1968-10-07

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker I would like to take this opportunity to report to the house very briefly on the international meetings which I attended recently.
The first of these was the annual meeting of commonwealth finance ministers held in London on September 25 and 26. It provided an occasion for an exchange of views within the Commonwealth on financial and economic questions of general interest. There was a general exchange of views on the world economic situation, including in particular matters of special interest to members of the sterling area and to the less developed Commonwealth countries.
The meeting was encouraged by the favourable prospects reported by the chancellor of the exchequer for a strengthening of the British balance of payments in the months ahead. The meeting also noted with satisfaction the arrangements concluded between overseas sterling area countries and Britain in connection with the facilities recently announced by the Bank for International Settlements. Under these arrangements $2 billion will be made available to Britain by the central banks of 12 countries, including Canada, to enhance the stability of sterling and of the international monetary situation. We also reviewed trends in development assistance. In this connection the meeting recognized the urgency and importance of the proposed replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association.
The matter of I.D.A. replenishment was also of special concern at the annual meetings of the boards of governors of the World Bank and the monetary fund which I attended last week in Washington. The I.D.A. is of great importance to developing countries which for balance of payments reasons are unable to finance all their capital requirements on terms provided by the World Bank. The
29180-54}
Canadian government has in the past actively supported early replenishment at a substantially higher level. At the recent meeting I reiterated that prompt completion of the necessary agreement for replenishment is essential if the World Bank group is to continue to play its full role in all parts of the underdeveloped world. As hon. members will be aware, the government has placed an estimates item before the house which would authorize the Canadian contribution to the proposed replenishment exercise.
This was the first annual meeting which Mr. McNamara attended in his new role as president of the World Bank. There is no doubt in my mind that he will provide the bank with vigorous and imaginative leadership. This is already reflected in the action he has taken with a view to expanding the resources and the scope of activities of the World Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to use this opportunity to reply to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on October 1 in connection with my statement at the annual meeting of the I.M.F./I.B.R.D. board of governors.
I should make it clear first of all that this statement did not enunciate any new policies for the Canadian aid program. Speaking on behalf of the government of Canada I endorsed Mr. McNamara's plans and intentions for the World Bank which among other matters included three specific suggestions to deal with the problem of population growth in underdeveloped countries. These were as follows:
First: To let the developing nations know the extent to which rapid population growth slows down their potential development, and that, in consequence, the optimum employment of the world's scarce development funds requires attention to this problem.
Second: To seek opportunities to finance facilities required by our member countries to carry out family planning programs.
Third: To join with others in programs of research to determine the most effective methods of family planning and of national administration of population control programs.
With these three proposals for immediate action, I hope we may contribute to the success of the U.N. system which is already working in this field, and to the well-being of the developing nations.
October 7, 1968

Report on International Meetings
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
This quotation from Mr. McNamara's speech at the annual meeting describes in full the proposed program of the bank in the field of population control. It should therefore be apparent that he did not envisage giving first preference for World Bank loans to countries which are willing to institute programs of population control. Further, in endorsing the course of action proposed by Mr. McNamara I was addressing myself exclusively to the activities of the World Bank and not those coming under Canada's bilateral aid program.
In contrast with last year's annual meeting in Rio de Janeiro, which focused heavily on developments in the I.M.F., this year's annual meeting was more directed to the World Bank group. The three outstanding issues in the I.M.F. on which most attention was focused were the status of the special drawing rights proposal, the progress made on last year's resolution calling for a possible I.M.F. and I.B.R.D. role in the stabilization of primary commodity prices, and gold.
On the first of these, the S.D.R. proposal, progress has been made since last year. It is now hoped that the I.M.F. will be in a position, if this is deemed desirable, to make an initial distribution of special drawing rights some time in 1969. To enable Canada to play its role in the I.M.F. this house will be asked at an early date to give its attention to a rather complex bill to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
On the commodity pricing question, the governors had before them the first part of a joint I.M.F./I.B.R.D. study providing a useful analysis of the problem. It was agreed that this study would be completed and that specific policy recommendations would be put forward by June 30 of next year.
As to gold, representatives of the countries, most directly concerned, including Canada, met during the week. At the conclusion of the meetings an agreed statement was issued. The relevant parts of the statement are as follows:
The governors unanimously agreed on a common position based on the Washington declaration ot March 17, 1968, regarding the disposal of newly mined gold. It has, however, not proved possible to reach agreement with South Africa at this meeting.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to make one or two brief comments on the statement by the Minister of Finance, whom we are happy to see back in the house after an absence on official business. I cannot express quite as much satisfaction as he seems to feel with
regard to some of the arrangements made. I hope that the arrangement made with regard to the pound and the other transitional arrangements will in fact be carried out. But I suggest that while these may be the best arrangements which were possible in the circumstances, they still place a heavy burden on Britain in addition to the other burdens relating to the recovery of her economy.
I was disappointed, too, that more progress has not been made in the field of strengthening international currency arrangements. I am sure we are all delighted at the way in which the crisis of last winter has settled down. This is the proper time for an arrangement to be made, but progress has been very slow with regard to strengthening international currency arrangements.
So far as the arrangements regarding the World Bank and international aid generally are concerned, constructive proposals supported by this government certainly would have the support of this party. We believe the government of Canada ought to play an active role in supporting the World Bank and other international agencies interested in development. Certainly we would support any constructive measures in this regard.
But regard to the statement attributed to the minister concerning what Mr. McNamara may have said regarding priority being given to countries that adopt measures to control population, I may say that despite what the minister has said the situation is still a little confusing to me. It may very well be that this results from the necessary brevity of the minister's statement, and perhaps further discussion will clarify this matter.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my satisfaction with some of the things the minister has said, particularly the degree of co-operation that has taken place among the countries involved. I am glad to hear that he is working for the continuance of that co-operation, particularly in the area of making credit available to countries that need underpinning of their currency. We in Canada have every reason to realize how effective some of those measures can be, since we had to call on this type of assitance in the earlier part of the year. The very fact that nations can call upon each other for this type of help will have a tendan-cy to provide greater stability in international monetary circles.
I am, however, concerned about one thing, and in his statement the minister did not clear this up. This is the question of what

October 7, 1968

attitude Canada is going to take to the purchase of commodities from some of the underdeveloped nations, particularly Commonwealth nations. I must say that our record in this regard has not been particularly good. We have refused to make an agreement regarding sugar, which would have been most helpful to some of our neighbours and friends in the Commonwealth. While it has perhaps enriched some Canadians in a very minute way, it has gone a long way toward retarding the development and growth of nations that we seek to help.
In the long run, Mr. Speaker, gifts to underdeveloped nations, valuable as they may be, are not the real answer to solving the problems of the underdeveloped sections of the world. The real answer must be that we are prepared to trade with them and to buy those commodities they have available for export at fair prices. I am sure this is what they would want, and I am equally sure it is what Canada should do. Canada should take the lead in indicating its willingness to buy these commodities at fair prices so as to enable some of our friends in other parts of the world to improve their own conditions. We should not be impoverishing our friends in order to benefit ourselves.
I welcome the minister back, and I hope he will have something further to say to the house once the study on commodities has been completed.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement deals mainly with the participation of Canada in the World Bank so that it may help further the development of countries in the whole world, mainly in Asia and Africa. The objectives of the Canadian government when participating in the activities of the World Bank are certainly commandable and the minister will recognize that the delegates have made a serious effort to adapt the financial situation to the needs of the those poverty stricken nations. As was was just mentioned by the hon. member who spoke before me, the question is not for Canada to provide almost unlimited funds in order to send them food, clothing, and so on; I think that the major part of Canada's participation should be to encourage those nations to produce certain commodities and to offer them for sale, in order to make their citizens responsible, because gifts alone are not the real answer to the problem.
Report on International Meetings
Now, it is a little strange that the hon. minister should take part in the financial discussions of the World Bank and negotiate, for instance, the price of gold without reaching a conclusion which might help Canada to produce more gold at a reasonable price, in short at a better price than the one we receive at this time.
And while the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is talking about helping poor countries, developing countries, our Canadian Prime Minister is on a trip out west where he preaches restraint and self-sacrifice or something like that.
We forget about education and the development of our natural resources but we are ready to share with other countries in the financing of the needs of developing countries. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it would be advisable for the government to take its responsibilities, to act, not against the other countries, but first for our country, Canada, and then it can help developing countries.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order.


Mr. Baldwin:: The sound system has gone dead.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to table a copy of my remarks made at the World Bank meeting, so that hon. members who wish to do so may have an opportunity to look at them.


An hon. Member:: What are you tabling?


Edgar John Benson: A copy of my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No doubt hon. members have noticed that the sound system is out of commission.


