1968-12-04

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to a question I asked yesterday respecting financial assistance to Canada's national hockey team. At that time the question was ruled out of order by Your Honour on the ground that it lacked urgency and I abided by your ruling, intending to deal with the matter at a later date, taking advantage of opportunities which are available to hon. members of the house.
Unfortunately in the interim the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a statement on this subject outside the House of Commons. I feel it to be a violation of the privileges of members of this house when ministers resort to this method of conveying information rather than using the framework provided by the House of Commons. I feel it is my duty to make a protest, because this tendency on the part of the government to communicate by instant electronic folklore instead of through parliament is occurring much too frequently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MR. BROADBENT-STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRY

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whil-by):: I, too, rise on a question of privilege, with reference to a statement made by the Minister of Industry. In his reply to my speech on the estimates of the Department of Industry the hon. gentleman asserted, as reported on page 3394 of Hansard on Monday last:
... a Canadian industrialist who availed himself of our programs might get as much for a civilian project as for a defence project.
Later in the debate he further asserted, as reported in Hansard at page 3399:
I have indicated that...a combination of IRDIA and PAIT, the two programs I talked about this afternoon, would give him quite a lot of governmental support and as much as he would get on a defence project.
With reference to these quotations, Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to point out that a defence industry doing research and development may also receive funds from the IRDIA program. Thus the appropriate comparison would be to balance the benefits of PAIT and IRDIA against those of IRDIA and DDSP. When this is done, Mr. Speaker, I believe the result is as I stated, that the government is currently providing incentives to our military industry for research and development which exceed those provided to civilian industry.
The minister, I suggest, should retract his statements.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on external affairs and national defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on miscellaneous estimates-Mr. Femand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on fisheries and forestry-Mr. Crossman.
[Note: Text of above mentioned reports will be found in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
December 4, 1968
Business of the House [Translation]


[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minisier):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, with the consent of the house, a copy in English and in French of the report of the proceedings of the first meeting of the constitutional conference held in Ottawa last February.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions in the house with respect to the use of the remaining time provided by the order made on September 20, 1968 in regard to the consideration of supply. I believe there would be a general disposition not to use the two days provided by that order for a supply motion, but instead to add the two days to the 17 provided for estimates business, so we would therefore have 19 days altogether for estimates.
If the house is in agreement, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the following might be made an order:
That the order of the house on September 20. 1968 with respect to the business of supply for the fiscal year 1968-69 be amended by deleting the provision for a supply motion of two sitting days under subparagraph (b) (ii) and that subparagraph (b) (iii) of the said order be amended by increasing the over-all limitation from 17 to 19 sitting days, and that subparagraph (b) (iv) of the said order be amended by providing that every question necessary to dispose of all proceedings necessary for the purpose of the order be put on the 19th allotted day.
If the house is in agreement, Mr. Speaker, I would move that motion, which is seconded by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Mr. Broadbent.J



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-139, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of corporal punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to abolish a cruel relic from a barbaric age, namely corporal punishment, and to put our penal system on the basis of reform and rehabilitation rather than revenge.
I would also ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to include this amendment in the omnibus bill on criminal law which will be before the house in the near future.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT

Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-3 (from the Senate), to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Bank of Canada have a numismatic collection and, if so, how much money was expended in each of the last ten fiscal years to obtain items for that collection?
2.	Has the collection been put On public display and, if so, upon what dates and at what locations?
3.	For each item for which more than $50 was expended, what was (a) the purchase price, and (b) the year identity, by country or group, grade and quality?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: I am informed by the Bank of Canada as follows: 1. Yes. The amount expended on the collection is not a matter of public record.
December 4, 1968

2.	Part of the collection has been on public display at the following locations:
Questions
Date	Place	OrganizationMay	1963	Sherbrooke, Que.	Province of Quebec Numismatic Association Annual ConventionAug.	1963	Vancouver, B.C.	Canadian Numismatic Association Annual ConventionSept.	1963	Ottawa, Ont.	R. A. Coin Club, Annual Coin ShowSept.	1963	Toronto, Ont.	Greater Toronto Coin & Stamp ExhibitionApr.	1964	Ottawa, Ont.	Ontario Numismatic Association Annual ConventionAug.	1964	Halifax, N.S.	Canadian Numismatic Association Annual ConventionApr.	1965	London, Ont.	Ontario Numismatic Association Annual ConventionAug.	1965	Montreal, Que.	Canadian Numismatic Association Annual ConventionJan.	1966	Toronto, Ont.	Canadian Paper Money Society Annual ConventionMar.	1966	St. Hyacinthe, Que.	Association des Numismates de St. Hyacinthe Annual ExpositionOct.	1966	Victoria, B.C.	Victoria Numismatic Society Annual Coin ShowMar.	1967	St. Hyacinthe, Que.	Association des Numismates de St. Hyacinthe Annual ExpositionMay	1967	Kitchener, Ont.	Ontario Numismatic Association Annual ConventionMay	1967	Mont Gabriel, Que.	Conference of Governors of Central Banks of AmericaAug.	1967	Ottawa, Ont.	Canadian Numismatic Association Annual ConventionMar.	1968	St. Hyacinthe, Que.	Association des Numismates de St. Hyacinthe Annual ExpositionMay	1968	Halifax, N.S.	Atlantic Provinces Numismatic Association Annual ConventionJuly	1968	Calgary, Alta.	Canadian Numismatic Association Annual ConventionSept.	1968	London, Ont.	London Numismatic Society Annual
Coin Show
3.	Not a matter of public record.


NATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL
Mr. Gleave: 1.	Regarding the National Grains Council, specifically, what were the terms of reference proposed to the meeting of the council in Winnipeg on October 16, 1968?
2.	What areas of the grain industry is it proposed that this Council shall examine and report (a) in Western Canada (b) in Eastern Canada?
3.	What areas of grain marketing is it proposed that the Council shall examine and make recommendations or take action on (a) export (b) domestic?
4.	Will the said Council give direction and make recommendations on research and, if so, in what areas?
5.	What are the proposed methods of financing the operation of the Council, to whom will it be responsible and to which branch of government will it report and how often?

December 4, 1968
Questions


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. A meeting of interested parties was held in Winnipeg to discuss the establishment of a national grains council. No terms of reference were actually proposed to the meeting, however, a paper representing a consolidation of the views expressed by participants at the morning session was distributed during the afternoon session.
2.	It is contemplated that the national grains council, when established, will choose the subjects it will examine and on which it will make recommendations.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	Answered by 2.
5.	Decisions on these matters have not yet been reached.


'C.M.H.C. LOAN TO QUEBEC HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation agreed to make a loan to the Quebec Housing Corporation of the approximate order of $140,000,000?
2.	If so, on what authority, and on what conditions, if any?
3.	Are similar terms available to other provincial government housing authorities or agencies?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is as follows: By order in council dated April 25, 1968, passed under the National Housing Act approval was given to three agreements entered into by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Quebec Housing Corporation under which C.M.H.C. agreed to make loans not exceeding $139,100,200 to Q.H.C. to assist in the financing of housing projects. The first agreement relates to housing projects undertaken by non-profit corporations (section 16A-NHA); the second to loans for the financing of public housing projects (section 35D-NHA); the third to loans for student housing projects (section 36B-NHA).
The agreements cover three programs to be undertaken in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969 and require that each individual project be submitted to C.M.H.C. for determination of eligibility and loan amount.
[Mr. Gleave.l
The answer to the third part of the question is yes, in 1968. The policy in respect to future years will be announced following review of the report of the task force on housing and urban development.


EXPENDITURES OUTSIDE CANADA PROMOTING CANADIAN PORTS
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Does the National Harbours Board spend funds for the purpose of promoting use of Canadian ports outside of Canada?
2.	If so, how much has been spent in each of the last five years and in what way specifically was the money spent?
3.	Are joint promotional programs entered into with individual port commissions or authorities?
4.	If so, at what cost and with which ones during each of the past five years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. A limited amount is spent on port promotion by advertising in foreign periodicals.
2.	Cost of advertising in foreign periodicals for each of the past five years was as follows: 1963, $790; 1964, $790; 1965, $1,681; 1966, $1,987; 1967, $3,607.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to part 3.


FEDERAL SUBSIDIES
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the Government of Canada in subsidies for the fiscal years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 (estimated)?
2.	What was the amount of the subsidy paid under each of the eligible categories?


Edgar John Benson: Of the many possible definitions of the term "subsidy", the national income accounts concept covers the most widely accepted definition of the term, and has been used in preparing the answer.
Total subsidies paid by
1.	Fiscal year	government of Canada
($ millions)
1965-	66	2701966-	67	3811967-	68	3951968-	69 (estimate)	415
December 4, 1968

2. Government of Canada subsidies (national accounts basis- 1965-66 Quality premium on high grade hog and 8	Questions -$ millions) 1966-67 9	1967-68 10lamb carcasses Freight assistance on western feed grains incl. assistance in respect of grain storage cost	22	20	21Payments under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act	15	15	15Payments in connection with the movement of coal	28	34	35To advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry	4	6Payments of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves	37	30	29Subventions in respect to eastern coal	2	4	2Payments to the railway companies under the Maritime Freight Rates Act	14	15	14Payments to railways under the provisions of the National Transportation Act1	65	138	127Steamship subventions for coastal services	9	9	12Trading loss: agriculture product account and agriculture stabilization account2 3	38	88	113Other subsidies	32	15	11Total	270	381	395
1 Prior to 1967-68, interim payments to railways.
- Subsidy payments under the agriculture stablilization board account and the agriculture product board account.
Note: In the national accounts, subsidy payments in the supplementary period are shifted entirely to the next fiscal year. The amounts paid under each category may therefor differ from those shown in the public accounts. Detail for 1968-69 is not yet available.


AIRPORT TRAFFIC, VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. Anderson: 1.	How many commercial flights are there per week to and from Victoria International Airport?
2.	What is the average number of passengers handled per week?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	August, 1968, an average of 194 flights per week.
2.	August, 1968, an average of 5,432 passengers per week.


PAYMENTS TO CATHOLIC PRIESTS SERVING INDIANS
Mr. Godin: 1.	When was Father Gagnon, Parish Priest of the Huron Village in Quebec, notified that the government would cease to pay him a salary?
2.	Have other Roman Catholic Priests ministering to the Indians received similar notices and, if so, what are their names and addresses?
3.	Do missionaries of other religious denominations receive an annual remuneration from the government and, if so, what are their names and addresses?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. By letter dated September 9, 1968, the department notified Father Gagnon that his salary paid from a fund established for the benefit of the Indians of the province of Quebec, be discontinued effective December 31, 1968.
2.	Yes, Reverend J. Remi Dolan of Odanak, Yamaska, P.Q.
3.	No.

December 4, 1968
Questions


MEETINGS ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanfield: 1.	How many meetings have been held since July 1, 1968, by the Minister without Portfolio (responsible for Indian Affairs in conjunction with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) with Indian spokesmen and leaders in Canada and what are the dates of those meetings?
2.	How many meetings have been held since July 1, 1968, by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with Indian spokesmen and leaders in Canada and what are the dates of those meetings?
3. How many Indian reservations have been visited by the Minister without Portfolio, since July 1, 1968 and what are the dates of those visits?
4. How many Indian reservations have been visited by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development since July 1, 1968 and what are the dates of those visits?
5.	How many briefs or submissions concerning the Indian Act have been submitted to the Minister without Portfolio by Indian chiefs or councillors?
6.	How many briefs or submissions concerning the Indian Act, have been submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by Indian chiefs or councillors?
7.	At meetings or hearings concerning the Indian Act, held by the Minister without Portfolio or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Indan spokesmen and leaders, who is entitled to make representations on behalf of the Indian Band or Council?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Eleven: July 25 and 26, 1968, Yellowknife, N.W.T., consultation meeting; August 12 and 13, 1968, Toronto, Ont., consultating meeting; August 15, 1968, Toronto, Ont.; August 16 and 18, 1968, Fort William, Ont., consultation meeting; August 21 and 22, 1968, Sudbury, Ont., consultation meeting; August 23, 1968, Edmonton, Alta.; September 17-18, 1968, Regina, Sask., consultation meeting; September 28,	1968,
Toronto, Ont.; October 3, 1968, Quebec City, Que., consultation meeting; October 26, 1968, Toronto, Ont.; October 31-November 1, 1968, Nanaimo, B.C., consultation meeting.
2.	Eleven: July 29, 1968, Moncton, N.B.; August 22, 1968, Sudbury, Ont.; September 20, 1968, London, Ont.; September 30,	1968,
Quebec City, Que.; October 9, 1968, North Bat-tleford, Sask.; October 21, 1988, Whitehorse, Y.T.; November 4, 1968, Winnipeg, Man.; November 14, 1968, Edmonton, Alta.; November 14 and 15, 1968, Kelowna, B.C.; November 16, 1968, Vancouver, B.C.; November 26, 1968, Victoria, B.C.
[Mr. Chretien. 1
3.	Five: July 25, 1968, Yellowknife I.S., Yellowknife, N.W.T. and Yellowknife Indian village settlement, Yellowknife, N.W.T.; September 7, 1968, Mud Lake-Curve Lake, Ontario; September 17, 1968, Cote-Kamsack, Saskatchewan and Keeseekoose, Kamsack, Saskatchewan.
4. Seventeen: August 5, 1968, Inuvik, N.W.T.; August 6, 1968, Aklavik, N.W.T.; August 6, 1968, Fort MacPherson, N.W.T.; August 7, 1968, Fort Franklin, N.W.T.; August 7, 1968, Fort Rae, N.W.T.; August 7 and 8, 1968, Yellowknife, N.W.T.; August 8, 1968, Fort Resolution, N.W.T.; August 8 and 9, 1968, Fort Smith, N.W.T.; August 9-11, 1968, Whitehorse, Y.T.; September 8, 1968, Adams Lake Reserve, B.C.; September 8,	1968, Neskainlith Reserve, B.C.; September 8, 1968, Kamloops Reserve, B.C.; October 11, 1968, Inuvik, N.W.T.; October 12, 1968, Yellowknife, N.W.T.; October 21, 1968, Whitehorse, Y.T.; November 15, 1968, West Bank Reserve, Kelowna, B.C.; November 16, 1968, Squamish Reserve, Vancouver, B.C.
5.	The number of written briefs submitted to the Minister without Portfolio are as follows: Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, 1; Fort William, Ontario, 10; Quebec city, Quebec, 1; Nanaimo, British Columbia, 1; Total, 13.
6.	The number of written briefs submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are as follows: Moncton, New Brunswick, 2; Sudbury, Ontario, 4; Quebec city, Quebec, 1; Prince George, British Columbia, 1; Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, 2; Ottawa, Ontario (directly), 7; Total, 17.
7.	Any person designated by the band council as its official spokesman.


