matter of two weeks she had received letters from all over the country, several handbags and more money than she had lost. People were concerned that a visitor should have been treated in a manner which they felt was unworthy of their country.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It was with some of the same feeling that I read the report in the newspaper this morning that this particular person expecting to visit Canada had been treated in such a heavy-handed manner by the immigration officials in Vancouver. Certainly if the government of Japan chose to reply in kind, I am sure that each year some hundreds of young Canadian visitors to Japan would be deported summarily. I know a great many Canadian visitors who go to Japan on visitors' visas engage in employment by teaching English to Japanese students. I happened to be one of them when I was there on my last visit. I am sure that if the Japanese applied the full measure of the law to all of these visitors, deportations would occur and be enforced. Fortunately they have taken a little more enlightened view, it would seem, than that which is taken by the immigration authorities in Vancouver.
It seems to me that this is a particularly unhappy moment for this type of publicity. This is the time when the summer tourist season is about to begin, a time when our visitors from Japan are increasing in number. They are an important source of revenue to the province of British Columbia and this country and they form an important cultural link with this Pacific nation. Should this sort of publicity reach Japan I am sure there would be consternation in the minds of a great many Japanese who had planned to visit this country.
Again, it is most unfortunate that this has occurred at a time when an immigration office has been opened in the city of Tokyo. I can think of nothing which would work more
June 20, 1966	COMMONS
against our professed desire to encourage immigration from this land than the sort of incident that has been reported in the paper. Even allowing for some exaggeration on the part of the press regarding the detention into which Miss Endo was placed by immigration officials, it should be remembered that she was barely able to speak English and would not be able to offer a full explanation to the immigration authorities.
I do not know just what the problem is here, whether the situation will require a change in personnel at Vancouver or simply a request from the department that a little more reasonable attitude be taken. We try to tighten down, I suppose, in the hope that the Hal Banks and the Munsingers will be kept out of the country; but all we succeed in doing is catching the most harmless people and subjecting them to what seems to me to be a totally unnecessary harassment.
I hope that this deportation order will be rescinded when the appeal is heard. I am amazed it has to be heard at all. It seems to me that if there is provision for a three-month visitation and a visitor wished to stay an extra month at the end of those three months, there should be some machinery whereby she could apply for an extension of one month and the matter could be dealt with in that way, instead of immediately issuing a deportation order, which once issued must apparently be heard, with the whole visit being placed under a cloud of uncertainty as to what is going to happen. I also hope that there will be some expression from the department to the officials in Vancouver to
DEBATES	6675
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the effect that they be just a bit more considerate and reasonable in the demands which are made on visitors to Canada.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, by way of reply to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, I would inform him that we have endeavoured to obtain a report from the officials in Vancouver. All we know at the present time seems to indicate that this young lady arrived on Friday, June 17 and was referred to an immigration special inquiry on the next day, Saturday, June 18. It would seem she did not have a visa when she arrived here.
I am certain that immigration officials really had no choice in the matter. I do not think they had any ambit for discretion. The young lady did not have a visa, and the only course open to the immigration officials, under our act, is to refer the matter to a special inquiry. I understand that has been held.
The young lady entered an appeal which will be considered within the next few days. There is no indication that there was any heavy-handed display toward her by our immigration officials in Vancouver. We certainly hope there was not. We again reiterate that there is no ambit for discretion when somebody comes to the country without a visa, which is the case at the moment. We shall try to obtain more facts and have them available as soon as possible.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 21, 1966