Mr. Greene:: Everthing sounds much better now.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore ask hon. members to co-operate by being as quiet as possible in order that we may proceed with the business of the house. The Minister of Finance seeks leave of the house to table the document to which he has referred. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 7, 1968

Motion to Consider Nigerian Situation EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



NIGERIA-MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 42 I seek the unanimous consent of the house to permit me to move a motion which, because of its urgent and pressing necessity, should not be delayed by the 48 hour notice rule. I recognize that standing order 42 has not often been invoked in this house, but I think the house will agree that the standing order was framed to cover just the sort of emergency which faces us today.
Standing order 42 reads as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the house without notice having been given under standing order 4i.
That is the rule. Under standing order 42 I am entitled to explain the urgent and pressing necessity of this motion, and I simply wish to take a few moments to do so. My motion seeks to have the house order the standing committee on external affairs and national defence the members of which will be named later today, to meet not later than tomorrow morning in order to discuss and hear evidence on the tragedy in Biafra and, hopefully, to make recommendations which will enable Canada to take the most effective part possible in meeting both a humanitarian and political challenge.
The motion I seek to move sets out terms of reference sufficiently broad which I believe will commend themselves to members of this house. I am sure there is no doubt in the mind of any hon. member as to the urgent and pressing necessity of obtaining further information on this tragedy. It has been estimated that at least 6,000 civilians are dying of starvation every day in Biafra.
Although we have not officially received the report of the official observer group, we have read in the press that that group asserts there is ho evidence of genocide and that food supplies for civilians are adequate in Biafra. We must find out what parts of Nigeria this observer group visited and under what conditions. The house is already aware that two of its hon. members, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), have just returned from visiting those lands which are still in Biafran hands. I doubt whether in the history of Canada there has ever been a human tragedy so far from our shores which has had such a powerful effect on the consciences of Canadians. The Prime Minister
[Mr. Speaker.)
is well aware of the interest many Canadians take in this matter and of the depth of feeling that exists.
I am therefore asking the house to proceed under standing order 42, and we wish to emphasize that our primary concern is not to engage in debate at this point but rather to obtain as much factual information as possible. To that end the committee on external affairs and national defence ought to hear evidence and bring in recommendations which will enable the government and this house to take effective and immediate action.
It will be seen from the motion that while the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Egmont are to be invited to report their observations to the committee, it will be open to the committee to hear evidence from other sources in a position to give evidence on the situation in Biafra.
I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the house to move the following motion, seconded by my hon. friend from Peace River:
That It be resolved by the House of Commons that it is urgent and expedient that it order the standing committee on external affairs and national defence, to be named later this day, to convene not later than 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, October 8 to hear evidence on (1) the report of the official observer group on which Canada has a member, of the conduct of federal troops in the prosecution of the war in Nigeria, (2) the reported famine conditions in that country, and to invite Andrew Brewin, M.P. (Greenwood) and David MacDonald, M.P. (Egmont) to report their observations on the conditions of the civilian population in Nigeria, and to report its findings to this house with all convenient speed.
I have not in the motion set a time limit for the committee but I would be disappointed, should the house adopt this resolution, if the committee did not report back to the house within one week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the motion which the Leader of the Opposition proposes to put forward, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River. As the hon. gentleman has indicated, standing order 42 requires the unanimous consent of the house. According to the rules all substantive motions require 48 hours notice but the house can, of course, take a decision in exceptional circumstances to allow such motions to be made by unanimous consent. Before putting the motion I have to ascertain whether there is such unanimous consent on the part of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 7, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: I should add that the motion becomes debatable once it is put to the house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I express my appreciation to the House of Commons for giving unanimous consent. Perhaps I should add one further word in requesting the house to adopt this resolution, now that consent has been obtained. There has, I think, been a considerable lack of hard information concerning the suffering and strife in Nigeria and Biafra, but it does not seem to be disputed that large numbers of persons are dying each day. There are apparently conflicting reports from our observers in Nigeria and from reporters and members of this house who have visited Biafra. The committee which it is proposed to establish will be able to hold hearings and judge, with respect to General Milroy's travels in Nigeria for instance, how much freedom of movement was accorded to him, and how realistic are the charges that he was able to see only model villages. In effect the committee will be able to judge what weight should be given to the evidence of the observers.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
It is to be hoped that a similar close scrutiny will be given to the reports of other witnesses the committee will hear. In establishing this committee the house will learn where it is that people are starving if not in the areas visited by General Milroy. Through this committee we will be able to establish what form our relief ought to take; should we continue to concentrate on sending food, or should we be sending planes and medicines as well?
This committee should also be able to establish which relief agencies are best able to get the food to the starving. And by establishing the committee the government and this house will be able in short order to have the facts at its and our disposal, facts needed to make decisions which will lead to effective relief efforts by our country.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we on the government side will be very happy to give unanimous consent to this motion, because we are interested in the obtaining of as much information on this situation as is possible, not only from members of the House of Commons but also from the Canadian public. We feel it is important not only to have information, but to understand also all the difficulties in international law and usage, in bringing about a proper solution to this problem.
DEBATES	843
Motion to Consider Nigerian Situation
I do not want to make this a long debate. I am prepared to say now that if this is the best way of doing it then we give unanimous consent to the introduction of the motion. I should like to say, however, that it was our intention to set up the committees of the house as soon as we had the names for the various committees from the opposition parties. There has been a bit of delay, though not on this committee. This committee can be set up now. Nevertheless, we do want to set up all the committees as soon as possible.
Our opinion is that if this standing committee of the house could be set up this afternoon we would be prepared to refer the estimates to it this afternoon or tomorrow, sir, and of course all aspects of this matter could be brought out before that committee. We are a little afraid, however, that the terms of the present motion, although certainly valuable and acceptable to our side, may perhaps be a bit too restrictive.
There is the question of the reported famine, but we feel it might be important to have any evidence available on the accusation of genocide as well. We feel that that is a very relevant part of the whole discussion because obviously the beleaguered parts of Nigeria are being pressured into some kind of submission either by force of arms or by force of hunger. The relevant question of whether this is going to be followed by genocide is something I think the committee would be interested in hearing about. The observers sent by our country and other countries have no evidence of that, but it would be interesting to learn if they are allowed to travel to other parts of Nigeria.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is at present trying to ensure that the Canadian observer will be allowed to travel as widely as possible and to report as usefully as possible. The government did make the point earlier, when it was invited to send an observer to Nigeria, that it would not accept the invitation right away because we wanted some guarantee that our observer would not merely be in a position to whitewash the Nigerian government. We wanted to make sure that he would be there to obtain an impartial opinion and make impartial observations, and it was after getting a beginning to some guarantee on that point that we named our observer.
I make the point that we will accept this motion, but we feel the proper approach would be not only to hear these gentlemen but also to hear other people the committee
October 7, 1968

Motion to Consider Nigerian Situation might want to listen to, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he comes back from New York. He has been down there holding a great number of discussions on the Biafran question. He is trying to advance the cause of humanity as much as he can, and it would be an advantage to have the committee hear him as soon as he comes back from the United Nations.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we feel the alternative would be not to accept this motion but to have the standing committee seized right away, tomorrow, with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and then be free to deal with all aspects of this question. I do not want to press this point, though other members of the house and of our party may want to follow up that suggestion.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself I welcome the motion, and as I informed the Leader of the Opposition we are very pleased that he is putting it forward. May I say to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, on the last point he put forward, that he can accomplish both the objectives he has stated.
I suggest that the value of the motion is that it gives the subject matter of the motion priority when the committee assembles tomorrow, and I point out that the motion asks that the committee assemble tomorrow to deal with this matter. If the government will carry out the Prime Minister's suggestion, as I hope it will today, and (a) appoint the committee of external affairs and national defence and (b) refer the estimates to that committee, then, of course, the committee will be able to make any other inquiry relating to the situation in Biafra or any other situation. It will then have the authority not only of the terms of reference of this motion but also the general authority under the estimates to make the fullest possible inquiry.
Therefore on our behalf, and I am sure on behalf of other members of the opposition, I would agree that if the Prime Minister accepts the motion, as he has suggested he will despite his doubts, and in order to deal with the matter that concerns him at the same time the committee is appointed by the house have the estimates referred to that committee, then the widest possible inquiry will be available to it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this point also, and I want to make it as strongly
(Mr. Trudeau.]
as I can. I am in favour of this subject going to the committee, but it is obvious that no matter how expeditiously the committee may handle the matter there will necessarily be some time consumed, maybe a week, maybe two weeks, and maybe as long as three weeks, before the committee is able to bring any recommendations to the house. I think it would be a dereliction of our duty as a parliament, a dereliction of the government's duty and of the duty of the people of Canada, if we waited until that committee reported before taking any action. I urge the government and the house not to permit the reference to the committee to be an excuse for inaction for the next one, two or three weeks.
I know, as all hon. members of the house know, that our colleagues the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), had an audience with the Prime Minister today, and that they are pursuing certain suggestions that were discussed with him. I see no reason why some of the actions that are urgently needed, such as the lending of Hercules aircraft and similar actions, should be delayed pending the results of the inquiry and report of the committee. I think it is important to emphasize this because it is all too easy to appoint a committee to make inquiries and then sit back until the committee reports. This situation is too urgent for that.
May I also point out that events in Nigeria-Biafra are moving rapidly. At one point it looked as if federal forces were going to capture all of Biafra. At the moment it looks as if the Biafran forces have been able to set back the advance of the Nigerian forces, but one never knows what will happen in the next few days and the problem of relief, of additional transport planes, is too urgent to wait upon the deliberations of the committee.
I think I also agree with the right hon. Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the responsible officials of his department ought to be heard by the committee to explain more fully than he has been able to explain to this house the reason for certain attitudes of the government during the last few weeks, the details of which I need not go into. I think we ought to know more than we do now as to why the government has taken a position against certain actions that might have been taken before
now.
October 7, 1968