SALE OF PLUTONIUM TO FRANCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As Canada is a signatory to the International Atomic Energy Agency Convention on the safeguarding of fissionable materials, was the sale of plutonium to France carried out under the terms of this Convention?
2.	What effective means are envisaged for inspection by Canada of French facilities to ensure that none of this fissionable material is shifted into weapons utilization?
3.	How many 20 Kiloton strength atomic bombs can be produced from the amount of plutonium being sold to France by Canada?
4.	What steps have been taken by Canada to check on the fissionable material produced by the reactor sold by Canada to India to ensure that it is not being used to produce nuclear weapons?
December 4, 1968


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. Canada is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and therefore subscribes to the principles of the statute of the organization. The IAEA has not established a convention on the safeguarding of fissionable materials. However, the sale of plutonium to France has been made in accordance with the Canadian government's long standing policy on "peaceful uses" of atomic energy which is wholly consistant with the principles underlying the IAEA.
2.	The sale of plutonium to France from Canada is to be carried out under the provisions of the agreement, dated October 6, 1959, between Canada and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) for cooperation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy, which provides for the application of the system for safeguards and control established by the Community in accordance with the treaty establishing EURATOM, and for consultation and the exchange of visits between the contracting parties to give assurance that the Community's safeguards and control system is satisfactory and effective.
3.	The report of the Secretary General of the United Nations, dated October 10, 1967, on the effects of the possible use of nuclear weapons and on the security and economic implications for states of the acquisition and further development of these weapons, estimates that some eight kilograms of plutonium containing 95 per cent of the fissionable isotope 239 is required for the construction of one nuclear warhead with a yield around 20 kilotons. The exact quantity of plutonium involved in this sale and the percentage of the 239 isotope contained therein will not be known until after the irradiated fuel from Canadian reactors has been processed at the Eurochemic nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Mol, Belgium. It can be estimated, however, that this amount of plutonium might produce up to 20 bombs with a yield of 20 kilotons each. However, the French government has agreed that the plutonium will be used for peaceful purposes only, and it is subject to suitable safeguards arrangements under the Canada-EURATOM agreement.
4.	The agreement between Canada and India providing for Canadian assistance in the construction of the Canada-India reactor was signed on April 28, 1956 before the
Questions
establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under the agreement the government of India undertook that the reactor and any products resulting from its use will be employed for peaceful purposes only.
The agreements between Canada and India dated December 16, 1963, December 16, 1966 providing for Canadian assistance in the construction of the two reactors of the Rajasthan atomic power project (RAPP), stipulates that bilateral safeguards will be applied on the Rajasthan atomic power station and on the Douglas Point nuclear generating station in Canada, of which RAPP is a copy. The two governments have further agreed that the International Atomic Energy Agency shall be asked to administer the safeguards responsibilities of the agreement between the two governments, when either a reactor in each of the two stations has operated at full power for one year or 15 months after a reactor in each of the two stations has first achieved criticality, whichever is earlier.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY TO STRAIT OF CANSO
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	When completed, what will be the length of the Trans-Canada Highway between the Quebec-New Brunswick border and the Strait of Canso?
2.	Of this total, how many miles of highway are of Trans-Canada Highway standards?
3.	Of this total, how many miles represent new construction, and how many miles represent improvement of existing roads?
4.	In the case of new construction, what has been the average cost per mile?
5.	In the case of improvement of existing roads, what has been the average cost per mile?
6.	When is it expected that the entire section referred to will be of Trans-Canada Highway standards?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. 533.5 miles.
2.	517.5 miles.
3.	New construction, 293.9 miles; Improvement of existing roads, 223.6 miles.
4.	$355,220 per mile.
5.	$184,100 per mile.
6.	October 1969.


RECRUITMENT ABROAD FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Code: 1.	Is it the policy of the Government of Canada to recruit candidates in other countries for positions in the federal public service for which no qualified Canadians are available?

December 4, 1968
Questions
2.	So far in 1968, how many positions have been filled in this way, what are those positions and, how many such employees were recruited from each country?
3.	Are these positions first advertised in Canada in the usual way by the Public Service Commission and was this the case in each of the instances referred to in part 2 above?
4.	Is it the responsibility of Mr. Jules Nadon, First Personnel Attache at the Canadian Embassy in France, to "make more effective the recruitment of French-speaking foreigners for professional posts in the federal service"?
5.	Are "talent hunts" being launched in France by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for sociologists, statisticians and economists and, if so (a) were the positions involved advertised in Canada (b) has it been impossible to obtain qualified French-speaking Canadians to fill them?
6.	Is the Canadian Transport Commission seeking computer experts and other personnel in France and, if so (a) were the positions involved advertised in Canada (b) has it been impossible to obtain qualified French-speaking Canadians to fill them?
7.	(a) What other departments of government are engaging in similar recruiting efforts, in what countries, and what positions are involved (b) have the positions in question been advertised in Canada in the usual way by the Public Service Commission and has it been impossible to find Canadians qualified to fill them?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Yes.
2. See Appendix.


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Economics	Organization		
Computer	Sociology	and Personnel	Scientific	Country	Systems	Statistics	Methods Management	Research	TotalsWest Germany	1	1Australia	1	1	2Austria	1	1China (Formosa)	1	1Egypt	1	1United States	14	13	27France	1	1Ghana	1	1Holland	1	1India	1	1Japan	1	1Malta	1	1New Zealand	1	1Philippines	1	1United Kingdom	19	11	4 6	14	54Switzerland	1	1Czechoslovakia	1	1Zambia	1	120	34	4 6	34	983. Yes. There is a	personnel attache at the	to increase recruiting in Europe. This recruit-	
Canadian embassy in Paris and another at the office of our high commissionner in the United Kingdom. Those two agents assume the responsibilities delegated to them by the Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and the diplomatic mission section.
As personnel attache at the Canadian embassy at Paris, Mr. Nadon is responsible, among other things, for advising the Public Service Commission on the steps to be taken

ing is limited to the occupation groups where there is a shortage of candidates in Canada. It is hoped that the work of Mr. Nadon will enable us to increase our recruiting in France and in other francophone countries in Europe.
5.	Yes, under the terms of an agreement with the Public Service Commission on sharing the work, (a) Yes; (b) Yes.
December 4, 1968
[Stage Direction]
6.	The Public Service Commission did some recruiting in Europe recently for the Canadian Transport Commission, (a) Yes; (b) Yes.
7.	(a) None. However, the Public Service Commission is recruiting abroad for those occupation groups where there is a shortage of candidates, (b) Yes.

Mr. Foster: 1.	(a) How many national historic parks and sites are located in Algoma constituency (b) what are the locations (c) how much money was expended in establishing these sites?
2.	(a) How many national historic parks and sites are planned to be established in Algoma constituency during 1969 (b) what are the locations (c) how much money is appropriated for each site?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a)
Two; (b) There is a standard plaque at the site of Fort St. Joseph on the east end of St. Joseph's island. There is also a secondary identifying plaque at the site of the Fort St. Joseph cemetery; (c) The standard plaque cost $177.08. The secondary plaque cost approximately $50.
2. (a) No national historic parks or sites are planned for 1969 but it has been our intention to complete planning for Fort St. Joseph by 1972 with a view to beginning major development during the fiscal year 1973-74; (b) See 2 (a); (c) Until planning has been completed it is not possible to provide any figures.


MICROWAVE INSTALLATION MODIFICATIONS, MANITOBA
Mr. Schreyer: Are modifications being made at present or have modifications recently been made on Canadian Pacific Telecommunications Microwave Installations at or near Stony Mountain and Gunton, Manitoba, if so (a) are these modifications or proposed modifications being made with the approval of the Department of Transport or any other federal government department or agency (b) when was this permission applied for and when was it granted (c) what is the nature and purpose of these modifications and on what equipment are they being performed?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as telecommunications is concerned:
1.	Modifications have recently been made to the Canadian Pacific Telecommunications microwave installations at Stony Mountain and Gunton, Manitoba, (a) Approval is not required; (b) Not applicable; (c) The tube type
Questions
converter has been changed to solid state type of converter for the purpose of modernizing this particular piece of equipment.


PAYMENTS TO RURAL MAIL COURIERS
Mr. McCutcheon: When can rural mail couriers expect to receive the remuneration promised by the Postmaster General on October 7 covering the period of the postal strike?


Eric William Kierans: We hope to have all cases reviewed and payments in the hands of rural mail contractors by mid-December.


HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, AMOS INDIAN RESERVATION
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had any houses built on the Amos reservation?
2.	If so (a) how many houses were built (b) what was the value of the contract (c) what contractor was involved?
3.	Are there plans to build additional new homes and to undertake certain works on this reservation in the coming year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) 1964, 5; 1965, 10; 1967, 8; total, 23 units, (b) 1964, $23,418; 1965, $52,200; 1967, $69,623. (c) 1964, Associate d'entreprise General, Amos, Quebec; 1965, John Paul Labrec-que, Amos, Quebec; 1967, Adelard St. Pierre, La Corne, Abitibi, Quebec.
3.	No houses will be built in 1968. It is proposed to build at least 5 houses in 1969. It is proposed to continue installation of the water and sewerage system at a total cost of approximately $60,000. About half of the work ($30,000) has already been completed.
It is proposed to complete the roadway in the new housing site at a cost of approximately $10,000.


ADVERTISING PROMOTION, CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What is the total cost of ail forms of advertising promoting the sale of 1968 Canada Savings Bonds?
2.	What are the names of all advertising agencies employed and media used and amounts paid or to be paid to each?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	$1,617,000.

December 4, 19G8
Questions
2. MacLaren Advertising Co. Ltd. and B.C.P.
Advertising Co. Ltd.
Media	Amount
Press	$ 794,000
Radio	333,000
T.V.	321,000
Display and outdoor	71,000
Direct mail	12,000
Misc. literature	56,000
Press liaison	30,000
Total	$1,617,000
The above figures represent estimates of the total cost.


LEGAL FEES IN CHARGES AGAINST SEAFARERS UNION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What is the name and address of each person who received payments, with the amount of such payment indicated, shown as legal fees of $90,796.08 with respect to certain charges laid against certain members of the Seafarer's International Union as referred to on pages 2472-3 of Hansard?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Name and Address
Mr. J. J. Robinette,
c/o McCarthy and McCarthy,
Barristers and Solicitors,
P.O. Box 48,
Toronto Dominion Centre,
Toronto 1, Ontario.
Mr. J. A. MacLennan, c/o Sigler, MacLennan,
Clarke and Company,
Barristers and Solicitors,
505 Burrard Street,
Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. Frangois Mercier, c/o Stikeman, Elliott,
Tamaki and Robb,
Barristers and Solicitors,
1155 Dorchester Blvd. West, Montreal 2, P.Q.
Mr. Jean Martineau, c/o Martineau, Walker, Allison, Beaulieu, Tetley and Phelan, Barristers and Solicitors,
Suite 3400, Stock Exchange Tower, Montreal 3, P.Q.
Totals
Fees	Disbursements	Total

8.005.00	332.95	8,337.9575.00	5.80	80.809.680.00	907.02	10,587.0265,061.00	6,729.31	71,790.3182,821.00	7,975.08	90,796.08


APPLICATIONS FOR URBAN RENEWAL
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Have any applications for urban renewals been received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, over and above the 114 million dollars mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio in the House on November 7, 1968?
2.	If so, from what communities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Yes.
2.	Applications for the implementation of urban renewal schemes under section 23B of the National Housing Act have been received from the following communities: Hamilton, Ontario; Kitchener, Ontario; London, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Medicine Hat, Alberta; Port Coquitlam, B.C.; Ladner, B.C.; Cloverdale, B.C.
In addition, there have been discussions with other municipalities concerning the implementation of urban renewal schemes.

December 4, 1968


ARDA-FRED LAND PURCHASES, MANITOBA INTERLAKE REGION
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	How much land has been purchased in the area of the east Interlake under the auspices of the ARDA-FRED program?
2.	From how many property owners was such land purchased and what was the total cost?
3.	What are the locations and at what price were such lands purchased?
4.	What was the value in land and in buildings in the case of the largest purchase made under the ARDA-FRED program in the. east Interlake and at what location was such purchase made?
5.	What was the acreage of land involved and what was the number and kind of buildings?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. Approximately 2,682 acres.
2.	Forty-one owners, at a total cost of $355,500.
3,	4 and 5. The principal locations were Libau-Poplar park area, Riverton-Washaw Bay area and Winnipeg Beach. These purchases were made by the province within the general terms of the FRED development plan, and the province does not disclose details of the individual purchases.


CONSTRUCTION OF AIR STRIP, DEERHOLME, B.C.
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Has the Department of Transport received a request from the Cowichan Airport Society to assist in the building of a new air strip at Vaux Road. Deerholme, B.C.?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Department to provide financial assistance?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2. No. The department has been requested by the local authorities to provide technical assistance in locating a suitable site for an airport. A preliminary investigation indicates the possibility of a suitable site approximately 3 miles west of Duncan, B.C.


STUDY OF AIR FREIGHT SECURITY
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The: Sydneys):
1.	Was a survey conducted of the larger air terminals regarding security functions in the Air Freight Departments?
2.	On what date did such a study commence?
3.	Who conducted such a survey?
4.	What was the outcome of the survey and what action does the government plan
29180-221J
Questions


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. No, not by the Department of Transport. Security functions in the air freight departments of the larger air terminals are the responsibility of the air lines concerned.
2, 3 and 4. N/A.


CLOSING OF POST OFFICES, SAINT JEAN CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean): Are any Post Offices scheduled to be closed in the Constituency of Saint-Jean, P.Q., and, if so, when and where?


Eric William Kierans: Not yet.
Studies will be conducted with a view to closing the Barrington, Cantic, St-Bernard-de-Lacole and Henrysburgh post offices under the closing program criteria but no steps have actually been taken on any particular case as yet.


GREAT RING OF CANADA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What has been the disposition of the Great Ring of Canada, presented to the Canadian people by the American people commemorating Canada's Centennial?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to place this magnificent gift on view to the Canadian public at some suitable spot on Parliament Hill?
3.	If not, what are the reasons for this decision?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. The Great Ring of Canada has been on exhibition for the past 9 months in the National Library and Public Archives Building.
2.	Not at this time.
3.	Consideration is being given to temporary exhibition in several centres across the country.


LEVEL CROSSING, NORANDA, QUE.
Mr. Caouette: Has the Minister of Public Works received a request from the City of Noranda regarding a level crossing which should be replaced by a viaduct or an overpass on Murdock St. and, if so, when does the Department intend to begin this work?


Arthur Laing: No such request has been received by the Minister of Public Works.
Questions

December 4, 1988


PERSONNEL IN PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many employees, advisors, secretaries, etc. were attached to the Office of the Prime Minister in 1964?
2.	How many employees of the same categories are presently employed in the Office of the Prime Minister?
3.	Have the services added to this Office caused new positions to be created?
4.	When an overload of work makes it necessary for this Office to take on additional staff, from what agency are the services of part-time employees obtained at the present time?
5.	Has the government considered offering the same benefits to some Members who have seen their work doubled following the recent electoral redistribution?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. As of January 1, 1964, 12 employees held appointments by order in council in the office of the Prime Minister.
2.	As of November 1, 1968, 32 employees held appointments in accordance with section 37(1) of the Public Service Employment Act; two additional were employed by contract.
3.	Yes.
4.	Part time assistance, when required, is
obtained from the following sources:	(i)
Casual employees referred by the Canada Manpower Centres in Ottawa and Hull; (ii) Office Overload Company; (iii) Chapman Girl; (iv) Canadian Office Services Limited; (v) Manpower Services Ltd.
5.	The government is aware of this suggestion.


SLIPWAY AND HAULOUT ENGINE, DINGWALL HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The: Sydneys):
1.	Has the government received a request regarding the urgent need of a slipway and haulout engine at Dingwall Harbour, Victoria County, Nova Scotia?
2.	What consideration is being given to this request and when is it anticipated that these facilities will be provided to the fishermen in Dingwall?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes.
2. This request is being investigated.


PARK DEVELOPMENT, POINT PELEE, ONT.
Mr. Danforth: 1.	Has the government recently undertaken a major plan of development of Point Pelee and Point Pelee National Park?
2.	What were the names of the consultants who took part in this undertaking?
3.	What are the conditions of employment of the consultants and remuneration received by each and were any local consultants in or near this area used in the project and, if not, for what reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
national and historic parks branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have embarked upon a major plan of development on Point Pelee national park. This will be phased over some ten years and follow closely the conceptual plan for this national park made public in November 1967.
2.	To date the following consultants have
participated in this development:	Sasaki
Strong & Associates; James F. MacLaren Limited; William J. Setterington.
3.	(a) The conditions of employment of consultants will vary to some extent with the type of service required. Generally, however, the consultant is required to possess a demonstrated professional competence in the held for which the service is required and, where possible, practise in the province in which the project is located; (b) The remuneration received by Sasaki Strong Associates was $11,630.76. The other two consultants referred to in 2 above have not at this time completed their respective assignments; (c) William J. Setterington has offices in Leamington, Mr. James F. MacLaren in London, while Sasaki Strong & Associates were from Toronto. As the various forthcoming phases of the project are implemented additional opportunities will continue to occur for other local consultants to participate in this project.


EMIGRATION FROM CANADA
Mr. Dumont: How many Canadians emigrated from Canada in 1967 and of these, how many emigrated to the United States?
December 4, 1968	COMMONS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimates the number of persons who emigrated from Canada, calendar year 1967, at 69,000.
According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, the number of persons who emigrated to the United States from Canada, calendar year 1967, was 38,854.
DEBATES	3483
Order for Return


PERSONNEL IN PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Maiher: What were the numbers of assistants, aides, secretaries, publicists and others, employed in the Office of the Prime Minister and the total of their remuneration in the years 1961, 1965 and at the present time in 1968?


James Edgar Walker: Number of personnel Total annual remuneration



Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	How many people were employed in the Prime Minister's office on October 1, 1965 and on October 1, 1968?
2.	How many were on the payroll October 1, 1965 and on October 1, 1968?
3.	How many were voluntary help October 1, 1965, and in October 1, 1968?
4.	What did the payroll on an annual basis amount to as at October 1, 1965 and on October 1, 1968?


James Edgar Walker: October 1, 1965	October 1, 1968
1.	21	312.	21	313.	NIL	NIL4.	$197,492	$391,240


PRESS RELEASES, PRIVY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Do the Government Services under the jurisdiction of the President of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?
As of	As of	As ofNovember 1, November 1, November 1, 1961	1965	196815	21	34$97,920	$197,492	$406,085


Yves Forest: 1. Yes; 5.
2.	(a) $1.02; (b) Nil; (c) $2.38; (d) Nil; (e) Nil.
3.	(a) No. 7 white bond basic 40M; (b)
9,000	sheets; $26.10.
4.	13 hours.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McQuaid: What was the original cost to the Canadian Government of the following articles sold through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation during the fiscal year 1967-68 and were the articles new or used when sold (a) 3 diesel generators sold to Newfoundland Power Commission for $15,000 (b) 10 prefabricated "Butler" buildings sold to Province of Prince Edward Island for $15,000 (c) coffee pots and tea pots sold to Oscar's Surplus Jobbers Ltd. for $10,289 (d) aluminum saucepans sold to Oscar's Surplus Jobbers Ltd. for $9,133 (e) fire extinguishers and fire carts sold to Hercules Sales Ltd. for $9,099 (f) office furniture sold to G. H. Johnson's Furniture Ltd. for $8,944 (g) 375 filing cabinets sold to Browns Auction Rooms Ltd. for $7,969	(h)	3 diesel generators sold to Tanny
Merchandising Corp. for $5,130 (i) 3 snow blowers sold to Harbour Motor Sales Ltd. for $11,666 (j) fire truck sold to Hub Fire Engines and Equipment Ltd. for $5,000 (k) 295 tents and 295 tent bags sold to Merchandise Mart of Canada for $5,236 (1) blankets sold to Hercules Sales Ltd. for $5,113 (m) road grader sold to Laird Construction Ltd for $5,117?
Return tabled.

December 4, 1968
Order for Return


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to rise again to ask when I will receive the answer to question No. 4. Really there is no excuse for the delay. It has been on the order paper since September 12, which is nearly three months. I have been told two or three times on orders of the day that it would be answered soon. The question is in exactly the same form as one I have asked every year for about 20 years. I am simply trying to get up to date information, and I am beginning to wonder about the delay. This has to do with pensions of retired civil servants.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for this delay, and I will undertake to see that something is done about it.
tTranslation]


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 are agreeable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


&quot;REVISION OF THE INDIAN ACT&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the document entitled "Revision of the Indian Act" which was presented to the fourth meeting of the national Indian advisory board held in Ottawa from May 1 to May 5 inclusive, 1967.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of British Columbia since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. McQuaid.l

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of Prince Edward Island since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of Nova Scotia since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of New Brunswick since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of Quebec since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of Ontario since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to
December 4, 1968
[Stage Direction]
INDIAN EDUCATION, MANITOBA Motion No. 47-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of Manitoba since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.
INDIAN EDUCATION, SASKATCHEWAN Motion No. 48-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of Saskatchewan since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.
INDIAN EDUCATION, ALBERTA Motion No. 49-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any agency, branch or department thereof and the government of the province of Alberta since January 1, 1967 relating to the matter of education for Indians.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the names of outside advisers who are to participate in the review of foreign policy have been leaked to the press together with the procedures to be followed in this review, will the hon. gentleman not agree that parliament and the country are entitled to a statement from the government in respect of the personnel, procedures and terms of reference of this review?
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I held preliminary conversations with some ten people on September 28, not about the foreign policy review but about procedures for associating
Inquiries of the Ministry academic specialists with discussions on Canadian relations with Europe. These ten individuals, whose names are accurately reported by Mr. Newman in his article, are representatives of non-governmental organizations with particular interests in foreign policy, research and discussion. I am very much indebted to them for having undertaken to select academics who might have such discussions with us. I am sure everyone in the house will agree that it would be useful to get the views of academics on this question. The people who are mentioned in Mr. Newman's article are not likely to be those who will be involved in the review.
Mi. Stanfield:	Mr. Speaker, would the
Secretary of State for External Affairs consider it appropriate in these circumstances to indicate to parliament and Canada the terms of reference to this inquiry; and would he also confirm whether it is his intention or the intention of the government to submit this report to a private meeting sponsored by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs for consideration before parliament, any parliamentary committee or Canadians as a whole have had the opportunity to see the report? I ask this question in view of the position taken by the minister in requesting that he be allowed to obtain these comments regarding our foreign policy.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the discussion we will be having with these academics is to elicit their views before the government reaches any conclusions. The academics will not be made privy to any of the views of the government on this subject. It will be the purpose of the meeting to find out, before the government completes its review or comes to any view, the views of these people.
If I may be permitted to refer to a committee of the house, yesterday when I appeared before the committee on external affairs I made it plain, and I should like to repeat this now, that it would be very agreeable to the government if the committee were to invite the views of members of parliament and others who might like to appear before the committee to express their views before the government has completed this review. After the review is completed the intention is to publish a white paper, which would then of course be open for debate.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. First, are
December 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry those experts who are being consulted by the government given access to classified information in order to make more appropriate comments; and if so, are they being cleared for security? Second, are any persons outside of Canada, or non-Canadians, being consulted in this regard with respect to the future foreign policy of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the first question the answer is in the negative. Our understanding is that the academics we would like to talk with do not want to be made aware of any classified information, because in that way they might be inhibited in expressing their views in other places. So I can say unqualifiedly that no classified information will be available to them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I directed another point to the minister. Perhaps he did not quite hear it. Are there any persons outside of Canada, or non-Canadians, being consulted in this regard with respect to the future foreign policy of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would very much doubt whether the Institute of International Affairs would be likely to nominate such persons, but of course I do not know who these academics are going to be so I cannot answer that question quite so categorically. I would doubt very much, however, whether they would put forward the names of non-Canadians.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether the advice given by these academics will be made public, so that members of this house and the general public can get the benefit of their advice to the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have never known academics who are reluctant to express their views on foreign policy. I am quite sure that after they have expressed them to us they will express them publicly and loudly.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. I hope he will not consider it redundant. Would the minister confirm that it is the intention of the government to maintain this country's military strength in Europe until January, 1970, at least?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that was

implied in the testimony I gave yesterday at the committee.


John Angus MacLean: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that the statement made in the house by the Prime Minister on November 15, I believe it was, to the effect that we can withdraw from NATO during the course of 1969 if we so decide, is in fact an option that is not now open to Canada under the present circumstances ?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if I am asked to comment on that, I think the Prime Minister was referring to the fact that in August Canada could exercise an option or give notice of withdrawal.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that the estimates of the Department of National Defence have been reported to the house and those of the Department of External Affairs will be reported soon, are the two ministers considering the possibility of sending the annual report of the two departments back to the committee on external affairs and national defence, in order to allow the committee to continue its study and perhaps call witnesses who will help its members to form an opinion and advise the government with regard to its policy revision?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the committee on external affairs and national defence has plans to that effect, although they have no immediate connection with the estimates of the Department of National Defence, which were passed by the committee yesterday.


Mr. Stanfield:: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the Minister of National Defence was expressing government policy when he stated on television last night that Europe is the geographical region where Canada's security is most in jeopardy.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: He was stating a very important point of view, Mr. Speaker.
December 4, 1968


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Is that all?


Mr. Baldwin:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in respect of the question asked him earlier, if the government will give the same measure of attention to the recommendations of the committee on external affairs as they are apparently giving to the recommendation of the committee on transport and communications with regard to the railway service in Newfoundland.


Mr. Hees:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we should go on to a new subject.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, one that was asked last Monday by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The Minister of Finance has probably seen it. In view of the very large profits announced by the banks of Canada, would the Minister of Finance give consideration to reimposing the ceiling on the interest rate, or to finding some other way of controlling interest rates, particularly on loans for housing mortgages?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the lifting of the ceiling on interest rates has meant that the marginal borrower in Canada has been able to borrow money at lower rates than when the ceiling was on. I think one should not only look at the profits of the banks; one must also look at those of all financial institutions, including finance companies, and at what is happening in this regard.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's invalid elementary lecture on finance, but I should like to ask him whether in view of the profits which the banks are making he would at least consider renegotiating with the banks the interest rate on farm improvement loans, a subject matter within the purview of negotiation between the government and the lending institutions.


Edgar John Benson: I do not think this is really necessary with respect to interest rates on farm improvement and student loans. In these cases what the borrower will have to pay

Inquiries of the Ministry is the current government borrowing rate for a similar term plus a small margin to cover administrative costs. I think this is a fair arrangement, and I believe people generally will be happy with what has been done in this respect.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the statement made on various occasions by the hon. minister in this house to the effect that the site of the future Quebec international airport would be known soon- that is in December-why have none of the briefs presented by the municipalities of Drummondville and Farnham as well as other towns located on the south shore not been considered up to now by the federal-provincial committee responsible for finding a site for the future international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the best of my knowledge the members of the technical committee have considered all possible sites. Obviously some of them are better than others, and they are concentrating their attention on the preferable ones.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since the Minister of Transport has used the expression "to the best of my knowledge", could I ask him to inquire officially from the federal-provincial committee and to give us an official answer on that, in order to assure us that the sites proposed by the municipalities on the south shore are really being considered because, according to our information, they are not?



PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL DRYING AND TRANSPORT FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The matter has not been settled, Mr. Speaker. However, the discussion is still under way and I am very optimistic about its results.']
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
December 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the grave situation facing western wheat farmers with regard to the drying of damp grain, would the government consider providing free transportation for available grain drying equipment from eastern Canada to help alleviate the situation in the west?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minisier wilhoul Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, many measures are being considered to assist in the drying of prairie grain. This kind of scheme would ordinarily originate at the initiative of the provincial government. In the past such schemes as this have certainly been supported with federal assistance.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister now advise the house, in the light of the very serious situation in western Canada due to the cost involved in the drying of a multi-million dollar grain crop, whether the government will provide acreage payments of up to $400 per farmer to assist in covering the cost of this very expensive undertaking?


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldl):: I do not
think, Mr. Speaker, that the question of particular assistance to agriculture is specifically related to this issue. It is a rather broader one, and it is under consideration at all times.


Gerald William Baldwin: It does not seem to be related to anything.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. On November 27 he indicated he would look into the matter of grain drying at the lakehead on a 24-hour basis. Are the lakehead terminals drying grain on a 24-hour basis at present?


Daniel Aiken Lang: The drying facilities at the lakehead are in operation 24 hours a day, six days a week, and negotiations are under way with the labour unions to extend these operations to a seven day basis.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there insufficient grain at the terminals at present to warrant a seven days a week operation?


Daniel Aiken Lang: There is now sufficient grain at the terminals, in store or en route, to assure a continuous operation once this can begin on a seven day basis.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have one more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow only one further supplementary question, because there are a number of other hon. members who are anxious to ask questions.


Stanley James Korchinski: My question is a result of the minister's reply. May I ask the reason for the delay until now in the negotiations with the unions on this particular question? The situation is no surprise to anyone.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government elevator at Moose Jaw is at present only working on a five day eight hour shift due to a lack of box cars to move grain, I wonder if the minister can state whether the government has taken into consideration the complete co-ordination of the movement of box cars to transport the damp grain.


Daniel Aiken Lang: It is true that the Moose Jaw terminal is operating on a 24-hour, five day a week basis. Moose Jaw is not in an area where there is a great problem with regard to damp grain, but arrangements have now been made to ensure that adequate quantities of damp grain will in fact find their way to Moose Jaw so as to make full use of that facility.


John Leroy Skoberg: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully suggest that at present the terminal at Moose Jaw is operating on an eight hour shift. I wish to ask the minister again whether he will look into the situation, as I am certain there is a sufficient amount of damp grain to be moved.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has placed the burden of responsibility on the provincial governments, I wonder whether he would be prepared to say, if the provincial governments would arrange to make this grain drying equipment available from Ontario, he would then provide free transportation to have it moved to where it is needed.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will be discussing this question with the provincial ministers. I did not mean to suggest it was necessarily a good program, because the drying equipment required to handle the current problem is largely available on the prairies. The problem is more one of organization than of the supply of additional equipment, though no doubt additional equipment would also be useful.
December 4, 1968



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether an agreement has been reached by Ottawa and Quebec with regard to sending a Canadian delegation to the coming Niamey conference, or whether Quebec will send its own delegation?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The matter has not been settled, Mr. Speaker. However, the discussion is still under way and I am very optimistic about its results.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In the minister's statement issued during the weekend he advised the country that during the first seven months of this fiscal year expenditures had exceeded revenues by 30 per cent more than they did during a similar period a year ago and that this situation is worsening steadily. My question is: In view of the situation, is the government in the near future expecting to announce the steps that it intends to take to correct the situation and to bring expenditures in line with revenues?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, who knows so much about the financial world, should know that he should not pay too much attention to monthly financial statements unless he considers the effect of seasonally adjusting them over the whole year. Second, we have brought the finances of Canada under control, and in my budget speech I indicated what we were intending to do and what most people believe we intend to do.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is he not aware that during the time he was making his budget speech expenditures were exceeding revenues by $52 million, almost three times as much as during the same month a year ago? Does he call this progress?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is urging me to allow the minister to reply. However, there are only a few minutes left in the question period, and many members have not had an opportunity to participate until now.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: want to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Does the government intend to take any action to forestall the imminent closing of several major fish plants in Newfoundland, directly affecting over 6,000 plant workers and in excess of 10,000 fishermen?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: As
the hon. member knows, the 1968 fishing season is drawing to a close. The decision to shut down is up to the companies themselves. I might also comment that in addition to the usual programs of government assistance that have been available this year, there have also been expenditures on special programs of assistance during the past year and the total income in the Atlantic region is up substantially over 1967.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and this is a very urgent question. Does the government intend to continue the deficiency payments program to fish operators?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. The program came to an end on October 31, 1968, and any new program will have to be announced early in the new year.	.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: I have a supplementary question. The minister has indicated that the deficiency payments have terminated. Can the minister indicate to the house, in view of the fact that next year's fishing season is in great danger of not being successful, what alternative proposals the government has for staving off literal starvation of the Atlantic fisheries?