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I certainly agree that the whole problem, and whether the fear of the Biafrans that the federal government is out to annihilate many of the Biafran people has any validity should be considered. Therefore in summary I support wholeheartedly on behalf of my colleagues the motion before this house, with the reservation that neither the government nor this house ought to permit the appointment of the committee to delay any action which can and should be taken as soon as possible to assist this desperate situation of the Biafran people.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I also agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that it is urgent and expedient that the standing committee on external affairs and national defence convene as soon as possible to discuss the situation in Nigeria.
I think that all members should commend the hon. members for Greenwood and Egmont (Messrs. Brewin and MacDonald) for their initiative in going there and observing what was going on, so that the Canadian government might be better informed on the situation now existing in Nigeria. According to the news published in newspapers, or broadcast on radio and television, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tells us over and over again that Nigeria is a friendly nation and that we must avoid taking initiatives that could be prejudicial to this friendship between Nigeria and Canada. However, perhaps there is a difference between that and knowing and saying exactly what is happening in Nigeria. Anyone can have a perfectly proper person for a friend who, for some reason or other, suddenly becomes a gangster of sorts, he is then no longer your friend.
For example, when we learn that Red Cross people are shot like dogs by Nigerian troops or people attached to them, in my opinion we have a duty to take a stand, not two or three weeks hence but immediately. When we read in the press that civilians, children and mothers of families are starving, that they are worse off than animals, I say that there is a limit to abuse, even though Nigeria is a friend of Canada. It is important, therefore, that the committee should meet to hear especially the two members who have come back from Nigeria, and to know exactly what the living conditions of the civilian populations are in Nigeria.
DEBATES	845
Motion to Consider Nigerian Situation
We, therefore, support with enthusiasm the motion of the Leader of the Official Opposition to the effect that the standing committee should meet as soon as possible. However, as the honourable member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said a while ago, let us not wait two or three weeks or even a month before getting a report and knowing what position to adopt, and what action to take in order to help and protect the unfortunate peoples of Nigeria.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has already pointed out to the house the terms of the motion are rather restricted in the sense that they confine themselves to the report in which General Milroy participated, and the expedition of the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Egmont. As the Prime Minister indicated, it would be desirable that not only the reports of these two different groups but events in Nigeria generally should be considered by the standing committee on external affairs and national defence.
Therefore I should like to indicate it is my intention after this motion is adopted to move under the standing orders that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs for 1968-69 be referred to the standing committee later this day, when I receive the nominations of all hon. gentlemen opposite to that committee. In that way I hope the estimates and this particular resolution can be considered together so that all the events taking place in Nigeria and particularly in that part called Biafra can be looked into by the committee at an early date.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Stanfield) agreed to.



REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
standing order 57 I move:
That the estimates of the Department of External Affairs for the year 1968-69 be referred to the standing committee on external affairs and national defence to be named later this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1968
Questions

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
October 3,	1968-The President of the Privy
Council-That the white paper on anti-dumping tabled on September 20, 1968, be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: Norih Cenire):
1.	Are any Cabinet Ministers directors of any companies, corporations, etc., and, if so, what Ministers, of what companies or corporations are they directors, and at what date were any directorships presently held by such Cabinet Ministers assumed?
2.	Did any Cabinet Ministers resign any directorships on being sworn of the Privy Council and, if so, which Ministers, on what dates, and from what companes or corporations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes. Hon. Robert Andras: Gibson Motors (1962) Limited, July 1, 1962; Gibson Lease and Rentals Limited, 1963; Andras-Hague Limited, 1960; Strathwin Limited, 1962. Hon. J. J. Greene: Arnprior and District Memorial Hospital, July 17, 1958.
2.	On being sworn of the Privy Council on July 6, 1968, the following cabinet ministers resigned directorships as follows: Hon. Donald Jamieson: Newfoundland Broadcasting Co. Ltd.; CTV Television Network Ltd.; CANET Holdings Ltd.; Bavarian Brewing Co. Ltd. Hon. James Richardson: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Hudson's Bay Company; The Investors Group; Investors Mutual of Canada Ltd.; Investors Growth Fund Ltd.; Investors International Fund Ltd.; Investors Syndicate Ltd.; Provident Mutual Fund Ltd.; International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd.; Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.; United Canadian Shares Ltd.; Canadian Indemnity Ltd.; James Richardson & Sons, Limited and its associated companies.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Cenire):
1.	What was the total amount of money in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?
2.	What rate of interest does the Government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Fund during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	Balance in the superannuation account as of (a) March 31, 1964, $1,856,407,622; (b) March 31, 1965, $2,161,828,358; (c) March 31, 1966, $2,390,383,091;	(d) March 31, 1967,
$2,689,467,819; (e) March 31, 1968, $2,875,823,276.
2.	Interest is credited to the superannuation account on the last day of each quarter in every fiscal year calculated at the rate of 1 per cent of the balance to the credit of the account on the last day of the preceding quarter.
3.	Interest credited to the superannuation account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964, $71,756,270; (b) March 31,
1965,	$78,715,785; (c) March 31, 1966, $89,499,085; (d) March 31, 1967, $98,499,363;
(e)	March 31, 1968, $110,897,897.
4.	Total amounts paid out of the superannuation account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964, $56,807,908; (b) March 31, 1965, $64,160,629; (c) March 31,
1966,	$69,906,914; (d) March 31, 1967, $74,902,119; (e) March 31, 1968, $84,113,503.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: Norih Centre):
1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30 to $39.99 per month (c) $40 to $49.99 per month (d) $50 to $59.99 per month (e) $60 to $69.99 per month (f) $70 to
October 7, 1968

$79.99 per month (g) $80 to $89.99 per month (h) $90 to $99.99 per month (i) $100 to $124.99 per month (j) $125 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $299.99 per month (m) $300 per month or over?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. 388
2.	2,241
3. Amount of pension	Number
$ 25.01	to $	; 29.99	a	month	63930.00	to	39.99	a	month	1,30140.00	to	49.99	a	month	1,06250.00	to	59.99	a	month	88660.00	to	69.99	a	month	79570.00	to	79.99	a	month	84880.00	to	89.99	a	month	87990.00	to	99.99	a	month	917100.00	to	124.99	a	month	2,458125.00	to	149.99	a	month	2,246150.00	to	199.99	a	month	3,571200.00	to	299.99	a	month	4,255300.00	and	over	1,961
In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the C.N.R. to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. railroad retirement act or the social security act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions of under $25 from the C.N.R., there are 63 former international employees who also receive U.S. railroad retirement or social security annuities in respect of C.N.R. service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic ($25) pensions, and employees who had very short service and small contributions.


MILITARY BANDS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	How many military bands have been disbanded, or are to be disbanded, in 1968?
2.	How many military bands are to be retained, and what are their names?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 
DAMAGE TO FENCE, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date did the fence surrounding the Young Offender's Penal Institution blow down or become damaged and require repairs?
2.	On the date in question what was the velocity of the wind?
3.	What was the estimated cost of the repairs in question?
4.	Why were repairs not effected and why were tenders called and a contract awarded for reinforcement of this fence and what was the extent of the reinforcement and what was the amount of the tender awarded?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. February 11, 1966. Further damage occurred December 14 and 26, 1966.
2.	Wind on February 11, 1966 was approximately 45 to 50 miles per hour.
3.	Actual cost was $7,950.
4.	Repairs were effected. Tenders called and a contract awarded for fence reinforcement required to prevent further damage. Reinforcement consisted primarily of placing diagonal braces to posts. Contract awarded $96,000, but through modification to design was reduced to $78,612.


'CONSULTANT ARCHITECTS, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the name of the firm of consultant architects retained by the federal government in relation to the Young Offender's Penal Institution at Springhill?
2.	How much has this firm received to date for services rendered and have they completed their

October 7, 1968
Questions
responsibilities insofar as this institution is concerned and, if not, what is the estimated total cost for services rendered?
3.	Did this firm of architects determine the specifications for the fence that was damaged when initially constructed and did they receive an additional fee with regard to the repairs and reinforcement of the fence that was later effected?
4.	Did	this	firm	of	architects	determine	the
specification for the Inmate Activities Building and was it determined that these specifications were the reasons for the faults in construction that were discovered on completion of the building?
5.	Is the Inmate Activities Building being repaired and, if so, who will bear the responsibility for these repairs?
6.	Did	this	firm	of	architects	determine	the
specifications for the repairs to the Inmate Activities Building and will they receive a fee for the work involved?


Arthur Laing: 1. C. D. Davison & Company.
2.	$471,000 paid to date, and they have not yet completed all their responsibilities. Total estimated cost of consultant services is $502,000.
3.	Yes, based on the design supplied by the Department of Public Works. Fee paid to consultants for supervision of stiffening work carried out and partial fee for stiffening design. No fee was paid for straightening original damage.
4.	Yes, yes.
5.	Yes. The Department of Public Works holds the consultant responsible.
6.	Yes, no.


FENCE CONSTRUCTION, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coales: 1.	What was the cost of constructing the initial fence around the Young Offender's Penal Institution at Springhill and who carried out the contract?
2.	Was the fence built according to the specifications stipulated by the architect and, if so, what were these specifications?
3.	How many similar fences have been constructed around penal institutions in Canada and of these how many were constructed with the same specifications as the fence at Springhill?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Approximately $99,000. Contract carried out by Foundation Maritime Limited.
2.	Yes, standard specifications governing fences of this type.
3.	Four, all with specifications similar to Springhill.


INMATE ACTIVITIES BUILDING, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the initial cost of the Inmate Activities Building at the Young Offender's Penal Institution at Springhill?
2.	Who was the contractor and were public tenders called for the construction of this building and what was the amount of the tender awarded to the successful bidder?
3.	Were faults found in the construction of this building and, if so, was an investigation carried out to determine who was responsible for the faults in question?
4.	Are the faults in the Inmate Activities Building to be repaired, and, if so, by whom, and under what arrangement and what is the cost of the repairs in question?


Arthur Laing: 1. Approximately $1.3 million.
2.	Simpson Construction Limited. Public tenders were called and a contract was awarded for construction of the building in question as well as other buildings for a total amount of $1,894,000.
3.	Yes, faults were found in the construction of this building and an investigation was carried out.
4.	Yes, faults are to be repaired by Simpson Construction Limited and the department is holding the consultant responsible. Estimated cost is $55,000. Actual cost will not be known until work is completed.


PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES TAX ACT
Mr. Fortin: What amount did each province receive under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act (Statutes of Canada 1966-67 c. 43)?