John (Jack) Davis: As I said before, the industry has done fairly well in 1968. However, we will be announcing new programs early in the new year.
3490	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



STEPS TO OVERCOME SHORTAGE OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or his parliamentary secretary. In view of the serious shortage of medical doctors which now exists and which will become more serious in future with the introduction of medicare, is the government considering revising its decision to cut health grants and abolish hospital construction grants?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring those remarks to the attention of the minister.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder then if I may add a supplementary to which the minister might also reply. What does the government intend to do to ensure that the country will have enough doctors now and in the future?



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. On Monday he indicated to me that he had received the report of the conciliation board dealing with the dispute between Air Canada and the airline employees association. In view of the continuing disagreement that exists, can the minister bring us up to date on this situation?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive the report on Monday. After analysing it very carefully I felt the conciliation board had not carried out completely its terms of reference. I returned the report to the board and asked them to amplify certain areas within the terms of reference submitted to the board in order to facilitate both parties. At the present moment the board is reconstituted and will be meeting in Toronto on Friday, at which time I hope more progress will be made.

DEBATES	December 4, 1968



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise why there have been delays in organizing container traffic in a designated Atlantic coastal port, brought about by the apparent incapacity of the National Harbours Board to come to any decisions on this extremely vital matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was not aware of any undue delay, Mr. Speaker, but I would be glad to take the question as notice and check the allegations contained in the hon. member's question.


Robert Muir: May
I ask the minister the reason for the delay by the National Harbours Board in setting rate structures in east coast ports and providing the necessary facilities in order that container traffic may be rolling as quickly as possible rather than be diverted to the United States, as is beginning to appear likely?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I expect that any delay is caused by the fact the private enterprise companies do not want to pay a practical rate, and consequently negotiations are continuing to see if some agreement can be reached.


Robert Muir: Is
the minister not aware that the delays are caused by the inability of the government and the National Harbours Board to make some of these vital decisions?


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister yet had time to read the report on National Harbours Board decentralization? If so, is he now prepared to table that report, especially in view of the fact the transport committee is going to have officials from the National Harbours Board before it on Friday, when it would be very helpful to have the report.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish my hon. friend would not ask that question, because I have not yet finished reading it. I think perhaps I will have to table it without completing my reading of it, or else finish reading it overnight. If my hon. friend wants a decision between now and Friday I will try to give him an answer tomorrow.
December 4, 1968	COMMONS



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My
question is directed to the Postmaster General. Could I ask the minister if he is investigating allegations of slow delivery of the new and more costly mail, especially in view of a report in today's Ottawa Journal concerning a letter mailed in Ottawa on Wednesday last and delivered in the same city on Monday of this week?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the housewives' charter to protect the consumer has now become part of Britain's criminal code, will the minister introduce similar legislation or consider such action in connection with his new omnibus bill to amend the Canadian Criminal Code?


John Napier Turner: would certainly want to talk that over with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.



UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the numerous citings of unidentified flying objects over Sioux Lookout, Ontario, and the fact the federal government maintains an expensive Pine Tree radar detection installation there, I should like to know if the Minister of National Defence has received any reports on these U.F.O.'s?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure this is an urgent question. Perhaps it can be discussed at ten o'clock tonight.



PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED THREATS BY MEMBERS OF CABINET On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: I have a question for the Prime
DEBATES	3491
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps at this point I should take time out to introduce the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again remind hon. members that there are only a few minutes left in the question period, so perhaps we should get on as quickly as we can.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Is the Prime Minister aware that civil servants are working under duress because of threats emanating from the Liberal caucus?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, some seem to think this is very funny. I follow my remarks by raising a question of privilege. I wish to draw to the attention of the house a matter which is of most serious concern to all. On national television last night a Liberal member of parliament expressed the opinion that threats were used against ministers in caucus in order to bring about desired results.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have time for one more question. The Leader of the Opposition.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I can wait until the cheering dies down. I have in my hand a transcript of a program that was broadcast last night on national television.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is raising a question of privilege about a matter which arose yesterday he ought to know that according to the rules he must give written notice to the Chair. He cannot raise as a question of privilege a matter which apparently, from what he says, arose yesterday, unless he gives the Chair written notice of his intention to do so.


Malcolm MacInnis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this matter has very serious implications for the Prime Minister and the cabinet. I have in my hand the transcript of comments made on a television program last night, and I wish to

December 4, 1968
Supply-Finance
bring these to the attention of the house. The allegation is that civil servants are threatened by ministers, and the member of parliament appearing on television said this has been done. I refer to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard), who said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Crouse:: Let us have parliament according to the rules.


An hon. Member:: Do not threaten the Speaker.


Mr. Thompson (Red Deer):: Where is the President of the Privy Council?


The Chairman:: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the committee might rise and report progress for the purpose of hearing the hon. member's question of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The correct procedure is for the minister to move the motion, give it to me in writing, and allow me to put it to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, a very simple one. Is it appropriate for the committee of supply to go back into the whole house on a move which, in effect, is a reflection on Mr. Speaker's judgment? Mr. Speaker left the chair, feeling that the matter then before the house was disposed of. I suggest we have no right to reflect on Mr. Speaker by going back into the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: The government house leader wants to be the Speaker, too.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I appreciate the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I think that the Chair has no option in the matter except to put the motion.


An hon. Member:: Was Mr. Speaker
threatened?


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. About 15 minutes before the truth was exposed in the house I indicated to Mr. Speaker that I would be rising on a point of privilege at the end of the question period to bring to the attention of the house a matter that pertains to the fact that our economy is going on the rocks. I bowed to Mr. Speaker's decision when he said that this could wait. At the same time I do not wish it to be thought I am relinquishing my position or the privilege of bringing up the same point on another day.


An hon. Member:: Bring it up.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I think the government house leader and hon. members supporting the government are abusing their majority. In the interest of decorum and of proceeding in an orderly and proper manner I think the members of the government ought to accept the opprobrium of not proceeding in this matter.


Mr. Trudeau:: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for simplifying the whole problem, but I think it has grown and become a little out of proportion.


David Lewis: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think we should accept the opprobrium, as the Leader of the Opposition says. It is a matter of elementary fairness. A particular point of privilege was raised; I do not think it is too important. I would be prepared to concede, if it would help the debate, that sometimes members do threaten their ministers in caucus. I do not think that is a very serious matter. The only relevant point is that Mr. Speaker did not catch the eye, I think, of the hon. member who had been put under an accusation and I think, in fairness, he should have been given a chance to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 4, 1968



[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: It is still a reflection on Mr. Speaker.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, pleace. The motion that I have is unacceptable as it is. I will read it to the committee-it will then become clear why it is unacceptable.


An hon. Member:: Why read it, then?


James Hugh Faulkner: I should like to read it so that my ruling might be understood by all members of the committee. It is moved by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That the committee do rise and report progress for the purpose of hearing the question of privilege of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.
My decision is that the latter part of the motion is a substantive question, and that it is therefore out of order at this point.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, could you call the first order of business, so that we might know what is to be the first item to be discussed in committee of supply, and prepare for it now?


James Hugh Faulkner: Under our standing orders it is the option of the government to bring forward the business to be discussed in the committee of supply, and the Chair does not have any business before it right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With great respect, I indicated to the Clerk of the House that we would be considering the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Finance.


James Hugh Faulkner: I apologize. I have not yet been advised of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wish to say a few words on the main- item of the estimates of the Department of Finance, which department I believe is now before the committee.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was possibly rising on a point of order. I have not put the business formally.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including administration of the guaranteed loans acts, the Inspector General of Banks' office, and payments to provinces as detailed in the estimates, $3,970,500.
James Hugh Faulkner: The house in committee of supply, revised estimates of the Department of Finance for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 138
Supply-Finance
of the blue book; details thereof are listed at page 142.


George Harris Hees: A few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Finance whether in view of the very sharp increase in the excess of expenditures over revenue during the past few months the government intended to take steps to correct the situation so as to bring expenditure and revenue into better balance. The minister replied by saying, in effect, that we should not pay too much attention to statements of that kind, that the main thing was: How is the country doing? It was something to that effect.


Edgar John Benson: Oh?


George Harris Hees: Was that not the case?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to clarify the position. What I was saying was this: Monthly figures, unless they are seasonally adjusted, are very misleading, and I have no reason to believe that the estimates as presented in the budget for the current fiscal year will be materially different from the final figure for the year as a whole.


George Harris Hees: All we can believe, Mr. Chairman, are the statements which the minister himself puts out under his name. I should like to read a Canadian Press report which appeared in the paper on Saturday. The Canadian Press is, of course, a very reputable organization, not known to exaggerate or to take political sides at any time. It is in fact an organization supported by all the newspapers in Canada to give factual reports of the news. Here is what the Canadian Press had to say, under the heading "Spending gets further ahead of revenues" and datelined at Ottawa:
Federal spending is outstripping revenues by a larger amount than in 1967.
A statement by finance minister E. J. Benson giving figures for the first seven months of the current fiscal year which began last March 31 shows a deficit of $83.1 million with budgetary revenues of $5,392,300,000 and spending of $5,475,400,000.
The deficit for the same period last year was $65.7 million, with revenues of $5,009,700,000 and spending of $5,075,400,000. In October this year-
-The month during which the minister made his budget statement-
-spending at $911 million outran revenues of $859.8 million by $51.2 million. In the same month in 1967 there was a deficit of $18.1 million on spending of $750.2 million and revenues of $732.1 million.

December 4, 1968
Supply-Finance
All I have done is repeat a statement which was given by the minister over his own signature, as reported by the Canadian Press. In this statement the minister himself has demonstrated that during the month of October, when he made his budget speech assuring us that in future his government intended to balance the budget, at the very moment he was speaking the government was spending $52 million more than it received in revenue, and overspending by three times as much in that month as it did in the same month a year earlier. Those are the facts, and those are the figures.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. gentleman like an answer?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I would-if there is one.


Edgar John Benson: The hon. gentleman has a great deal of experience in finance and I know the tremendous job he carried out prior to being in parliament. He knows that monthly figures are not in themselves indicative of the final result, that in any particular month of the year expenditures can be high and revenues somewhat low. There are variations, depending on the amount of money spent in a particular month, how far contracts have gone, and so on. I simply repeat that I have no reason whatever to change the estimate I made in my budget, which indicates a deficit in 1968-69 fiscal year and a relatively balanced budget in 1969-70.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: The minister can claim it was unfair to take one month alone and compare it with another month. In the first seven months of the fiscal year government expenditure exceeded revenue by 30 per cent. In other words, during those seven months expenditure was 30 per cent more than revenue. This figure is even higher than the figure for the same period in the preceding year. This gives a pretty good indication, Mr. Chairman, that the government has not been able to curtail its expenditure. I suggest the fact that expenditure exceeded revenue in the month of October by $52 million is somewhat alarming, in that this is three times the excess of expenditure over revenue in that same month the year before. Although this is not entirely indicative of what the total figure will be at the end of the fiscal year, I suggest that we cannot rely on the minister's assurance that everything is going to be all right. If we were to do that, then criticism or debate in this house would be completely meaningless.

The Canadian people are worried about this situation, Mr. Chairman, because they are the ones who have to pay for this excess of expenditure over revenue. The Canadian people want to know what the minister is going to do to eliminate this differential, so that they will not be called upon to pay more and more taxes. In my question this afternoon I asked the minister whether the government expected to make a statement in the near future specifically outlining what it is going to do to bring expenditure and revenue further into line, a very logical and, I believe, sensible request. However the minister brushed it off as something that is of no consequence.
For the last three years, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has been making the same statements. For part of this time he was president of the treasury board. I remember when one year ago the president of the treasury board told the house that he had installed in his department a new computer system that in future was going to take all of the guesswork out of forecasting. He said there would be no more misforecasting.


Edgar John Benson: Oh!


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly that is the impression I received from reading his speech, and I am sure that is the impression the house received as well.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He gave his personal guarantee.


Edgar John Benson: You were overimpressed.


George Harris Hees: I took the minister at his word and assumed that he meant what he said. I am sure the minister will agree, if he reads the speech he made on that day, that I am not being unfair when I suggest that that is what he meant.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian people are worried about the mistakes or miscalculations that have been made by the government. During the recent election campaign the Canadian people were told on several occasions, both by this minister and by the Prime Minister that the government was going to balance its books; that they expected to have almost a balanced budget next time. But when parliament resumes it is advised by the minister that we are going to have a deficit of $675 million, nearly three quarters of a billion dollars.
This is why we feel we must question the government about what steps it is taking to ensure that this overspending in which it has
December 4, 1968

indulged is not going to continue. However, Mr. Chairman, the minister does not seem to take these questions seriously. He assures us that everything is going to be all right if only we have confidence in him. In view of the figures that are published year after year and month after month, the Canadian people cannot be anything but greatly concerned.
In order to offset the excess of expenditure over revenue the Canadian people have to dig into their pockets to meet increased taxation. This has a very serious effect not only upon the well-being of the people and their ability to bring up their families properly and pay their bills, but also on the unemployment situation in this country. As we all know, Mr. Chairman, when people have money in their pockets to buy goods and services, employment prospers. Goods have to be manufactured to replace those that are sold off retailer's shelves.
Naturally, Mr. Chairman, if the Canadian people are called upon to pay more and more taxes, there is less money in their pockets to pay for goods and services. Consequently jobs become fewer. This also is of concern to the public. When taxes on corporations or insurance companies are increased, it is the consumer, the ordinary average citizen, who pays for the increase in the end. In the case of a corporation that manufactures goods and provides services for sale to the public, any tax increase is absorbed by correspondingly increasing the price of its goods to the consumers. In the same way an insurance company absorbs extra taxes simply by increasing its premiums, and the average Canadian citizen pays again. So no matter whether taxes are increased on individuals or corporations, the average Canadian citizen foots the bill.
During the coming year, Mr. Chairman, 1969, which we are looking to with a great deal of interest, because of the importance of our economy to the well-being of average citizens, Canadian taxpayers are going to pay $845 million more in taxes than they paid this year. They will also pay out an additional $100 million on increased postal rates, either in the form of postal stamps or goods that they purchase. Ordinary Canadian citizens will have about $1 billion less to spend on goods and services. I suggest that the result of this will be serious for our employment situation during the next year.
The minister and the former minister of finance, who is in his seat at the moment, seem to consider this whole matter a huge joke. These two ministers have been telling
Supply-Finance
this house for the last three years that they are going to balance the budget; but they have not done so. After all, it is some little time since they told the electorate that they were going to balance the budget. They are thinking: "Yes, we did say that, but it was not true. Since we have got in again we will have four years to work on it, and probably at the end of that period the people of Canada will have forgotten all about it". Since the minister has unlimited time to speak, this would be a good opportunity for him to stand in his place and tell this committee what specific steps he has taken to curtail expenditures.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The figures which he himself issued last Friday show that the excess of expenditures over revenues is growing month by month. It was 30 per cent more during the first seven months of this year than during the first seven months of last year. This is something which should cause him a great deal of worry. I do not think he even knew about these figures. I believe his department issued them, because he seemed surprised that they do exist. They were issued over his signature but-


Edgar John Benson: That is just not true.


George Harris Hees: For someone who knew them the minister seemed very surprised this afternoon.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to rise and answer the question. I am very much aware that these figures are as they are. I explained to my hon. friend what they meant. If he does not understand it, I cannot do much about it. If he will look back at my budget speech he will see the figures contained therein, and I stand by those figures. I do not think there is any reason to change them. My hon. friend is picking up figures for one month and saying this is what happens in seven months or in a whole year. If we should end up the year with the deficit shown in the first seven months I would be happy, but that will not happen and my hon. friend knows it, because expenditures tend to increase at the end of the year as contracts near their completion.
My hon. friend is making a big fuss about not very much. I consider the matter just as serious as he does. I spend all my time worrying about expenditures of the federal government. I think this government has done more to try to control expenditures than any

December 4, 1968
Supply-Finance
government in Canada at the federal level in a long time. I think we will succeed ultimately in spite of what my hon. friend says.


George Harris Hees: For a government, as the minister says, which has done more than any other government to control expenditures, the results have been very unsatisfactory. We have had tax increases I think four times in the last three years. In every budget that has been produced there has been a very large deficit, despite the fact that during each year either the previous or present minister has glibly assured us, as we are being assured now, that everything will be all right and that expenditures will equal revenues. This is what the minister has been telling this house. I have sat here and listened to the minister and the former minister for three years, as has every member in this house. The minister has told us these things over and over again and now he asks why we do not believe him and why we do not have confidence. The answer is that for the past three years I have listened to the same speech the minister made a few moments ago. On every occasion he has assured us that he is cutting down expenditures and is going to make the expenditures fit the amount of revenue taken in.
Every time he does this he says that we should wait for a few months. When we do, we find that he was talking through his hat and obviously did not know what he was talking about. I give the minister and the Prime Minister credit for not knowing the figures and not knowing what the situation was at the time of the election, because if the minister had known he could not have made the kind of statement he did when he assured the people of Canada that the government would come very close to balancing the next budget. If the minister did know, then he was deliberately misleading the people of Canada. I do not think he is the kind of man who would do that. I think he is an honest man. I do not agree with the way he is running his department at the present time, but he is an honest incompetent. I retract that statement: I said it for a joke and take it back. I believe the minister tries his very best. I think the previous minister also did his best, but that best is not nearly good enough for a country such as Canada, because not only do the Canadian people have to pay more and more and more in taxes every year, but this will seriously jeopardize employment next year. Unemployment will rise seriously just as sure as God made little apples, because it cannot do anything else.

This minister and this government plan to take $1 billion out of the pockets of the Canadian people next year. The Canadian people will not be able to spend that money on goods and services, as they would be able to do if they were not taxed the way they will be as a result of this budget, and if it were not for the increased postal rates which we have. One billion dollars is being taken out of their pockets, which will be $1 billion less of goods and services. This will result in a serious increase in unemployment. This is what worries me.


Edgar John Benson: We are taking $1 billion out and putting it back.


George Harris Hees: When are you putting the $1 billion back in?


Edgar John Benson: At once, the government will not have a $1 billion surplus.


George Harris Hees: Well, you are certainly taking it out of the pockets of the people who would spend it on the goods and services, and therefore it is not going to be spent. So, Mr. Chairman, I again appeal to the minister to take his job seriously and to persuade his colleagues to take the situation seriously and trim down their expenditures to match their revenues. I ask them to stop this gross overspending and gross overtaxing of the people of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when the present Minister of Finance was president of the treasury board there were at least two things of which he persuaded me. He persuaded me that he personally was in favour of taking action to improve the pensions of retired civil servants. I may say that the former prime minister, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, persuaded me that this was also true so far as he was concerned. However, these two gentlemen, the present Minister of Finance and the former prime minister, also persuaded me of a second thing. They persuaded me that the ultimate decision on this matter is a financial one and that the person I had to win over is the Minister of Finance. I was not successful in winning over the last minister of finance, but I hope the present Minister of Finance still holds the same views he held before, and that he intends to act on this issue while he holds his present portfolio. I say to him that I have no intention now to irritate him. I do not intend to cajole or even threaten him, although apparently that is a practice employed in some areas around here. I do
December 4, 1968

however appeal to him to do with regard to this issue what he knows really must be done.
I should like to remind the minister that on Monday of last week this subject came up in three separate questions on the orders of the day. The hon. member for Malpeque asked the Minister of National Defence whether something would be done soon to bring the pensions of retired servicemen into line with those that are paid in relation to present pay scales. The Minister of National Defence replied that he hoped something could be done on the matter in the spring. Realizing as I did that the pensions of retired members of the armed forces, retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and retired civil servants generally are all of a piece, I followed with supplementary questions to two other ministers, namely the Minister of Finance and the Solicitor General. The Minister of Finance gave me the assurance I have had so often, that this matter is continually being studied. The Solicitor General said he would like to take the question as notice so that he could give a fully accurate answer. I do not quarrel with either of those ministers for not making a precise statement on Monday, November 25, in view of the way in which the question followed one after the other.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
However, I do stand here today urging the Minister of Finance, recognizing as I do that these three things are in one basket, to expedite action in respect of this matter in relation to federal superannuates generally, retired armed services people and retired R.C.M.P. personnel.
Not so long ago, on Monday, November 18, I spoke on another set of estimates and I went into this question in detail. I shall not do so today, but I dare to believe that those who have to follow these matters have looked at the remarks I made on that occasion. I might even dare to hope that they may have been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Finance. He knows, however, of the many studies which have been made in respect of this matter by various departments of government, by members of parliament and by the special committee which dealt with it in 1967, and he knows the hopes that have been raised that action will be taken on this matter. These hopes were raised in particular by the unanimous recommendation of the joint committee which made its report to parliament on May 8, 1967. I put the terms of that recommendation on the record on Monday, November 18, and they include a special proposal
Supply-Finance
that there be increases in the pensions of these three groups of retired government employees forthwith.
The Minister of Finance also knows, as I said on Monday, November 18, what he said to me during the month of May. He knows what he told me as to when he expected the legislation to be brought in and when he thought it would be passed. I suspect that he also knows what the former prime minister told me as to when action on that report would be effected. That date has long since gone by, and we have had this issue up time and again since then. I know the Minister of Finance will still take the position that he thinks something should be done but that it cannot be done in light of present conditions. I suggest to him that the good name of parliament, the whole question of how parliamentary committees operate and whether their operations are worth anything at all, and the responsibility of the government to be a good employer, calls for early action on this issue.
One of the arguments, of course, that is sometimes used against acting on this issue at all is that this a matter of concern to all retired people, not just retired government employees. That, in fact, is the standard line used in letters that go out to retired civil servants from the Prime Minister's office and from other offices, namely that this matter has to be looked at not in respect of these groups alone, but in respect of all groups of retired people. I fully agree. Not only do I agree; this is something I have been asserting for a long time. But I suggest the federal government has a particular responsibility to its own employees so far as their position is concerned, and also has a responsibility to give leadership in this issue.
It is not often I find myself wanting to send the Minister of Finance a copy of part of the Financial Post, but I have one here on which I have written "Mr. Benson". I have autographed it with my signature and I intend to send it over to him. The other day when one of my colleagues was directing a question about a matter of financial policy the Minister of Finance retorted that he was surprised to see the N.D.P. and a chartered bank in an alliance. I suppose he will now be surprised to find me in alliance with the Financial Post. Of course, this is the other way around: The Financial Post has caught up with me. May I just take a moment to indicate-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is time somebody did.

December 4, 1968
Supply-Finance


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry, I missed that remark.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I said, it was time somebody did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am very grateful to the Leader of the Opposition. This section which I hold in my hand is a special feature which made up a full section of the Financial Post for this issue of November 16, 1968, and it is all on the question of pensions. The theme of the issue was indicated by the main headline on the front page: "Will your pension be adequate all the years of retirement?" The heading under that states:
For pension planners, the major challenge Is how to beat the rapid inflation that could halve value of fixed income every 18 years. As retirement ages become lower and longevity increases, problem becomes ever more of a headache.
Here is another article under the heading "Inflation's pressure on the pensioner". Here is another one on page 3 under the heading "Rising incomes bypass the already retired". There are thousands of people in this country who could testify to the truth of that. Here is another article on page 5 under the heading "Productivity gains must be shared". This is a socialist line I have been preaching for a long time, and here it is in the Financial Post. This one is particularly significant. It states that "Productivity gains must be shared" by all those who are retired. After all, they helped to bring the country to the point where productivity could be increased.
On page 7 we find an article which I hope the minister will read. It is under the heading "Pension adequacy: the union position". Here is an interesting article headed "What pension benefits act is all about". On page 11 we have another article entitled "Is your pension fund performing well?" Here is another interesting article, "Why you should tell all to employees". It begins with a subtitle, "Effectively telling what your pension plan does is sound on many grounds". On page 15 there are a couple of articles, one headed "How to offset rising pension plan costs". In addition to all these articles on this question of pensions there are a good many advertisements dealing with this whole matter.
I make no apology for bringing the Financial Post into this house. In fact I am very happy to do so. I may say I have two or three extra copies, one of which I will send at the appropriate moment to the Prime Minister, and another I will send to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, if other

hon. members over there would like me to do so, I will send them copies. I have one for the Minister of Finance. I put the name of the Prime Minister on this one, but since he is not here I will send this to the Minister of Justice and get another one for the Prime Minister. On this copy I put the name "Mr. Munro". He is not here so perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa West would like it. I will get more copies for the others.
This excellent treatment of the subject in the Financial Post underlines the two points I have been trying to make. The first point is that this is a serious issue about which we ought to do something, particularly to help those we can help, our own employees; retired members of the armed forces, and retired members of the R.C.M.P. It also makes the other point, that this is a problem which has grown in proportion, and that unless we get started with the idea of escalating pensions after they have been put into effect all our pension plans will be in serious jeopardy in five or ten years, to say nothing about the 18 years suggested in this report.
It is not good enough to talk about pensions being increased by the increase in the cost of living. This pattern is becoming accepted. There is this 2 per cent notion around, which would indicate that pensioners have had an increase and therefore cannot get any more. The writers of this Financial Post know better than that. They say what is needed is a sufficient increase to enable people to share the increase in productivity.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am glad to see my colleagues opposite reading these papers. As I say, I will be glad to get more from the Financial Post for other members, with no charge for the commercial. I hope that what I have said will impress itself upon the minister and that he will realize we cannot continue to stall on this issue as we have done. It does not give me any satisfaction to stand up and say I have been talking about this for 20 years, and that nothing has been done about it. I hope the Minister of Finance will confirm what the Minister of National Defence said the other day that perhaps in the spring something will be done. If something is done for retired members of the armed forces in the spring it cannot stop there. This will have to be done for R.C.M.P. pensioners and federal superannuates generally. If we wait until the spring we will be waiting too long, because these people have been waiting now for many years. But it
December 4, 1968

would mean something if we could be told now that the matter is under that kind of consideration; not the kind that goes on continually and never results in anything, but the kind that will result in something really being done. Over the years I have used every device I know to get something done in this respect. I have been nice and sweet; I have been angry; I have cajoled; I have badgered; I have threatened at length; I have even threatened to keep parliament here during the summer. None of that today: just a straight, man-to-man appeal to the Minister of Finance. He knows where he stands personally on this issue. He knows what he told me during the months of May and June last year. He knows what he told me just before the leadership campaign this year about this whole issue. The minister shakes his head as though he is trying to figure it out. If he has forgotten, I will tell him, but I think he knows.


Edgar John Benson: I was not running.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister was not running, but he had a favourite candidate and he knows what he told me about which candidate had the best chance of getting this issue through. He told me behind the curtain one day, and I will remind him if he has forgotten.


Edgar John Benson: You were not a delegate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
nas over here, behind the curtain in this House of Commons. So I appeal to the minister to get started on this issue. As I have indicated by what I have said today, and the emphasis I have given to the reports in the Financial Post, I do not want it to stop with the federal superannuates and employees of the federal government. It is an issue that we have to resolve through our pension plans as a whole. Surely this is a place to start because the unanimous recommendation of the joint committee is there. There are tremendous funds on the books for the paying of pensions. There is the question of the interest rate adjustment that could be made. There are ways, if the minister wants to do it. I think he wants to do it. I ask him to act now without further delay.


Mr. Downey:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to cover briefly this afternoon some of the aspects of the proposed estate tax changes. One of the most objectionable things about the proposed changes in the estate tax is the manner in which the minister introduced
Supply-Finance
them. His description of the effects of the tax may not have been a case of deliberate misrepresentation, but it was certainly misleading to many Canadians. For example, the minister said:
I believe that members will also agree that the estate tax changes should be made effective immediately so as to exempt property passing to widows on deaths after midnight tonight.
That was the night of October 22. What a joke! It would only make sense if all wills drawn before that night could be magically changed to fit within the new system of exemptions and the new rate structure. The minister was simply using the old technique of the stage magician to divert attention from the hand that is performing the trick, and it looks great. Instead of his other hand, both hands were probably busy pilfering the public's pocket. He used widows to divert public attention.
He hoped then, as he hopes now, that the gullible public will think only of the few people now exempt from estate tax and the limited confines of this exemption. He trusts they will not think too much of the tremendously accelerated rate structure of estate taxation. "It is difficult to predict accurately the revenue effects"-this was another gem the minister used in introducing his proposal. It may be difficult for him to predict down to the last pennies, but he knows very well indeed that the number of those pennies will be very much greater than it was under the old system.
We have only to consider that where once the maximum rate of tax applied starting at the $2 million level-I believe it was 54 per cent at that level-it now starts at the $300,000 level at 50 per cent. This acceleration in applying the maximum tax can hardly be expected to yield less revenue than before. My belief is that the minister and his colleagues were so desperate for ready cash that they would go anywhere to get it. In this case they would even pillage graves to get revenue.
They were in such indecent haste to collect some petty cash that they brought forward this proposal in such a complex fashion as to leave outside tax experts and estate lawyers gasping and wondering for some time to come. No one understands the ramifications of this measure, and perhaps that is just the state in which the minister wants the public to remain. One lawyer has told another that the only advice a lawyer can honestly give

December 4, 1968
Supply-Finance
his client in the present circumstances is: Don't die until we know what it is all about.
The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce recently presented a brief to the minister. In it they pointed out that the apparent tax saving attendant upon the surviving spouse receiving the estate exempt from tax was really a snare and a delusion; it was only a delaying of taxation, payment deferred. I reiterate that the exemption to spouses is not really a tax exemption at all but a tax deferment. Estates will eventually be taxed fully and at a much higher rate than formerly.
The Hamilton group viewed with most alarm the possible drastic effects of the minister's hastily formulated estate tax proposal on the Canadian economy. It would be interesting to hear from the minister regarding some of these questions. I wish to quote from the brief of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce as follows:
How many Canadian corporations will be purchased by foreign ownership because the estates will be unable to meet the excessive taxes resulting from the death of a principal shareholder? This question should be a point of concern for all Canadians and particularly the representatives of those Canadians who have stated on numerous occasions that foreign ownership is not in the best interests of Canada.
The second observation in the brief is this:
How many Canadian corporations will be forced into liquidation because a buyer could not be found to provide funds for estate taxes? If this seems like a remote possibility, consider, if you will, the taxpayer who works a lifetime and builds a business worth $1,500,000. On his death his estate will be subject to estate taxes in excess of $700,000; he will not have been able to gift a large portion of his estate during his lifetime nor will the postponement of taxes until his wife's death alleviate the problem. If a suitable buyer cannot be found in a relatively short period of time, then the executors of the estate may be forced to liquidate the assets of the business to meet the tremendous tax bill.
How many jobs for Canadians will disappear because of these forced sales and liquidations? Would the net effect of these increased estate and gift taxes be, in the long run, a loss in revenue to the federal government rather than as anticipated an increase in income from these areas?
Is it the intention of the Canadian government to end the possibility of a Canadian corporation being carried on by future generations?
The Hamilton brief summed up by stating:
It is our feeling that a situation that was drastic prior to this budget has become catastrophic.
There were in the brief some recommendations that I believe are worth repeating. It states:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is our opinion that if these resolutions are adopted as proposed, there will be a serious effect

on the Canadian economy. It is our feeling that a situation that was drastic prior to this budget has become catastrophic.
Then, in referring to the family corporation they say:
The excessively high estate and gift taxes will only serve to suppress the initiative required in a democratic society. Too many Canadian business owners will succumb to the lure of foreign dollars and sell their businesses during their lifetime. This will enable them to retain their estates in liquid investments, rather than continuing to expand their corporate operations, knowing full well that the business will be lost to the families at their death-
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce recommended that