Edgar John Benson: Adequate data are not yet available to determine the initial payments to each province under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, (S.C., 1966-67, c. 43); these are in respect of the taxation year, 1966, and will be determined during the fiscal year.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many constables has the R.C.M.P. had for each of the last three years and how many were stationed in each of the provinces?
2.	Does the government intend to replace the expression "Gendarmerie royale du Canada" by the expression "Gendarmerie canadienne"?
3.	How big a grant does the government pay annually as compensation to provinces that have their own police systems?
October 7, 1968

Questions


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 3. Under the Canada Student Loans Act,
1.	The numbers of members on the R.C.M.P. applications are submitted to and processed establishment by provinces and totals for each by provincial authorities. Only information on of the fiscal years, 1965-66, 1966-67 and certificates issued to students is available. 1967-68 are as follows:
Province Prince Edward	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68Island	60	67	67Newfoundland	360	377	387Nova Scotia	480	512	515New Brunswick	315	357	378Quebec	617	771	719Ontario	1,999	1,972	2,163Manitoba	500	531	564Saskatchewan	981	1,129	1,157Alberta British	888	1,163	1,259Columbia Yukon, Northwest Territories and	1,783	1,918	2,027serving abroad	252	261	269Totals	8,235	9,058	9,505
2. No.
3.	The provincial governments in all the provinces, except Quebec and Ontario, have contracts with Canada under which Canada makes available to those provinces the services of the R.C.M.P. Canada is compensated for the use of those services by those eight provinces.


LOANS TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND STUDENTS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	For each year since the inception of the Student Loans plan, how many students from Prince Edward Island received loans?
2.	What was the total amount for the Province in each year?
3.	In this period how many applicants were refused loans?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
Loan Year	Students Assisted
1964/65	437
1965/66	614
1966/67	838
1967/68	935
	Amounts of Loans
Loan Year	Authorized
	$
1964/65	289,904
1965/66	455,910
1966/67	634,385
1967/68	724,290


OFF RESERVE HOUSING PROGRAM FOR INDIANS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since the inception of the "Off Reserve Housing Program" for Native Indian people, how many applications have been received from people within the (a) Babine (b) Burns Lake (c) Stuart River (d) Terrace (e) Skeena River, and (f) Bella Coola Indian Agencies?
2.	By Indian Agency, how many such applications were made between (a) May 1, 1967 and May 31, 1967 (b) June 1, 1967 and June 30, 1967 (c) July 1, 1967 and July 31, 1967 (d) August 1, 1967 and August 31, 1967 (e) September 1, 1967 and September 30, 1967 (f) October 1, 1967 and October 31, 1967 (g) November 1, 1967 and November 30, 1967, and (h) December 1, 1967 and December 31, 1967?
3.	How many of the said applicants by month of application (a) have received final approval, and
(b)	are currently living in a home acquired under the said Program?
4.	Have any of the said applicants (a) expressed any discontent with the speed with which their application was being dealt with, and (b) have any applicants withdrawn or attempted to withdraw their applications and what was the reason in each case?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a)
three; (b) none; (c) two; (d) three; (e) eighteen;
(f)	none.
2.	(a) none; (b) Terrace one, Skeena five;
(c)	Terrace one, Skeena one; (d) Babine one, Terrace one; (e) Skeena six; (f) Skeena one;
(g)	none; (h) none.
3.	(a) Two applicants who applied in June 1967 and one who applied in September 1967 have received final approval, (b) The three applicants mentioned in (a) above are currently living in their home.
4.	(a) Some discontent has been expressed by applicants over delay in acquiring a home. However, the difficulty being experienced is convincing the applicant that it is his responsibility to locate the house he wishes to purchase, or the type of house and area where he wishes to have a house constructed, (b) Six applicants have withdrawn their applications, generally for the following reasons: (i) unable to find a house within the approved amount of their application as related to income, and unable to finance the additional cost; or (ii) have changed their minds about buying a house, and have made other plans.

October 7, 1968
Questions


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Dumont: 1.	How many persons are employed In Ontario in the manufacture of automobile parts?
2.	How many persons are employed in Quebec in the manufacture of automobile parts?
3.	How many motor vehicles are there in the Province of Ontario?
4.	How many motor vehicles are there in the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. The estimated average number of persons employed in establishments classified by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as motor vehicle parts and accessories manufacturers in Ontario for 1967 was 33,400.
2.	The estimated average number of persons employed in establishments classified by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as motor vehicle parts and accessories manufacturers in Quebec for 1967 was 740.
3.	In the Province of Ontario there were 2,736,366 motor vehicles registered at the end of the registration year-February 28, 1968 for passenger vehicles and March 31, 1968 for commercial vehicles.
4.	In the Province of Quebec there were 1,769,154 motor vehicles at the end of the registration year-February 28, 1968.


ADMIRALTY COURT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Who are the judges of the Admiralty Court?
2.	Where is this Court's record-office located?
3.	Does the Government intend to implement the recommendations of the Auditor General in regard to the reorganization of this Court and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. John Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1.	The Admiralty Act, Chapter 1, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, provides that the Exchequer Court of Canada shall continue to be a Court of Admiralty and to be as such a court of record and shall have and exercise on its Admiralty side general jurisdiction in Admiralty and that the President and the Puisne Judges of the Exchequer Court shall have and exercise throughout Canada the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. The Act also provides for the appointment by the Governor General, from time to time, of any judge of a superior or county court, or any

barrister of not less than ten years standing, to be a District Judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court in and for the Admiralty District. There are such District Judges in each of the Admiralty Districts of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland and Manitoba. In addition, the Act provides that a District Judge in Admiralty, or, if he is incapacitated, a Judge of the Exchequer Court, may, from time to time, with the approval of the Governor in Council, appoint a Deputy Judge having the qualifications of a District Judge, having all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as are possessed by the District Judge. The Governor in Council may also, from time to time, appoint for any district, or portion of an Admiralty District, a Surrogate Judge or Judges.
2.	There are registries in Toronto, Ontario; Quebec and Montreal in the Province of Quebec; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Victoria, and Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and Winnipeg, Manitoba.
3.	These recommendations have been studied. The Comptroller of the Treasury has been consulted and a further report has been received from him. The matter is under consideration and changes for the improvement of the administration of the Admiralty Court will be made to the extent practical and as circumstances permit.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the Atlantic Development Board been designated as the federal agency through which applications for special industrial incentives in nondesignated areas of Atlantic Canada are to be received?
2.	In what respects does this formula compare with that used by ADA?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


FRED AGREEMENT, NEW BRUNSWICK AND QUEBEC
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total amount of the federal government commitment under the FRED Agreement with the Province of New Brunswick and
October 7, 1968

what was the financial formula for the undertaking of projects through this agreement?
2.	How many projects have been undertaken to date in New Brunswick and what is the estimated cost to the federal government and the estimated cost to the Province of New Brunswick?
3.	What was the total amount of the federal commitment under the FRED Agreement with the Province of Quebec and what was the financial formula for the undertaking of projects through this agreement?
4.	How many projects have been undertaken to date in Quebec and what is the estimated cost to the federal government and the estimated cost to the Province of Quebec?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. $77,494,000. The financial formula varies with each program within the agreements. There are cost shared programs, programs fully financed by the province and programs fully financed by Canada.
2.	Twenty three projects with estimated cost to the federal government $11,645,000, to the provincial government $13,536,000.
3.	$212,920,000. The financial formula varies with each program within the agreement. There are cost shared programs, programs fully financed by the province and programs fully financed by Canada.
4.	Four projects with estimated cost to the federal government $1,026,525, to the provincial government $342,175.
Questions


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD EXPENDITURES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total expenditure to date committed by the Atlantic Development Board for projects undertaken or to be undertaken and what is the breakdown for each of the four provinces involved?
2.	What is the amount of moneys already allocated for projects in the four Atlantic Provinces by the Atlantic Development Board, by province, for each of the years since the Board has been in operation?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Actual expenditures, but not including studies undertaken from appropriations for administration and operation, were as follows to August 31, 1968:

41,949,014 24,777,280 6,063,633 40,567,829
113,357,756
2.	Funds allocated have been:
Newfoundland Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island New Brunswick
1962-63	Nfld. $
1963-64	_
1964-65	27,250,000
1965-66	15,170,196
1966-67	2,390,379
1967-68	12,341,816
1968-69	3,508,717
Totals	60,661,108


BELL ISLAND-PORTUGAL COVE FERRY SERVICE
Mr. McGrath: 1.	Who is responsible for the franchise and operation of the Bell Island-Portugal Cove Ferry Service in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	Who is responsible for the regulation of rates and schedules for this service?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. The Bell Island-Portugal Cove ferry service is operated by a private corporation, Newfoundland Transportation Company
N.S.	P.E.I.	N.B.$	$	$5,600,000	435,000	24,375,00011,718,000	10,106,827	12,051,04617,790,610	154,000	1,673,17923,476,801	4,402,000	14,484,000808,099	1,592,201	2,362,09459,393,510	16,690,028	54,945,319
Limited which is responsible for compliance with all requirements, provincial or otherwise, respecting licence or franchise.
2.	The initial responsibility for establishing rates and schedules for the service rests with the operator but, because the service is subsidized by the federal government, the rates and schedules are subject to approval by the Canadian Transport Commission and, after approval, are incorporated into the subsidy agreement between the Canadian Transport Commission and the operator.