-in view of the adverse effect of the estate tax on the economy and the relatively small amount of revenue produced by this tax, it is recommended that the estate tax be abolished.
I think that as citizens we all feel that way. It goes on to read:
If no progress can be made in the area of reducing estate and gift taxes, we would suggest that steps be taken to permit the Canadian corporation to pass between generations without tax. This step would at least relieve our major fear, that in the long run the Canadian economy will be the loser.
I believe the minister was less than forthright in his explanations of this proposal. It certainly almost borders on being a fiscal sleight-of-hand. Perhaps the minister did not have the benefit of the report of the Ontario economic council before he brought in these unfortunate schemes. That report damned estate taxation all around the clock. It used such words as "discriminatory", "confiscation", "penalize", "discourage", and so on. Of course this report was made prior to the minister's announcement of the new estate tax set-up. It dealt with the general theory of estate taxation. It regarded it as an iniquitous and disastrous course in any free enterprise system.
The council was most concerned with the effect of estate taxes on family businesses, small business generally and the discouragement of thrift and personal initiative. I contend that this is exactly what we will get out of these proposals, namely a dampening of personal initiative.
The report of the Ontario council said the following:
Those responsible for guiding the course of our nation's development need only look to history to find proof that nearly every past civilization has hastened its ruin through its dissipation of capital through taxation.
December 4, 1968

This is certainly one of the effects this new tax will have-the dissipation of privately amassed capital. The report noted that Canada came immediately after Great Britain and the United States among countries paying estate taxation. The percentage of total government revenue raised by estate taxes in England stood at 3 per cent, in the United States at 2.6 per cent, and in Canada at 1.8 per cent. West Germany has a low estate tax rate of .1 per cent. It may be a coincidence, but it is a fact that West Germany has the lowest estate tax rate and the highest rate of economic growth in the world today.
I feel sure that the figure of 1.8 per cent of government revenue in Canada will jump considerably when the new system is imposed. In Alberta, my native province, we do not have an estate tax. This new proposal therefore is of tremendous interest to the people there. The effect of this proposed new estate tax on the family farms and ranches of this nation is beyond comprehension. At current land values, that are based almost entirely on demand rather than on their relative productivity, we find that farms are valued far higher than their production figures would indicate. I do not think it unreasonable to say that a great many of our average family farms will fall into the valuation rate of $200,000 to $300,000. Our maximum estate tax rates begin at $300,000, and what family farm can afford to pay a quarter, a third or half of its total value on passing from father to son? Our farmers are forced to pay 7 4 per cent interest to buy farms. Much of our farm legislation is geared to phase out the smaller farmer and to create larger economic units. Now we have estate taxation which will serve to eliminate the economic units that have already been created. Under the present financial conditions, economic farm units cannot be created in one generation, nor would it be practical to have a whole new group of people on the farms in each succeeding generation.
With the present complicated agricultural technology and with the large amount of capitalization that is necessary today to carry on an efficient food producing agricultural unit, it is vitally necessary that estate taxes be reduced instead of increased so that farms can be easily passed from father to son. The fact that a farm can pass tax free to a spouse is of no value so far as keeping the family farm in business is concerned. The average
Supply-Finance
widow would not care to carry on the business in the event of her husband's death. Most farms carry a large amount of debt during the life of the farmer. To saddle the farm unit with taxes upon his death that might be equal to a third or half of the value of the farm would mean liquidation upon death.
This proposed change in the Estate Tax Act is one of the most vicious ever devised aimed at family farms and family businesses in general. I appeal sincerely to the minister to reconsider the whole estate tax structure.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who just spoke on making a truly conservative speech-not a Progressive Conservative but a conservative speech, and we have not heard one of those for a long, long time. At least the hon. member stands on a principle, and does not hide under any progressive label, as do some of the other members in his party. This is what we are expected to listen to as complaints against the estate tax. First he decried the disappearance of inherited privilege from father to son. He lamented the disappearance of family corporations that have been built up through generations. He also described tragically the disappearance of privately amassed fortunes. Every civilized nation is turning toward a denial of inherited privilege. We acknowledge that people who are working today in this productive society are entitled to reap the benefits of their work and earnings, but to be entitled in perpetuity to reap the benefits of one's great great grandfather, who might have been a whaler and amassed a fortune a hundred years ago, is certainly a denial of the forward looking ideas in this modern world.


Robert Norman Thompson: What about the Prime Minister?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Steven Otto: I mentioned that I believed a person is entitled to live on and enjoy the production resulting from his own effort. There is no one in this house who is more productive or more able than the Prime Minister. I am sure hon. members did not mean to cast aspersions on him.


An hon. Member:: Just his inheritance, that is all.


Steven Otto: As I said, the world is turning away from inherited privilege in many areas. For example, in the seaboard states of the United States there are people today who

December 4, 1968
Supply-Finance
think it is shameful to work. They do not have to work because they live on the interest of the interest. They spend their time arranging flowers. I am referring to grown men with great capacity and mental ability. They do not believe it is worth while to work. Hon. members will recall that 200 years ago no gentleman would ever consider working. We have turned away from that idea.
Now let us consider these family corporations. What is so sanctimonious about a family corporation? One of the things against which I have spoken over the past 25 years has been the existence in this country of an establishment. I refer to the family corporations. They are the reason that 182 families in Canada control 85 per cent of our economic wealth. Does anyone think this is good for the economy, when we have this type of establishment? If you want to preserve this situation, I think you are going backwards. The idea should be to loosen the control of this establishment.
Nothing could be better for at least 80 per cent of these family corporations than to lose control. If they were to invite young men with ambition and intelligence to take over these corporations, the situation would improve. If you examine the successful operation of United States corporations, you will find that is one of the reasons they have been successful. They have invited new blood into the corporation. As I say, there is nothing sanctimonious about the preservation of family corporations. I need not go further and make any drastic remarks about the preservation of privately amassed fortunes. Is it worth while to protect this type of thing, and say that someone has amassed a fortune so it must be preserved? If that were the case, then there would be no tax imposed at all. This is where the crux of our problem in Canada lies, the existence of family corporations and family fortunes. There is nothing better than this type of legislation which will break up the establishment and keep the economy of this country rolling. I welcome these changes because I think that this will be the answer, to break up this establishment and invite new blood, new energy, into our whole industrial picture.


Mr. Francis;: I should like to say a few words on the question which was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the adjustment of pensions for retired civil servants. This matter has come up on a number of occasions before. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, on

November 16, put into the record of Hansard in some detail the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on this question, which reported several years ago. I do know, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter of great concern to the government. I do know it is a matter which the Minister of Finance has considered in some detail. The problem of budgeting in these circumstances is a very difficult one indeed.
At this stage, however, I must appeal to the minister, and hope that at the earliest possible date there will be some adjustment made in these pensions because, in my opinion, the case for such adjustment is a strong one indeed. I do not want to add to what has been said already by hon. members in this house. Very briefly, I may say that the last adjustment was made a number of years ago. The principle of escalation and adjustment of pensions is one which we have generally accepted in a number of respects. We have written it into the Old Age Security Act for everyone. The problem of the government, in its capacity as an employer, of setting a good example is one which I commend to all hon. members in this house. During the course of the last election campaign in my own constituency, this was one point upon which I campaigned very strongly, and I have not in any respect changed my mind.
I do know that the case is one of justice, and one which does not add too greatly to the burden of the treasury. There is at the present time in the fund in excess of $3 billion on which a rate of 4 per cent is allowed by the government. If we were to add 1 per cent to that rate of interest it would mean an amount of something over $30 million a year to the fund. This amount would be more than adequate to make a very good adjustment in the pensions of civil servants who are now retired. There are roughly 30,000 pensioners and if they were to receive an increase of roughly $30 in their pensions this would amount to about $10 million, or about one third of the resultant increase in the fund to which I referred.
The budgetary problem, as I have said, is a very difficult one. I know what the Minister of Finance is trying to do, by setting an example bringing in what is an absolutely necessary measure of fiscal responsibility. I am happy today to say that I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. On a previous occasion in this house I took exception to the line he was taking because, in my opinion, it was an irresponsible
December 4, 1968

one. The same hon. member has put forward a resolution in this house to raise the pensions of everyone to $125, without any means test or examination of resources. He proposes also that the pensionable age be reduced to 65. The effect of such a proposition would be to add something like $700 million a year to government expenditures.


Mr. Salisman:: Good.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, hon. members on that side say, "Good". Then, in the next breath they say, "Please tell us what an adequate basis of pension would be". This is like saying, if we throw enough gasoline on the fire, how do we put out the fire? The problem is one of controlling inflation. X know it is not easy for the Minister of Finance in these circumstances. I know he is a man of great personal justice, a man who feels very deeply about these matters. However, he has to do a very difficult job in the field of fiscal responsibility at this time. It is very easy for hon. members in opposition to say we should spend another $700 million a year, and then to go on and say this is not inflationary because we are just giving people money to spend; that it really does not matter. It does matter. You cannot give away large sums of money, you cannot make large promises to people in various sectors of the economy, and at the same time hope that you can be responsible in controlling inflation.
The quarrel I have with hon. members of that party is that it seems to me their platform at this stage is a platform of inflation. They can call it whatever they like. They are very good at distributing money, but when it comes to policies which create money and investment in the country, then their program is deficient. In one respect I agree with what the hon. member has said. I think that the case for an adjustment of the pensions of those who are retired, which will compensate to some degree for the hardship they are suffering, is a very strong one. As I said before, it is one which I will urge to the best of my capacity to those responsible for making the decision.
I can think of an example in my own constituency of a couple who are now approaching 90 years of age. The husband retired 25 years ago and on retirement he had $25,000 in personal savings and a pension of $100 per month. This, according to all reasonable expectations, would be adequate resources for his retirement. Today he has nothing. Ill health creates medical bills, and a pensioner must depend on other resources or he must 29180-222
Supply-Finance
face a means test. Today the man I am talking about is surviving with the help the city is providing.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
So, Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with those who have urged in this house that at the first opportunity consideration by the minister and the cabinet ought to be given to an adjustment in pensions, to setting interest rates with respect to the fund to bring those rates more in line with market rates and to recognizing that this is not in the same category of expenditures as other expenditures which are claimed. We recognize the problems at this time and we note the figures. We also believe that the case is such, here, as to command a very high priority.
Before sitting down I wish to make one last series of remarks. There is, as some hon. members know, an organization composed of superannuated civil servants that has set itself the objective of raising pensions. I suppose you could call this a lobbying organization; but the tactics of the organization and the manner they have approached this problem is a matter of some concern. I note that within the last couple of weeks they had a convention in Ottawa. The organization has only about 8,000 members. The fact is that they have weakened their case by presenting it in an intemperate way; they have weakened their case by the irresponsible presentation of a good case and by the tactics they employed in an election campaign.
Let me say at once that I believe in this pension adjustment and I said so at the beginning of the election campaign. That did not stop this organization from calling a meeting in my constituency in the middle of my election campaign, inviting my political opponent to it and not giving me the courtesy even of sending me notice of the meeting or inviting me to it. That did not prevent this organization from sending out a notice to all its members endorsing my political opponent. Of course, that is their privilege and right; but this sort of thing creates many problems for a person trying to promote the idea of pension increases. In trying to achieve its objectives the organization used methods which were considerably less than diplomatic, and still less judicious. They are entitled to seek their objectives, that is true. If one of their objectives is participation in politics, that is their privilege. If they wish to participate in the election of a government, that is their privilege. But if they are trying sincerely to gain the support of those who are truly

December 4, 1968
Supply-Finance
sympathetic to their cause by trying to enlist a broad base of support for the objectives they have chosen, I can only say that the members of the organization are being ill served by the executive they have chosen.
I am confident that the minister will pay heed to the existing need. I know he has his difficulties in working out and presenting a budget. He has great fiscal responsibilities in times like these. I know that the adjustment of pensions for retired civil servants is long overdue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question. In the reference he made to the federal superannuates national association, was he referring to the organization on a national basis or the activities of the association in his own constituency? If I may say so, I ask that question because nothing like that has happened in my part of the country, so far as this association is concerned.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I communicated with the national president of the association subsequent to the election and brought this matter to his attention. I have had no communication from him saying that he regarded what happened merely as a local action. He did not dissociate himself from it and I can only conclude therefore that what happened came about as a result of the policy of the national association.


Mr. Caoueiie:: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) told us for the thousandth, if not the millionth time, how important it is to increase the pension of retired civil servants, and we agree with him.
However, they are not the only ones who need a higher income which would enable them to meet their obligations more easily. I understand that the Department of Finance is studying the situation of the retired civil servants, but I feel that it should also study that of the Canadian people as a whole.
Unemployed Canadians, for instance, who get only unemployment insurance benefits, are in a much worse situation than the retired civil servants, and yet nothing much is done for them. The people who live on welfare are in the same situation, and there are many of them. Therefore, the formula advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others who hold the same views will not solve the problem.

A while ago, I saw the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) walking behind the curtains, his hands in his pockets. I would rather see him there, his hands in his pockets, than outside the house his hands in the pockets of the Canadian citizens.
Mr. Chairman, on February 25, 1967, in a speech to the University College Alumnae Association of University College of Toronto, the former minister of finance (Mr. Sharp) said:
-the second point I should like to mention in passing. I think that we can now anticipate the beginning of an international redistribution of wealth-
It was the predecessor of the present Minister of Finance who spoke like that.
-an international redistribution of wealth-
We talk about international redistribution of wealth. We do not even manage the redistribution of our national wealth among the Canadian people and we already think of an international redistribution. We are close to talking about interplanetary redistribution. Some fine day, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance will no doubt be on his way to the moon to find outlets for our Canadian wealth. I continue my quotation:
-and the kind of equalization formulas which we apply to the provinces in our country could very well be applied in the long run on a more total scale.
What is more important still, disposing very high income, the peoples of the wealthy countries will more readily accept to redistributing their wealth to help others.
It would be true if we had very high income but it has been proved that such is the case for less than 10 per cent of our population, which means that nearly 90 per cent of the Canadian people have inadequate income in spite of the high national production in Canada.
The former minister of finance also told us that within the next few years-if one can forecast 33 years ahead of time, as the present Minister of Finance said recently international redistribution would be a necessity.
Again-I quote the words of the former minister of finance:
What is more important still, disposing of very high income-
But let us, first of all, get this very high income that we cannot now achieve. Under the present system, we take away from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" thus impoverishing just about everyone. If we take
December 4, 1968

away $1,000 or $2,000 from someone to redistribute them to the multitude that has very little, we are not increasing the purchasing power of the people because the amount of money remains the same.
It must be recognized that the millionaire, for instance, does not pile up his millions in the corner of his bedroom. He spends, he makes his money grow, he makes his money circulate by investing it in buildings or in expansions; and so, he proves his initiative because that money is used to pay salaries, materials, and so on.
When owners are taxed, they are naturally prevented from proceeding with such accomplishments. That is what some fail to understand. When we take something away from the one who owns to give it to those who are dispossessed, we are not encouraging private enterprise, personal initiative. It is a socialist solution, a communist solution, similar to that which the present system advocates. This is redistribution to the detriment of those who own.
Mr. Chairman, let us face the facts. The former minister of finance continued, and I quote:
-the peoples of the wealthy countries will more readily accept to redistributing their wealth to help others, if they are not desirous of doing so themselves. We can even see parliaments and legislatures throughout the world carry on annual debates on foreign aid, wondering not how to help but instead how to increase existing programs.
We ask that present programs be improved, but the present Minister of Finance always tells us: We have no money. Still, this is the same Minister of Finance that we now have and who is not in the house now because he ran away a while ago. In any event, he is the one who was delegated to France recently. He was also in Bonn attending a meeting with representatives of the other nine wealthiest countries in the world to decide about the fate of France. The Canadian government then accepted to contribute $100 million to help the French increase the value of their franc and maintain the value on the international monetary market.
Mr. Chairman, where did the government obtain these $100 million that have been pledged in order to maintain the French monetary stability? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) does not say and, in fact, they are not included in the national budget. These Credits amounting to $100 million are given to save the French financial system.
However, if the hon. minister is asked to assist in the development of our resources, he
29180-222J
Supply-Finance
tells us: We do not have the money and there is nothing we can do about it. When it is a matter of helping other countries, however, Canadians are right there. It is even mentioned that India will be granted $8.8 million on an interest-free basis for a period of 50 to 60 years. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is in a position to do that. They say: Oh, we are not lending money, this is credit.
Why is it that the same kind of credit is not being used to finance the development of our country? If credit is good for India, why is it not good for Canadian municipalities? This item would be profitable to Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the Maritime provinces which are now begging the Minister of Finance and the government to give them financial assistance. No, they cannot afford it; they cannot help the provinces with the same kind of credit as was granted to India, Asia or Africa, and this is supposed to be logical.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Newspapers write about the loans to India but they never mention the reason why the same thing cannot be done for Canadians. I have been raising these points in the house for six or seven years. In fact, for at least eleven years, I have been advocating the necessity to make financially possible what is physically feasible in Canada, but the newspapers do not have the time to mention that. Controlled by finance, stifled and muzzled, the press leads the people toward fallacy and hides the truth from Canadians.
When plausible suggestions are made, suggestions similar to what the government has done with regard to foreign countries, newspapers find no room to refer to that. These would be published in the obituary notice, for instance, but without too much publicity. They are afraid, because finance approves it. Newspapers are slaves paid by finance, and the Minister of Finance knows it. They protest only when the government passes a piece of legislation that hurts them, or tax them more. Then, they recognize our existence.
But, Mr. Chairman, it matters little. We will all the same convey the message to the whole population, because the estimates now before us have already been spent and we can do nothing about that. However, this gives us the opportunity to say to the Minister of Finance what we think about his monkey system and he cannot say that we are wrong. In fact, he knows that we are right, but like the others, he is paid not to understand that we are right, to make believe that

December 4, 1968
Health and Welfare
what we say makes no sense. Those people are not free to speak their mind. What did they say when they went to Bonn? What was dictated by American finance, and the Canadian Minister of Finance said there exactly and textually what American finance told him to say, and nothing else.
Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier a Liberal member speak about the family corporations transferred from father to son and inheritances which he found useless, thereupon a Conservative member immediately added a remark. But what has the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) done to earn the money he has? Everyone knows that he inherited the wealth of his parents and nobody objects to that. But what about the young, the children who usually inherit from their parents? Some heirs may be heartless and dilapidate the estate that was left to them, but the younger generation will generally have enough initiative to improve the industry or inheritance they received. Then, the inheritance represents an asset, a potential, a reason for the existence of taxes that must be imposed on estates left by the father to his son, or by one family to another.
Mr. Chairman, a distributive justice is what the Creditistes ask for. It is not with new taxes that the increase of pensions-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock, it is now my duty to leave the chair, report progress and ask permission to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.


Albert Béchard: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion and public bills.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of including mental hospitals and T.B. sanitoria in the federal hospital insurance program (Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act) so that the provinces will have available sufficient funds to provide for adequate treatment of the mentally ill, those people suffering from T.B. and the care and training of mentally retarded children.
[Mr. Caouette.l


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: This notice of motion was called a second time on Monday, December 2.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the problem of mental illness is one of the serious health problems facing the people of Canada at the present time. Today almost 70,000 hospital beds are being used to treat people who are ill as a result of mental or emotional disorders. This is almost half of the number of hospital beds available in Canada. More than 75,000 patients are under the care of Canadian mental hospitals. This year, Mr. Speaker, mental illness accounts for 41 per cent of hospital patient days. It has been estimated that one person out of ten in Canada is or will be mentally or emotionally ill during his lifetime.
We have not had in Canada a really scientific estimate made of the cost of mental illness to Canadians, but experts who have done a good deal of work for the Canadian Mental Health Association have estimated that the cost of mental illness to Canada, in the form of medical and social services, lost time and production, amounts to $500 million per year. This is a very substantial amount of money even in the inflationary year of 1968. Some studies made in Great Britain indicate that the cost of mental illness runs between 1.6 and 1.9 per cent of the gross national product. Applying that figure to Canada, Mr. Speaker, the cost is more than $600 million a year.
I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that any person in this house would disagree with me when I say that the hospital programs initiated just after the end of world war II, as a result of which we now have government financed hospital plans in every province in Canada and covering all of the people of Canada, have been of tremendous benefit in meeting the health standards of the public of this country.
The basic and major fault in the legislation originally proposed, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, was that mental hospitals and t.b. sanitoria were excluded from the federal hospital insurance program. Every professional organization that has studied the question-for example, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and their provincial divisions- have called upon federal governments both Liberal and Conservative to amend this legislation so as to include under its provisions mental hospitals and t.b. sanitoria. This is
December 4, 1968

what I am suggesting in my motion today, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that compared with the facilities provided for the diagnosis and treatment of people suffering from physical illness, facilities for people suffering from mental illness are distinctly second class. This is unjust, unfair and should be corrected at once. The same standard of care should be given to those suffering from mental ilhiess as is given those with physical illness.
I have not seen any recent figures, Mr. Speaker, but a couple of years ago-and I am sure the ratio has not changed

the cost of care for a person in one of the provincial mental hospitals was not more than one quarter of the cost of care for a person suffering from physical illness in any of the general hospitals to be found in the cities of Canada. This situation I submit is completely unjust.
The Canadian Mental Health Association, in a brief submitted to the government in 1967, recommended that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of 1957 be amended so that all mental and psychiatric hospitals come within the terms of the legislation. I think that anybody who gives any consideration to the problem will realize that the proposal made by the Canadian Mental Health Association is one which has complete justification.
There should be no distinction made between people who are mentally or emotionally ill and those who are physically ill. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the medical profession is becoming increasingly convinced that a very large percentage, probably in the neighbourhood of one third, of the people who visit a general practitioner because they feel they are ill are suffering from mental or emotional illness. That being the case, it is certainly true that they ought to receive the same kind of treatment in a hospital, if they require to go there, as a person suffering from a physical disorder.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in making this proposal I am running counter to the thinking of this government in regard to shared cost programs. The government has made it clear that it wants to get out of shared programs. It seems to me that there is more than a legal or constitutional problem involved here. Canadian governments must give bold and vigorous leadership in what is a very basic problem. I believe that ways must and can be found to cross the constitutional jurisdictions and restrictions that serve little purpose beyond prolonging and deepening the problem.
Health and Welfare
When federal governments in the late 1940's and 1950's brought in their plans and legislation to provide for hospital insurance, under which they agreed to bear 50 per cent of the cost of hospitalization plans, they breached the supposed barrier to the federal government in the matter of participating in the field of hospital insurance and the payment of hospital costs. I suggest that in this matter of the payment of hospital costs by the federal government there is no more reason today than there was then for making a distinction between mental illness and physical illness.
There is a very simple principle involved here, Mr. Speaker, and that is that mental illness is like any other illness and should be dealt with within the same organizational, administrative and professional framework as physical illness. That can be done, I submit, only if the federal government would agree- and if this motion is agreed to I think it would be bound to agree-to amend the legislation to which I have referred so as to include within its ambit mental hospitals and t.b. sanitoria.
This question, Mr. Speaker, was dealt with by the royal commission on health services, which heard submissions on this question and on many other questions having to do with health. Their findings are very clear and precise. I should just like to quote a few sections from those findings having to do with mental health. I quote this from the first volume, page 21:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Of all the problems presented before the Commission, that which reflects the greatest public concern, apart from the financing of health services generally, is mental illness-case finding, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation.
The report continues to make a number of specific recommendations. I shall deal only with those having to do with the question of mental health and mental institutions. The first appears at page 25:
The commission recommends:
13.	That the Hospital Construction Grant regulations under the Health Facilities Development Fund be amended immediately to provide one-half the cost of construction of psychiatric wards or wings in all general hospitals over 100 beds in size, or of small regional psychiatric hospitals with up to 300 beds, adjacent to general hospitals, including the requisite out-patient facilities, and the small units for the mentally retarded.
14.	That federal and provincial authorities designate those wards of existing mental hospitals in which patients are clearly receiving active or convalescent care as a ''hospital" or "facility"

December 4, 1968
Health and Welfare
under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, commencing January 1, 1965, so that these costs will be shared.
17. That salaries or sessional fees for psychiatrists directing these hospital wards or regional hospitals be accepted as a shareable cost under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
29. That henceforth all discrimination in the distinction between physical and mental illness in the organization and provision of services for their treatment, and the attitudes upon which these discriminations are based, be disavowed for all time as unworthy and unscientific.
I believe all the provincial governments have been and are facing tremendous financial problems in the field of education, welfare and health, to mention just a few. Despite this, provincial expenditures in the field of mental health have gone up pretty substantially. The provincial governments are caught in the cost squeeze. The result is-and I believe this is true of all provinces-that the amount of money available for the administration of mental hospitals for the care of mentally and emotionally ill patients has been limited.
A few moments ago I mentioned the cost of looking after patients. The cost in one of the provincial institutions is probably not more than one quarter of the cost of looking after a patient in any of the general hospitals in Canada. Given the circumstances I have mentioned, we cannot expect the provinces to do more. If the federal government would assume what I consider to be a just and equitable share of the cost of the administration of mental hospitals and t.b. sanitoria, I would hope that the provinces would not reduce the amount of money they are devoting to those hospitals, but that the federal funds which would be made available would be adequate to meet the costs now being disbursed by the provincial governments so that the type of service which would and could be provided would be improved.
In recent years we had a good deal of experience. In virtually every general hospital, certainly in the larger cities of Canada, there are psychiatric departments and wards. People are treated in those hospitals. Who are the people who go there? Usually they are the people in the middle and upper income bracket who, if they have these problems, see a psychiatrist. If during the time they are seeing a psychiatrist they need hospitalization, they very often go to hospital. This is true in Ottawa; it is true in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and in all the other large centres. The people who are treated in the psychiatric wings of hospitals are covered by hospital insurance. They receive the best care

that is available in Canada. Their costs, which are somewhere in the order of $30 or $40 a day, are now being paid by the various provincial hospitalization plans. Who goes to the other hospitals, the provincial hospitals, where the costs are not $30 or $40 a day, but probably $10 a day? Usually these are the people who do not see a private psychiatrist.
I suggest therefore that we have one type of treatment for people in the middle and upper income brackets and another and much poorer type of treatment for people in the low income brackets. I submit that this is wrong and immoral. I urge the government to give favourable and systematic consideration to this resolution, not because it is in my name but because it embodies the recommendations made by organizations which are most expert in this field, such as the Canadian Medical Association, The Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and, last but not least, the royal commission on health services which reported in 1964.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I just heard "The member for Hull". I thought "dull" was meant, but that is not correct. It is the member for Hull.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this discussion, since it deals with a subject I believe I know very well. Perhaps I am more familiar with it than others, since it deals in fact with a question related to health.
At the beginning of my remarks, I wish to congratulate warmly my good friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), whom I respect very highly, as I believe he has known for a long time the state of stagnation of certain families, resulting from inconveniences due to the illness of certain people.
I know very well that he is a pharmacist by profession and that he has been able for a long time to produce in his laboratory the drugs prescribed by physicians, while giving sound advice at the same time.
He chose politics. Let us say that this may have changed his profession very little but, in my opinion, he was a very good pharmacist, which he remains of course, because of his great human feelings toward his fellow men.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I should like to say that I agree with the principle stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North; these services should be integrated within an hospital insurance framework; however I think that it is much too late
December 4, 1968



today since eventually we are going to abandon certain joint programs, the hospital insurance, among others.
However, we would have to discuss the principle on the basis of which hospital insurance was established. In 1957, we realized that there were a great many disparities, not with regard to treatment but with regard to those who were stricken by disease, when many ended up the next day as we say, on the street that is faced with bankruptcy in view of the high cost of hospitalization, especially when the illness was rather serious.


An hon. Member:: On account of medical costs.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: We shall talk later about physicians.
It was on that principle that the government had based the hospital insurance in those days. Mental hospitals, and T.B. sani-tor.a were subsidized by provincial governments and, as it was question of chronic diseases requiring several years of hospital care, the federal government never contemplated intruding into an area which was very well administered and was subsidized by provincial governments. That was the way to do it, and it was the government's policy when it introduced its hospital insurance plan.
They wanted all Canadians, from coast to coast, to be treated free of charge in Canadian hospitals and to receive the medical care necessitated by some chronic diseases.
And that is why, on the basis of this philosophy, it is easy to understand that medicare complements this-and I must say that I am one hundred per cent for medicare -and if some of my fellow practitioners are against it, it is because they do not understand this program. I have been saying for a long time that we must try to inform them so that they will know what medicare means. In any case, that is the philosophy o which the government has based the establishment of this hospital insurance.
Needless to say, the Hall report recommended also that these services should be integrated and as I said a while ago, it would be useless to start a complete review of the policy, to set out a new policy in this respect, in order to integrate these mental and T.B. services within the framework of hospital insurance.
We know that today psychiatry is very popular. I think that any decent person will sooner or later see a psychiatrist. Things have changed. There was a time when those
Health and Welfare
people who felt a bit at sea and who told strange stories-not always about politics- when they started to tell funny stories, they were shut up in mental hospitals where they remained until their death.
Today, all this has changed somewhat; they are released from hospitals. It is a new method, which is being tried out, and I hope that there will be drugs strong enough to quieten them down. It is quite a fad today; as soon as some patients are depressed, their physician advises them to see a psychiatrist. I know that this does not happen here, in the House of Commons; we are so busy that we do not feel the need for pills; but sometimes, when I listen to certain members, I feel that it would be advisable for them to receive psychiatric care.
In any event methods of psychiatric treatment have changed considerably; that is why several psychiatric hospitals-which formerly were called "asylums", an old word which will soon disappear from the dictionary-no longer exist, because it is now possible to treat the patients in the psychiatrist's office.
As for T.B., there is no need to go into the details to prove that in 1953 there were roughly 18,000 tubercular patients in Canada while, ten years later, there were barely 8,000. There has been, then, a huge drop in the number of tubercular patients; that is why sanatoria have had to be closed all across Canada for which there was no longer any use. Today, tuberculosis is treated in the doctor's office. Indeed, great success has been achieved thanks to the medical research and good administration of those who were entrusted with the care of health in Canada.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is almost scandalous to see what amounts are taken out of public funds these days to pay for the cost of hospital insurance, and what it costs per capita for treatment in hospital. It is the responsibility of the government to check the flow of public money, as it actually did with regard to the winter works program. Some incredible things have been brought to light in this connection and I daresay that even more fantastic things will be uncovered in the field of hospital insurance.
That one could seek admission to hospital just for a check-up is beyond my understanding, Mr. Speaker. If someone is admitted for that purpose, provided a bed is available, that person should pay both his insurance and his hospital costs, just like anyone who consults a doctor, or gets an electrocardiogram or an X-ray. The tremendous cost to the country