October 7, 1968
Questions


&quot;LIFE AND POVERTY IN THE MARITIMES&quot;
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Which department or agency of government commissioned Pierre-Yves Pepin to prepare and publish the report on "Life and Poverty in the Maritimes"?
2.	How many people were associated "in the field" with Mr. Pepin in the preparation of this Report; who were they; where do they ordinarily reside; and what are their regular occupations?
3.	During the preparation of this Report how long did Mr. Pepin or his associates spend in King's County, Prince Edward Island?
4.	How many people did Mr. Pepin or his associates personally interview in King's County during the preparation of the Report and what were their ages, occupations and educational qualifications?
5.	What was the total cost to the government, or any agency thereof, of the preparation of this Report as to (a) remuneration to Mr. Pepin (b) travelling expenses to Mr. Pepin (c) remuneration and travelling expenses of those associated with Mr. Pepin, and (d) printing and distribution of the Report?
6.	What action, if any, has the government or any agency thereof, so far taken to correct the distressing conditions reportedly found in King's County?
7.	What further plan of action does the government have to correct these conditions and how soon is it expected to put this plan into effect?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Department of Forestry and Rural Development.
2.	None.
3.	Not recorded in government files.
4.	Not recorded in government files. The publication lists interviews with three engaged in agriculture, three clergymen, two labourers, two fishermen, one cook and one fishbuyer.
5.	(a) Total contract price of $15,680 paid on progress basis, (b) Included in (a), the contract price, (c) Not applicable, (d) Printing $12,139.09. Distribution, editing and translation are not costed individually in the department.
6.	As a result of extensive research and feasibility studies a comprehensive socioeconomic plan has been drawn for Prince Edward Island, including King's county.
7.	Negotiations are presently underway with Prince Edward Island which may lead to an agreement to implement such a plan.
[Mr. Hellyer.l


USE OF HOVERCRAFT IN MARITIMES FERRY SERVICES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has the government made any study of the possible feasibility of augmenting the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service and/or the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service with the SRN 4-type Hovercraft, which will carry over 30 automobiles and 250 passengers at speeds up to 35 m.p.h., and which was to go into use on the Dover-Boulogne crosschannel route on August 1, 1968?
2.	If such a study has been made, what were the conclusions arrived at?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government, as part of its policy to assess and monitor the applicability of air cushion vehicles in Canada, has in co-operation with industry conducted a series of studies to enhance the area of knowledge relating to this new form of transport. This process has involved the conduct of operational tests in the north to assess the problems associated with operations under severe winter conditions, the employment of consultants to investigate and report on the market potential for air cushion vehicles in Canada and to prepare recommendations on the suitable future development of vehicles, and a study within the Department of Transport to assess the operational and economic characteristics of existing craft and to test their applicability to specific routes in Canada.
As part of this activity, studies have been conducted jointly by the staff of the Department of Transport and of British Hovercraft Corporation to investigate the problems associated with the operation of either the existing or specially developed SRN-4 Hovercraft for the Prince Edward Island ferry system. These studies are being actively continued and consideration is being given to the possibility of conducting trials in the Northumberland strait. I shall inform the house if and when an acceptable proposal has been worked out.
The results of studies conducted so far indicate that the cost of transporting cars between Borden and Tormentine by an SRN-4 is considerably more expensive than by the use of modern ferries. On the other hand, the amphibious quality of the SRN-4 may make it possible to conduct fast and regular services in the strait during the winter season when existing ferry services are hampered. The tests which are under study, will give better information on the general suitability of the SRN-4 for service not only in the Northumberland strait but also on other routes in eastern Canada.
October 7, 1968


PURCHASE OF DOSCO
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the purchase of DOSCO by the Cape Breton Development Corporation been completed and, if so, what is the total indemnity?
2.	Is this indemnity payable in cash or in bonds?
3.	What was the method of evaluation and was it based on the value of the shares or on the market capitalization?
4.	Does the government intend to set up a similar corporation to deal with the Levis shipyards?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. No.
2 and 3. As provided by Sections 10 to 13 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, chapter 6, Statutes of Canada, 1967-68.
4.	Not at this time.


PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN UNDER ARDA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What projects have been undertaken under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act in the Province of Quebec and in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere since 1965?
2.	What is the nature of these projects?
3.	What is the pro rata contribution (a) of the federal government (b) of the provincial government, towards these projects?
4.	Have any requests been received from the Province of Quebec on behalf of the constituency of Lotbiniere to undertake further projects and, if so (a) where will these projects be carried out (b) what will be the nature of each programme?
5.	How much money will be appropriated for each of these projects?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Projects undertaken under authority of the Act in the Province of Quebec since 1965 to August 1968 are as follows: (1) Aerial Reconnaissance and Climatological Study of Mount Logan; (2) Adaptation and Training Problems of Was-wanipi and Mistassini Reserve; (3) Canada Land Inventory Studies for 1965-66;	(4)
Feasibility Study to Transform Marginal Dairy Farming; (5) Mechanization Impact of Logging Industry; (6) Research Consultant on Blueberries in Lac St. Jean; (7) Community Organizational Structure Analysis; (8) Survey Individuals in 8 Regions re Population; (9) Federal Research on Rural Program Development Techniques; (10) Modernization of
Questions
Quebec Dairy Farms; (11) Modernization of Quebec Dairy Farms-Engineering Research; (12) Canada Land Inventory Program Renewal for 1966-67; (13) Canada Land Inventory Program Renewal for 1967-68.
Approximately 180 projects in addition to those listed were approved under the authority of the Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement 1965-70 in the Province of Quebec. No projects authorized under the Act have specific or exclusive application to the constituency of Lotbiniere. Several projects authorized under the Agreement are wholly or partly within the constituency.
2.	The projects authorized under the Act were research studies related to resource use, adjustment and development, and related social adjustments.
3.	(a) Total costs of the projects listed are borne by the federal government, (b) Nil.
4.	No.
5.	Not applicable.


ROBERTS BANK RAIL LINE
Mr. Rose: 1.	Has Canadian National Railways applied to the Canadian Transport Commission to participate in the construction of a rail-line from Colebrook Road to Roberts Bank in British Columbia?
2.	If so, has the Minister of Transport been consulted on the question of construction and what is the government's position?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


TENDER CALL, CONTRACT N.W.T. 101-68
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What was the date of the tender call for contract N.W.T. 101-68 and its date of closing?
2.	What works were to be included in this contract and at what points?
3.	What was the stated date of completion and what is the new date of completion?
4.	How many bids were received, from whom, and for what amounts?
5.	Was a decision made to delay the award of the contract, on what date and for what reasons?
6.	Had an award of contract been made as of August 31, 1968 and to whom?
7.	Why was the lowest bid not accepted?
8.	Were bid bonds from unsuccessful tenders still unreturned as of August 31, 1968?

October 7, 1968
Questions
9.	Do departmental records show who are the principals of Territorial Pre-Fab and who are they?
10.	Was a contract for 20 pre-cut homes awarded to Territorial Pre-Fab in 1967 without any public tender call and, if so, why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Tenders were called for contract N.W.T. 101-68 on February 19, 1968, and closed March 30, 1968.
2.	Work included in the contract consisted of delivery to sites in Fort Smith, Hay River and Rae of pre-cut materials for a total of 30 three bedroom low cost houses.
3.	Stated date of completion was initially July 15, 1968, but has since been extended to November 15, 1968.
4.	The following three bids were received: Territorial Prefab Limited, $217,000; Muttart Builders Supplies, $204,880; Engineered Homes, $283,969.
5.	No decision was made to delay the award of contract although the time taken to properly assess the bids and obtain Treasury Board approval of contract award delayed the award longer than anticipated.
6.	No contract award had been made as of August 31, 1968.
7.	The second lowest bid was accepted in order to provide employment for local unemployed people, thereby reducing federal welfare and relief costs. The acceptance of this bid resulted in a net saving to the crown.
8.	The contract had not been awarded as of August 31, 1968, therefore bid bonds were not returned until after that date.
9.	Territorial Prefab Limited is completely owned by 45 residents of Fort Smith.
10.	A contract for the supply of pre-cut material for 30 houses was negotiated with Territorial Prefab in 1967. This company had been formed by local residents in an attempt to bolster the economy of Fort Smith following the announcement of Yellowknife as the capital of the Northwest Territories. Prices negotiated were comparable with those obtained by public tender on other contracts, therefore in order to assist the town and reduce federal welfare payments the contract was awarded to this local company.


IMPORTATION OF RUSSIAN CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Mr. Hales: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to continue to allow the importation into Canada of

Russian construction equipment similar to that recently imported by Znider Bros. Construction Equipment Ltd. of Etobicoke?
2.	What was the basis of evaluation and the rate of duty applied to the above equipment?
3.	How does this compare to the method of evaluation and application of duty in the case of "Most Favoured Nations"?
4.	Did the Russian Government subsidize in any way the manufacture of the equipment, the application of the equipment in Canada and/or the rental being paid to Znider Bros, who are alleged to be the importers and owners of the Halegate Equipment Co. of Britain?
5.	If subsidization by the Russian Government did occur, is this not a form of dumping and as such unfair to Canadian companies who have made large capital investment in Canadian manufacturing facilities?
6.	Has the government considered the loss of tax dollars through personal and corporate taxes, by endorsing the importation of such equipment?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The Canadian-Soviet
trade agreement provides that goods of U.S.S.R. origin are entitled to most favoured nation tariff treatment. The trade agreement was extended in 1966 for a period of three years and governs the tariff treatment accorded to construction equipment.
2.	The values declared on the customs invoices were used in determining the value for duty. Under the most favoured nation tariff agreement, the bulldozers, tractors and combines, which have been imported, are entitled to entry free of duty, the excavators were entered at the 15 per cent rate of duty. Off-highway trucks, which have not at this time been entered for consumption, are subject to a 10 per cent duty rate.
3.	The valuation for customs purposes of goods imported into Canada is not dependent upon the tariff treatment accorded the country of export. Under the valuation provisions of the Customs Act, goods are normally valued at the higher of the fair market value or the selling price to the purchaser in Canada. This procedure was followed in this case.
4.	There is no information available on these points.
5.	See answer to question 4.
6.	The government is continually reassessing the impact of imported goods on the Canadian economy.


CLOSING OF PILOTS STATION, TROIS-RIVIERES-OUEST, QUE.
Mr. Mongrain: Does the Department of Transport or the National Harbours Board intend to close the Pilots'
October 7, 1968

Questions CORN IMPORTS
Station at Trois-Rivieres-Ouest and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reasons will the station be closed (c) to what location will the Station be transferred?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) The station will, at a date not yet determined, be moved to a central location in the port of Trois-Rivieres.


BANK GOVERNORS AND FINANCE MINISTERS
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What are the names of the Governors of the Bank of Canada since 1944 and on what dates did they take office?
2.	What are the names of the Finance Ministers of Canada since 1944 and on what dates did they take office?


Edgar John Benson: 1
and 2: The only change from the answer to question No. 2114 on page 9599 of Hansard for November 7, 1966, is the addition of Hon. Edgar J. Benson who took office on April 20, 1968.


PAYMENT OF AIR FARE FOR NEW YORK ARTIST
Mr. Osier: Did the Canada Council pay the air fare for Ralph Ortiz, the axe-wielding artist from New York, in order that he might participate in a show ''Mission Destruction" held in a Vancouver warehouse on August 27th, 1968 and, if so (a) what was the amount of such payment (b) what was the criterion observed by the Council in subsidizing this performance, and (c) how many people attended that show?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: The Canada Council has provided the following answer: (a) It paid the air fare for Ralph Ortiz to enable him to present this event in Vancouver and to have discussions with artists in the community. The amount paid was $284. (b) The council makes modest allotments from time to time in experimental and sometimes controversial aspects of the arts. Its small grant to the Douglas Gallery of Vancouver to bring Ralph Ortiz from New York to the west coast was given only after professional advice obtained here in Canada indicated that a small travel grant was justified. Mr. Ortiz, who is a New York artist with an international reputation, had already taken a major part in a symposium held in London, England, in 1966 and in similar manifestations elsewhere. (c) The council is informed that 80 people were present at the event and that in addition Mr. Ortiz met the leading painters of Vancouver.
Question No. 236


Mr. McCulcheon:: 1.	From what countries has grain com been imported into Canada during 1968?
2.	What has been the volume of imports each month from September 1, 1967, up to and including September of this year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion of Bureau Statistics reports that:
1.	During 1968 grain corn was imported into Canada from Portugal and the United States.
2.	The volume of imports each month from September 1, 1967, to July 31, 1968, (latest available statistics) is as follows:
1967	Quantity Bushels
September	2,328,064
October	2,017,354
November	3,182,520
December	6,975,927
1968	
January	1,236,778
February	1,380,083
March	2,025,488
April	933,293
May	2,287,001
June	1,581,765
July	1,844,266


ASSISTANCE TO PROJECTS UNDER ARDA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many projects has the government agreed to assist under the ARDA program?
2.	How many of these projects are located (a) in the Province of Quebec (b) in the federal constituency of I.otbinicre?
3.	How many such projects will be assisted in each of the other provinces?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. 1,228 to March 31, 1968.
2.	(a) 310; (b) 13.
3.
Newfoundland	54
Prince Edward Island	97
Nova Scotia	113
New Brunswick	82
Ontario	105
Manitoba	95
Saskatchewan	217
Alberta	84
British Columbia	71
Questions

October 7, 1968


WHARF CONSTRUCTION, COUNTRY HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What are the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of the tenders for the contract for construction of a wharf at Country Harbour, Guysborough County, N.S.?
2.	Has this contract been awarded and, if so, to whom?
3.	If the contract has not yet been awarded, when is an announcement expected?


Arthur Laing: 1. Stanley Reid Construction Limited, Port Hilford, N.S., $139,262.50; McNamara Marine Limited, Whitby, Ontario, $168,859.25; Mosher & Rawding Limited, Liverpool, N.S., $179,652.00; R. A. Douglas Limited, New Glasgow, N.S., $217,580.00; Kenney Construction Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $232,699.00.
2.	Yes, to Stanley Reid Construction Limited, Port Hilford, N.S.
3.	Awarded October 4, 1968.


REVENUE AND PATRONS, VARIOUS POST OFFICES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the revenue from post offices at Port Howe, Malagash, Collingwood and Southampton and how many patrons does each post office serve?
2.	What was the revenue from post offices at Port Greville and Fox River and what is the total number of patrons served by the two post offices?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Name of Post	Revenue (1967-68)	No. ofOffice	$	PatronsPort Howe	1,339.35	97Malagash	1,782.39	186Collingwood Corner	2,303.45	166Southampton	1,375.79	101Port Greville	965.45	117Fox River	324.45


IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA, 1967-68
Mr. Coates: How many individuals came to Canada in 1967-68 as immigrants and of that number, how many indicated they would initially settle in one of the four Atlantic Provinces?
[Mr. Honey.)


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: During the fiscal year 1967-68, 214,488 persons were granted landed immigrant status in Canada, and of that number, 4,687 indicated their intention to settle in one of the four Atlantic provinces.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES ON WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Thompson (Red Deer): 1.	How many were employed in the Public Service to maintain the Winter Works Incentive Program?
2.	With the cessation of this program, how have these employees been deployed?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Eleven.
2. One employee retired having reached retirement age; two have been assigned to other employment in the department; eight are still engaged in handling claims arising out of the 1967-68 program and will be assigned to other duties in the department on completion of this work by the end of the year.


COAST LINE SECTION OF KEJIMKUJIK PARK, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government reached a decision for the establishment in Nova Scotia of a section of coastline which will be part of but separate from Kejimkujik National Park?
2.	If so, what are the boundaries of the area selected?
3.	What amount of money has been set aside for this development?
4.	On what date is it anticipated a start will be made on this project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. The government has recommended the setting aside of a representative coastal area for preservation as a national park that would be considered as a coastal adjunct of Kejimkujik national park.
2.	The definition of a boundary remains unfixed and is presently subject to federal-provincial negotiation and agreement.
3.	None.
4.	No specific date of project commencement can be given at this time.
October 7, 1968


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, VICTORIAVILLE, QUE.
Mr. Fortin: 1.	When will work begin on the construction of a regional airport at Victoriaville?
2.	What is the expected cost of this construction?
3.	When were the preliminary steps taken for this project?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Until economic and engineering studies have been performed by the department to assess the need for and the cost of developing an airport at Victoriaville, it is not known when or if work will begin.
2.	It is not known what the expected cost of the construction will be.
3.	On September 18, 1968, an economic study was requested to determine the need for a regional airport at Victoriaville. This study is now under way.


JOB CLASSIFICATION, NATIONAL DEFENCE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, HALIFAX
Mr. Stanfield: 1.	Have job classifications been carried out for all civilian employees of the Department of National Defence in Halifax?
2.	If not, what groups are still to be dealt with and how many men are involved?
3.	Are the pay schedules of these men "red-circle" and, if so, how long has this been in effect and when can they expect a change in this status?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. No.
2.	There are 17 groups in the professional and scientific category and two groups in the administrative and foreign service category still to be dealt with. There are approximately 40 positions in Halifax in these groups. In addition, there are about 220 positions whose incumbents are at the present time being notified of the evaluation of their positions.
3.	Until such time as collective agreements have been ratified and pay scales established, it is not possible to determine those employees who will be placed in holding classifications. However, of the positions which were reviewed prior to the introduction of collective bargaining, 20 of these are still occupied by persons in holding classifications with an effective date of October 1, 1965. The Public Service Commission continues to endeavour to place these people in other positions on a government-wide basis.
Questions


HOBBEMA INDIAN RESERVE SCHOOL BUILDING
Mr. Moore: 1.	What is the contract price of the new school building and the teacher's housing units now being built at the Hobbema Reserve?
2.	How many rooms are in the school building?
3.	What is the floor area of the school building?
4.	Does the contract price include furnishing and equipment?
5.	How many housing units are being built?
6.	What is the floor area of each of the several units?
7.	What are the architects' fees?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
original contract price was $768,800. Extras and miscellaneous have increased the contract price to $783,357.
2.	16 classrooms plus toilets, corridors, janitors' closets, store room and mechanical room.
3.	Floor area 15,300 sq. ft. net, 27,230 sq. ft. gross.
4.	No.
5.	12 (multiple unit).
6.	6, 1 bedroom units, 582 sq. ft.; 6, 2 bedroom units, 784 sq. ft.; 1 common laundry, storage, etc., 588 sq. ft.; 1 basement mechanical room, 609 sq. ft.; Total 9,393 sq. ft.
7.	Architects' fees $45,108.


RESEARCH CENTRE IN SAINT-LEON DE CHICOUTIMI
Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean): What was the federal government's technical and financial participation in (a) the establishment of a research centre for blueberry growing at St. L6on in Chicoutimi constituency (b) the yearly operation of this research centre, and (c) what departments are involved in this project?


Russell Clayton Honey: (a) Technical participation, nil; Financial participation, $72,607. (b) Technical, nil; Financial, nil. (c) Department of Forestry and Rural Development.


LOAN APPLICATIONS, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Caouelte: 1. How many applications for loans were received by the Industrial Development Bank in 1967, by province?