December 4, 1968
Health and Welfare
today is due to the large number of people who seek admission to hospitals just to have a check-up.
Some people spend four or five days in hospitals at government expense to sober up after overindulging in drink. Hospitals have become luxury hotels. This situation should be controlled more efficiently. Although a receipt is handed out on discharge from hospitals, it is mentioned at no time that half the bill is paid by the federal government. Ordinary medical examinations should not be made in hospitals. This would result in decreasing the cost of hospital insurance and would allow a better use of beds. This should not be permitted in the province of Quebec, as these services are free of charge. I do not know what the cost is to the province, but the federal government is contributing a certain amount.
I have made these comments hoping to correct this situation, but 20 minutes is too short a time to say everything I want. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I could say enough to fill a whole encyclopaedia.
It was said by previous speakers that the government was quite agreeable to the principle of integrating psychiatric hospitals, but as I said previously, it is preferable to concentrate on urgent matters, since psychiatric and tuberculosis cases have decreased to such an extent that it is hardly worthwhile spending too much time on this problem.
I was saying a while ago that medical care is a complement and I wish that some pressure were exerted on the authorities concerned to have this program established in all the provinces.
People always say that medical care is expensive, that doctors charge high fees. As far as I am concerned, I have always had the confidence of those who trusted me. Doctors are given to the people by the Lord to provide them with good care. I hope everyone will appreciate their work, because they are human beings like anybody else, and they understand the needs of people.
I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North who has been sponsoring this bill for several years. I hope that one day he will succeed in getting what he wants; but then, I am afraid it will be too late.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
At any rate, I must declare now that the government cannot accept to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act so as to be obliged to provide assistance to

the health establishments mentioned in the motion proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg North.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as regards the notice of motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, there are two things to point out and that can be dealt with at the same time.
First, the advisability of including mental hospitals and T.B. sanitoria in the federal hospital insurance program. The second point consists in making available to provinces sufficient funds to provide for adequate treatment of the mentally ill, of people suffering from T.B. and the care and training of mentally retarded children.
I believe all the hon. members agree with that, as they must on many occasions have encountered problems concerning mentally retarded people or patients who could not be admitted to mental hospitals or T.B. sanitoria, because of the lack of room there.
The purpose of this motion is to have such mental hospitals and T.B. sanitoria covered by the federal hospital insurance program. The remark I could make is that we are talking of capital expenditures i.e. that we want to include existing hospitals in medicare. But as far as capital expenditures are concerned, we know that today our hospitals, in Quebec as elsewhere, are costing us a fortune, and that it is their financing which is especially costly to the public. The federal government should intervene in this field, in order to allow the provinces to have pyschia-tric hospitals and a few sanitoria, the latter being less needed now that T.B. is regressing due to the progress of medical science. On the other hand, we can see that if T.B. is regressing, the number of mental patients is on the increase. And I found a little strange that the member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) was only looking to the left when he mentioned mental patients. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to suggest that the federal government grant subsidies to the provinces for the construction of psychiatric hospitals or others, according to the formula put forward by Creditists, which would benefit to the provinces, since it would allow them to have the taxpayer pay only once the cost of their hospitals.
I remember seeing statistics that showed that the cost of hospitals built in Quebec or elsewhere had been paid at least three times, either in financing loans, or in bank or bond interests. I find it strange to force the people of the provinces, taxpayers, to pay three or
December 4, 1968

four times the capital expenditures of hospitals that are needed.
We agree. We admit that we lack hospitals, psychiatric or other, and that it is not normal to make taxpayers from Quebec or another province, pay thrice the capital expenditures of a $1 million hospital. After 40 or 50 years, the hospital will have cost $3 or $4 million in capital charges, which means that we shall have to pay an amount equal to the cost of four hospitals, but we shall only have received the investments for the building of a single one.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) is right when he talks about a scandal in connection with all the moneys that the federal and provincial governments must pay to finance the hospital insurance program.
A look at the items covering investments, depreciations and expenditures for hospital construction makes us realize that we have to pay hospitals four or five times over. The hon. member for Winnipeg North should have pointed out in the notice of motion we are now studying that investment charges should be advanced by the Bank of Canada and made available to the provinces so that they may pay our hospitals only once.
This motion raises a second point in connection with hospital insurance, and I quote:
-so that the provinces will have available sufficient funds to provide for adequate treatment of the mentally ill, those people suffering from T.B. and the care and training of mentally retarded children.
I know several children who are waiting for a hospital bed to undergo treatment. The federal government and the provinces are short of money. There is a shortage of space a shortage of everything. However, there is a solution.
That solution is not medicare, as suggested by the hon. member for Hull, for although he condemns the abuses of the present system, he still approves of medicare. That solution is a plan even more socialistic than today's hospital insurance, which would meet the needs of our citizens in health matters, but not according to the proposals made during the last election campaign concerning medicare.
Abuses are denounced in the case of those who go to hospital just for a check-up and who take it easy for three or four days. But if medicare becomes more elaborate, with even more officers and red tape, we shall have even less results and we shall be even farther away from the objectives we have today, namely the protection of health.
Health and Welfare
Now the Ralliement Creditiste has recommended for a long time a health program that would solve the problem. A health dividend would be granted by the federal government with the co-operation of the provinces. It would be paid to individuals who in turn could go to a hospital that suited them and subscribe to the health insurance program of their choice. Civil servants should not ram health insurance plans down people's throats.
Health is a matter concerning the individual and the medical profession, and the hon. member for Hull is well aware of it. Why does the government not try to implement a health insurance program which would respect the personality and the privacy of the individual. The Creditistes suggest a solution: A health dividend should be granted to the individual so that he may, as a family man and as a citizen, obtain a program of medical protection from the insurance company of his choice, the representative of his choice, in order to go to the hospital of his choice and to choose his doctor.
When Canada becomes even more socialistic civil servants will choose our physicians for us. It might be an exaggeration in 1968 to say that civil servants, in a few years, through Medicare, will choose our physicians, but let the Medicare program take root in Canada and before ten years, doctors will have become servants of the state. They will have no say whatsoever about health, because the best among them will have gone. In fact they will be replaced by civil servants with no interest in the health of the Canadian people, because they will consider themselves as mere employees of the federal government and will not have any medical reputation to safeguard. Those doctors will be ordinary numbers, the same as the sick persons on a medical file card. The hon. member for Hull is a doctor and if he were not connected with a political party, he would agree with his colleagues who are practitioners and who want to protect the doctor's personal initiative and, at the same time, the health of each individual.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Canadian doctors are as interested as M.P.'s in protecting the health of the Canadian people. When we have incorporated national health in a program such as medicare, the objectives we are seeking to attain today will not only be beyond our grasp but will be further away still than the solution of the problems now facing us.

December 4, 1968
Health and Welfare
People complain today because the provincial governments have followed suit in the field of hospital insurance and a few years after such hospital insurance programs have been implemented, it is realized that the prohibitive costs are bleeding the treasury white and there is chaos in the hospitals. The. same bleeding occurs in the other fields that the federal government has nationalized or socialized, and the same thing is true in the other countries of the world where health care was nationalized when health insurance programs that respect the individuals and the physicians, as medical practitioners, should have been chosen instead.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we are not against this notice of motion, but we think it involves two things with which we should deal separately. One has to do with capital investment for hospitals, to which the federal government gives no assistance; that would not allow provinces to get capital investments, for hospitals, which would be less expensive. Then, a program, not medicare, but health dividend program, should be set up to enable individuals to be free, and to choose by themselves their health insurance program and their doctor; that would guarantee the individual freedom and initiative.
We are happy to say, Mr. Speaker, in connection with a notice of motion that does not appear very significant, but which is similar to the national health program so as to contradict those who now consider that if a medicare scheme administered by civil servants was passed, we would now be better off-we say that it is not true. Once we have implemented such a program, we will realize only a few years hence, that a medicare program will have greatly set back the cause of health in Canada to the benefit of thousands of other civil servants who, far from dealing with health, will administer the red tape.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This notice of motion suggests that the government give consideration to the advisability of improving mental hospitals and t.b. sanatoria in the federal hospital insurance program. I recall that back in April 1957 when this act first came into being there was a qualification which made it rather difficult for the provinces to come into the hospitalization scheme. First of all there was a requirement that the majority of the provinces with a majority of the population in them be in favour of the scheme, and then there was a dispute as to which

provinces might come in, and when. I recall having the honour in the autumn of 1957 of moving an amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to the effect that any province wishing to enter this scheme could do so. Within two years the ten provinces came in the hospitalization scheme. There were some discussions at the federal-provincial conference held in the autumn of 1957 and some of the provinces wondered if the federal government might not amend the act as it is suggested it be amended now. It was suggested that, if my recollection is correct and I do not have the figure in front of me, the federal share be some $70 million. Naturally it would be a great deal more now. The costs of the whole hospital insurance scheme have increased rapidly. However it was felt that as the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was a new venture, it should be given time to operate before it is judged.
I do not have the latest statistics at hand, but my primary interest is in mental hospitals. I think there have been tremendous strides in the last several years in the improved care of mental patients. I am sure all of us here recall the time when mental patients were practically put behind barred windows. There have been great changes in thinking in the last few years with regard to this particular disease-and I must point out that this is an illness just like any other illness. We treat it much more openly, and this is as it should be.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) had a great deal to say about psychiatrists. He also suggested that the procedure of sending patients to hospitals for check-ups could be improved upon. At the risk of making enemies of the doctors who are members of the house, I wish simply to point out that one reason for the tremendous increase in hospitalization costs is the simple fact that to a great extent doctors use hospitals as their offices. Many patients are sent into hospital perhaps unnecessarily. I am not suggesting that doctors cannot look after their patients better in hospitals, but I think we might have escaped some of this galloping increase in the number of hospitalized patients if more consideration had been given to treating patients in their homes.
I think it is obvious that the government is not in favour of this notice of motion. They have given notice of their intent to make cuts in health grants and to make cuts in hospital construction grants. I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. December 4, 1968

Munro) today with respect to this matter, but he was not in the house, and I hope later to get an answer to it. I asked him what the government is doing to ensure that we have a sufficient number of medical men in this country. Not only is this vitally necessary today, but it will be of great importance in the implementation of medicare which the government has brought in and which I claim was done in a haphazard way, without due consideration being given to the provinces and without allowing the provinces to have a say.
As I mentioned earlier, great strides have been made in the care of the mentally ill. The hon. member for Hull also made reference to psychiatric wards in general hospitals. Today patients in these wards are covered by hospitalization insurance. In this respect I would be inclined to favour this notice of motion. I feel that a mentally ill patient, no matter where he might be hospitalized, should receive as much care and be given as much consideration as one who is in a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) with respect to the resolution now before the house. It seems to me most unfortunate that mental illness has traditionally been considered secondary in importance to physical illness. A great deal of progress has been made in diagnosis and treatment. We all know, of course, that a great deal is yet to be accomplished before we can rest assured that psychiatrists have reached the degree of acceptance enjoyed by physicians and surgeons. It is true also that evolutionary factors in hospital management have helped alleviate the shortage of mental health care units. The provision for treatment of the mentally ill in nearly all general hospitals now operating in the land is, to a degree, justifying the earlier decisions to avoid the inclusion of mental hospitals and t.b. sanitoria in the federal hospital insurance program within the scope of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
At that time, it was considered to be preferable to deal with general hospitals, including the chronic, convalescent and rehabilitation institutions, on a basis of urgency. The costs of hospital care were becoming unbearably burdensome both to individuals and to the hospitals. It was of the
Health and Welfare
utmost importance therefore to take immediate measures to alleviate this situation. In excluding certain types of hospitals, the government had regard for the fact that a certain amount of federal support was already being provided through the national health grants program to general hospitals.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, by far the most neglected area in our mental health program is child psychiatry. It would be most unfair to make a blanket charge that nothing is being accomplished but the development of child psychiatry in Canada has been slow and out of proportion with the incidence of deviant child behaviour. An urgent concern for the disturbed adult has obscured an approach to the problems of child pathology. I should like now to quote from a report on child psychology but I wish to emphasize that millions of dollars are being expended annually in the interests of physical and mental health while precious little has been made available for the treatment of a retarded child. Public spirited citizens have stepped forward to accept this challenge. I should like to refer to the Sunshine Occupational School at Chilliwack B.C., operated by the Society for Handicapped Children which is wholly supported by public subscription. I should like to refer also to the Good Shepherd School in Clearbrook, British Columbia, which functions in a similar way. I know there are many more in Canada, but I wish to make special mention of a school for boys in Langley, B.C., known as Chrisholme.
Eight years ago a group of businessmen in Vancouver became aware of the urgent need for a type of schools for boys possessed of mental faculties making them ineligible for public schools. They purchased a small farm at Langley in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, and proceeded to develop a curriculum without benefit of precedent but with a sincere desire to succeed. The board of directors begged and borrowed to outfit the farm and school and just recently opened a new workshop. All the capital was publicly subscribed. Through the able management of Mr. Tom Hoeflok and his small but overworked staff, the school eventually graduated eight young men and found them jobs in various trades. They quickly became self-supporting respectable citizens. The first graduates commenced their positions in society 18 months ago and not one has left his job or been released. Another six are nearing the graduation date.
These young boys are referred to the school from child welfare and other agencies. I am

December 4, 1968
Health and. Welfare
told that a long waiting list is depriving many-young people from taking advantage of the benefits of Chrisholme and other institutions. I further understand that an average of 20 referrals a week is adding to the waiting list. It is estimated that 10 per cent to 35 per cent of these children will qualify for enrolment at Chrisholme, if facilities were available.
This sincere dedication to the welfare of fellowmen is most admirable and one cannot leave the Chrisholme premises without a feeling that much is still to be done to correct disparity and create a just society within the boundaries of Canada, in so far as retarded children are concerned. The provincial government finances the food and clothing, but all capital expenditures are raised by the board of directors of the school. I sincerely urge, Mr. Speaker, that the time to give serious consideration to national assistance for similar projects is now. We must recognize the human rights of the retarded child and find a proper place in the scheme of things for his attention and care.
The Canadian Psychiatric Association reported as follows in their submission to the royal commission on health service in 1962:
When the problems of child development and behaviour disorders are uncovered they are legion -juvenile delinquency, the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed, etc., are areas of grave responsibility for the
medical profession, for social agencies, for school authorities and for government. This responsibility falls to a large extent on the child psychiatrist.
I emphasize that this report was made in 1962, and the following paragraph is found therein:
A child psychiatrist is a qualified specialist psychiatrist who has had an additional two years of training in children's work. In Canada approximately 60 psychiatrists work actively with children and of these less than half have received specialized training in child psychiatry. Most of the available children's services are thinly spread in densely populated areas.
Most provinces have some outpatient services for children but few have residential facilities; services for disturbed adolescents are sparse and facilities for psychiatric approach for delinquency are minimal. The number of child psychiatrists devoted to the field of mental retardation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I just confirm to hon. members that tomorrow we will again be in committee of supply and take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 5, 1958