October 7, 1968
Questions
2.	How many loans were approved, by province?
3.	What Is the total amount of the loans approved, by province?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The annual report of the Industrial Development Bank for the year ended September 30, 1967, contains information regarding the number and amount of loans by size, by province and by type of business. Information on the number of applications for loans by province is not published.
2 and 3.
Industrial Development Bank Loan Approvals
During Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1967.
(Amount in Thousands of Dollars)
	Number	Amount
Newfoundland	31	1,092P.E.I.	8	515Nova Scotia	45	1,516N.B.	60	3,084Quebec	404	20,780Ontario	824	39,006Manitoba	83	3,873Sask.	111	4,962Alta.	257	17,013B.C.	330	19,914Yukon	7	896N.W.T.	8	4812,168	113,132


STRIKES SINCE 1963
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many strikes have there been In Canada since January 1, 1963?
2.	What was the total salary loss due to these strikes?
3.	How much productivity did Canada lose due to these strikes?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. From January 1, 1963 to June 30, 1968, there were 2,409 strikes and lockouts in Canada. The total duration of these work stoppages was 16,797,870 man days; this represents about one fifth of one per cent of the estimated working time of non-agricultural paid workers during the period covered.
2.	No statistics available.
3.	No statistics available.
[Mr. Caouette.)


AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED UNDER ARDA
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under ARDA, how much money was appropriated in 1967 and how much in 1968 for the constituency of Abitibi?
2.	What projects have been carried out or are underway and how much money has been or will be appropriated for each project?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. No ARDA money was
appropriated specifically for the constituency of Abitibi either in 1967 or in 1968.
2. No ARDA projects, confined within the boundaries of the constituency of Abitibi, have been carried out or are underway. Several ARDA projects in the Province of Quebec may be applicable to all or a portion of the constituency of Abitibi, along with other areas.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has the government arrived at a decision for the establishment of a second National Park in Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, what is the area selected?
3.	On what date is it planned to make a start on this project?
4.	What is the estimated amount of money to be spent on this project?
5.	If no decision for the establishment of this park has as yet been made, what is the reason for the delay and how soon may a decision be expected?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Questions
be expended on capital development in the 3. 996-800 are prevailing hourly rate initial five years following establishment, employees and 196 are technical and clerical Ultimate expenditures cannot be estimated at support staff to the ship repair activity, this time.
5.	The decision to establish a national park rests with the province. The establishing of an area as a national park requires that it be determined that this is the best and most appropriate use of land and resources. Before making this decision other uses, present and potential, have to be assessed.


SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What is the total membership of the Science Council of Canada?
2.	What is the number of associate members?
3.	What is the representation from the Atlantic Provinces?
4.	Is the government taking steps to increase the membership on this Council from the four Atlantic Provinces?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1 and 2. Total membership of the Science Council of Canada is 29, of which 4 are associate members.
3.	Representation from the Atlantic provinces is one.
4.	On September 24, the Prime Minister announced the reappointment of two members and the appointment of six new members for terms of three years. One of these six new appointments is from the Atlantic provinces. In making such appointments an attempt is made to satisfy not only regional representation but the need for a reasonable crosssection of scientific disciplines as well as the three major sectors-universities, industry and government.


DEFENCE DEPARTMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, SOUTHERN VANCOUVER ISLAND
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What is the total number of civilians employed by the Department of National Defence in the southern Vancouver Island area?
2.	How many of these are employed at (a) Work Point Barracks (b) CFB Esquimau (c) Rocky Point Ammunition Depot (d) HMC Dockyard?
3.	How many of those employed at HMC Dockyard are shipyard workers within the traditional meaning of the term?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. 2,837.
2. (a) 74; (b) 1,026; (c) 140; (d) 1,597.


MILK SUBSIDIES
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Does the government intend, in view of the rising cost of living as well as the cost of farm machinery, taxes and administrative services on Canadian farms, during this session, to increase subsidies for the processing and production of fluid milk?
2.	Does the government plan to send subsidies for processed milk directly to the processing plants, so that farmers will receive their share of subsidies at the same time as the payments they receive from the processing plants and for the same period?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The government does not pay subsidy on milk used in the fluid trade. The subsidy is paid only on milk and cream used for manufactured dairy products. The rate of subsidy was increased for this year to $1.31 per hundredweight of milk testing 3.5 per cent but-terfat, as compared to $1.21 last year.
2. No.


LOWER ST. LAWRENCE RIVER DREDGING
Mr. Dumont: Were the contracts for dredging in the Lower St. Lawrence-St. Francis Channel and between buoys 108B and 109B awarded by tender and, if so (a) what was the amount of the successful tender and who was awarded the contract?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, (a) $334,500, Marine Industries Ltd.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Fortins: 1.	How many persons, by province, and also In the federal constituency of Lotbiniere, received benefits under the Old Age Assistance Act in 1965-66-67-68?
2.	What is the average amount paid under the above Act (a) by province (b) for the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
3.	How many persons are there between the ages of 65 and 70, in each province, and in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
Return tabled.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. The object of starred question is to secure the answer at the earliest possible

October 7, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry date. The normal period should not exceed two or three days. I refer Your Honour to question No. 49, to which the usual explanation of administrative difficulty and complexity can scarcely apply. My question No. 49 is:
1.	Has the president of Air Canada been appointed?
2.	At what date did the position become vacant?
That question went on the order paper 25 days ago. There is a further question, No. 311, regarding the detrimental effects on the city of Moose Jaw of the removal of some large industries, and the necessity of declaring the city a designated area. I hope that with this fine spirit of co-operation of which the President of the Privy Council speaks in such grandiloquent terms we will get answers to these questions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. This will be of assistance to me in lashing my colleagues to get answers ready.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be a participant in action like that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has received a report from Canada's observer in Nigeria, or only from the government of Nigeria.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have not read any report beyond that which has been published in the newspapers, but I think I may assume that the department has also received the report.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister table the report in the House of Commons so it will be available to all members of the house as well as to the members of the committee on external affairs and defence?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, not having read the report except, as I say, through the newspapers, I cannot give a clear commitment. But I do commit myself to reading it, and if there is nothing in it of a secret or confidential nature or of a nature which might impinge

upon our good relations with other countries, this can be done. I would not publish it without their permission. I do not think any of these "ifs" should materialize. I undertake to report as soon as I have read it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, relating to the same subject, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a cable from the Biafran head of state, sent to the president of the general assembly of the United Nations, pleading that appropriate action be taken at the United Nations to deal with what are alleged to be acts of genocide against the people of Biafra. If so, what reply has the Prime Minister made to the cable, and what action is the Canadian government proposing to take in respect of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the cable; therefore I have not replied to it. With regard to action, I repeat that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in the process, and has been for several days now, of consulting with members of the United Nations and with the Secretary General to see whether any such action can be initiated in the United Nations.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With Your Honour's permission I will preface it by saying that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has on numerous occasions in this house emphasized the fact that he was concerned, at the United Nations, with the question of the humanitarian aspects of the starvation of people. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether his answer means that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is also discussing with other members of the United Nations the particular question of the allegation or accusation of genocide as a subject matter for the agenda of the United Nations general assembly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not that particular subject, Mr. Speaker, but he is discussing any way in which we can get this whole subject in front of any audience at the United Nations.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I then ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would undertake-and I am sure he would-to ascertain whether the cable has reached his office and to study it and inform the house tomorrow as to whether any action is being contemplated as a result of that cable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
October 7, 1968


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is one of the questions being taken up at the United Nations by the Secretary of State for External Affairs the supplying of arms by Britain, the U.S.S.R. and France to the participants in this fratricidal war?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the object of direct representations. The position of this government, of course, is that we are not supplying arms to either side and we think this should be the position of other friendly powers. I am prepared to say that publicly. But I do not think we should believe our consciences will be eased by telling other people what they should do. I believe the government of the United Kingdom is under pressure from its own people to reconsider these policies, and I regard that that is the proper point of pressure to be brought to bear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister take the house into his confidence and tell this country how many countries members of the United Nations have been approached to join in a resolution, humanitarian in its purpose and objective, and how many have consented? What is the latest information the Prime Minister has? The Secretary of State for External Affairs told the house, as I recall it, ten days ago that a kind of poll was being held to ascertain which nations would join. It would also be of interest to know which nations would oppose such a humanitarian resolution being brought before the United Nations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will of course ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to report to me on this matter. I know the house would want to put the question to him directly in a few days when he comes back from the United Nations. I myself am meeting tomorrow the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, and I expect to have conversations with him to see whether we cannot perhaps get some of the African members of the Commonwealth to consider taking an initiative in this direction. However, our position has been and still is that the humanitarian aspects, which are the most important ones, must be set in the context of international law and of good relations amongst the African peoples, who are as good a judge of 29180-55
Inquiries of the Ministry these matters often as are the members of this house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question. Having in mind the deep concern of the country about this whole subject, would the government give consideration, I hope favourable, to allowing the television cameras in the committee room where hearings on Biafra and Nigeria are taking place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the jurisdiction over this matter rests with you, Mr. Speaker, rather than with the government.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right honourable Prime Minister.
Leaving Biafra to come back to Canada, everyone knows that an arts centre is now under construction in Ottawa. As the initial cost of that arts centre was to have been $15 million according to the original tenders, and as it now seems that the cost has swelled to $56 million, can the right honourable Prime Minister tell us how a contractor who tendered for $15 million can get the approval of the government and spend up to $56 million for the same work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, that question could be placed on the order paper. If the hon. member considers that there is some urgency, he could advise me of the subject which could be raised at the time of adjournment this evening.


David Réal Caouette: I thank you for your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. It is not as important as Biafra, but I will bring it up again at ten o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Like other hon. members, I welcome him back to the house after his arduous trip, and I am sure that he is glad to get back also. My question is: Has the minister decided on the date of the budget?

October 7, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
Kon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to tie myself down to an exact date. I am hoping it will be either next week or the following week.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question may I ask whether it is the intention of the government to balance the budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government's intention with respect to the budget will be made known when the budget is delivered.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. Since this is his day not to be here I would direct it to his parliamentary secretary if he were here but he also is not here. Perhaps I can direct it to the acting minister. When does the Minister of Agriculture intend to go to Washington to discuss with the secretary of agriculture ways and means of preventing the further dumping of U.S. corn on the Canadian market? I ask this question because of the minister's announcement last Friday that he would go to Washington and institute discussions on this subject.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: He will be here on Wednesday.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will he not be here later this afternoon to introduce second reading of the Farm Credit Act bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, but this is not his duty day for the question period.


Mr. Nowlan:: It is not the finance minister's either.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that this is one of his days off this week I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the booklet on the reorganization of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development been withdrawn so that a revision can be made?


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I suggest with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the organization of the department is one of very current interest and one of urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules are very clear. If the hon. member feels that this is a matter of urgency, he can give notice of debate for tonight. That is just a few hours away.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that his department has established a job vacancy survey and the present decision of the department is that the information obtained shall be restricted to immigration counsellors and departmental officers, will the minister also make this most important information available to members of the House of Commons?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this question and report to the hon. member.



REPORTED CANCELLATION OF RETRAINING COURSES IN FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it true that his department has recently cancelled a program of free retraining courses in French during work hours after some 360 candidates had been accepted and 24 employers had agreed to support the program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he has to ask the question directly. He cannot ask the minister to confirm or deny a statement.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister cancelled this program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.
October 7, 1968



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he able to advise us as to what specific proposals were made on Friday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the foreign minister of France regarding special measures of co-operation in the field of space research and satellite telecommunications technology?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question now asked by the hon. member is of a very general nature and the information he is seeking should in my view be given to the house by way of a statement on motions.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the acting minister ask one of the ministers to prepare a statement and present it to the house on these matters on which he has been receiving a few signals?



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
GOLD-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN PRICE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Oza  Teiraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Does the hon. minister expect any increase in the price of gold in the near future, in order to help the development of our area?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond asked on October 3 for the tabling by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development of a report on the Dosco corporation. I understand he was really referring to the over-all plan for the conduct of coal mining operations by the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Inquiries of the Ministry
This is a plan to be submitted to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development for the consideration and approval of the governor in council. The minister received it on exactly the day required by the legislation, that is, on October 1. It was sent to the premier of Nova Scotia at the same time. It must be considered from the viewpoints of both governments. That will be done as quickly as is consistent with the care that is required on a matter so important to the people of Cape Breton. As soon as a statement of policy is possible, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development will be happy also to table the plan as submitted by the corporation.



HOCKEY-INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question arising out of a statement he made during the election campaign, that before the beginning of the next National Hockey League schedule he had in mind the setting up of a task force for the purpose of looking into the question of whether control over the lives and future of young Canadians was being exerted by the league officials, and also what further action should be taken to guard against actions by the officials of the National Hockey League which have all the appearances of being monopolistic in their effect.
Right Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister)?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health-and Welfare will be on duty tomorrow and I hope he will have an answer to this question at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that school has been convened and the absence of the minister has been excused, but I am directing my question to the Prime Minister who made the undertaking. It was not the Minister of National Health and Welfare or any other absentee minister; it was the Prime Minister. I am simply asking the Prime Minister, did he or did he not set up a task force as he promised he would?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the right hon. gentleman knows, both he and I talked about a lot of things during the election. The difference is that our side appears to be in power. We have formed the government. We have divided the several tasks amongst the various

October 7, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry ministers. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare has this particular authority, and has done something about setting up a task force. I will have to ask him to report to the house about it. It is the position of the government that we divide responsibility among ministers as much as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be here when his next duty day arrives or will he be absent? Is there any possibility he may be absent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NANAIMO-COWICHAN-THE ISLANDS-INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government yet decided upon a date for the holding of a by-election in Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention to put off indefinitely this test of the popularity of the government?



ABSENCE FROM HOUSE OF TRANSPORT MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he personally investigate the absence from the house today of the Minister of Transport, when according to the roster he is supposed to be here?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have, Mr. Speaker, and he is off on government business. However, I should like to make the house aware of the fact that the acting minister of transport is here and he will answer any question addressed to him.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister give assurance that the Minister of Transport will make up this day later in the week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I feel the opposition has missed the point. The most important thing is that questions may be asked in departmental areas. If the minister is not

here, the area will be dealt with by the acting minister or by the parliamentary secretary.


George Harris Hees: They just take questions as notice and do not give answers.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: should like to direct my question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice. Have you been officially notified of the appointment of Judge Parker as chairman of the mediation commission in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the question is in order. In any event I have to remind the hon. member that questions should be directed to the chair.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was here a few minutes ago, but I see he is not in his seat now. He is not supposed to be here today, so I suppose he left. Perhaps I should ask the question of someone else.


Mr. Speaker:: While the hon. member ponders the problem, I will recognize the hon. member for Champlain.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Has the minister been made aware of a Canadian rehabilitation centre project at Parent, in the northern area of Champlain district?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question should be put on the order paper.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Because of the reduction in train inspection and the elimination of railway car men on Canadian railways, will the minister initiate an investigation to consider the seriousness of the lack of safety measures for railway personnel and the travelling public resulting from insufficient train inspection?
October 7, 1968



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance is back in the house, will he give attention to the promise he made that the pensions of retired civil servants will be increased?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member came back to his seat to show people that he was not leaving the house after the question period. I can assure him I will give attention to all promises I have made in the past. I should like to say to hon. members that my reason for being in the house today, rather than my duty days, Wednesday and Thursday, is that having been away for two weeks I could not put off meeting hon. members of the opposition immediately on my return.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my question by saying that surely things have not come to the point where a minister has to apologize for being here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I told him not to create that precedent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has personally investigated the allegation that officials of the Ontario government earlier in the year warned the federal government that in its forecasts and estimates it was underestimating the total cost of certain joint programs?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the other day the President of the Treasury Board said he had seen this allegation in a newspaper and was investigating the truth thereof.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to one of the absent ministers, the Minister of Fisheries, or
Inquiries of the Ministry somebody else-anybody else. What action is being taken by the government to ensure that the Soviet Union does not establish historic fishing rights in the waters along the Pacific coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question of a very general nature. I do not think it is the type of question that should be asked at this time.


Frank Howard: With respect, sir, it is an urgent matter and I saved the question for today because the Minister of Fisheries is supposed to be here today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Speaker is here and has given a ruling.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-REPORTED STATEMENT AS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Was the minister expressing government poicy when, according to press reports, he stated in Penticton last Friday that the strengthening of the economy of Prince Edward Island must be a choice between the causeway project and a comprehensive development program? In other words, we cannot have both?


Arthur Laing: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding of such questions is that normally they should be asked of the Prime Minister. According to the rules, if the hon. member is asking whether something is government policy he should direct his question to the Prime Minister.


Melvin James McQuaid: May I direct the question to the Prime Minister, then, and ask him whether this represents government policy?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Would the hon. member ask the question again, please?


Melvin James McQuaid: I will repeat it. Was the Minister of Public Works expressing government policy when he was reported to have said in Penticton last Friday that the strengthening of the economy of Prince Edward Island must be a choice between the causeway project and a comprehensive development program?

October 7, 1968

Canadian National Railways Mr. Trudeau: I understand that if such a property of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Corn-report exists, which is doubtful, it is a false pany Limited and its associates, report, Mr. Speaker.	(3:50 D.m.)



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the statement made by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs of the province of Quebec to the effect that the province will subsidize 50 per cent of winter works, does the right hon. Prime Minister anticipate any assistance in this regard?
Righl Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Would the hon. member kindly repeat his question please?


Roch La Salle: Since the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the province of Quebec stated his department would subsidize 50 per cent of winter works, does the right hon. Prime Minister anticipate a form of assistance different from that of last year as regards winter works to be undertaken in the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the winter works policy has already been announced and it has not changed. As regards unemployment in certain areas, the government will take care of that as already indicated when referring to other programs.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale, for Mr. Hellyer) for the second reading of Bill No. C-109, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Windfall on the Windfall extension to the Sangudo subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 51 miles to the Bigstone property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation and of a connecting spur extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately nine miles to the South Kaybob
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) is not here so I assume that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) will be dealing with this bill. There has been some question whether this matter should be referred to a standing committee. I for one am not urging that this be done, but if it is not done there are a number of questions that the minister on behalf of the government must be prepared to answer before the bill is put through all stages.
From what I know of this project and from what the minister has said, it appears at first blush to be a program which will have beneficial effects for the country. It will probably add substantially to the gross national product and will result in the employment of a number of people and the production of a commodity desired in the world and for which Canada has the opportunity of establishing an export market. Nevertheless, the legislation involves the expenditure of $10 million of the taxpayers' money.
One advantage of sending a bill of this kind to a standing committee, as was done by the Conservative government in 1960 and 1961 with two major construction programs, one involving the Mattagami railway in the province of Quebec and the other the Great Slave Lake railway, is that it provides an opportunity for members of the standing committee to ask a series of questions with regard to the cost, traffic guarantees, the amount of traffic that will be generated, and whether the freight changes will be agreed rates. All of these questions are very pertinent. In authorizing this measure we are acting for the taxpayers of Canada, because this $10 million will come from the consolidated revenue fund. Therefore I will put these questions to the minister now. He may not be able to answer them specifically, but I suggest that he at least give us a guarantee that when the bill is considered by the committee of the whole house, if that is the way the house decides to proceed, the minister will have available to him his officials armed with the facts.
We want to know what will be the cost per mile of this railway. We have been told in general what traffic will be generated, but we should like to know the gross amount of the traffic and what guarantees there are. We also
October 7, 1968	COMMONS
want to know over what period of years this traffic will be maintained. We should like to know what guarantees there will be as to quantity and yearly shipment. We should like to know about the freight rate and compare it with the rates in other comparable operations. Will it in fact be an agreed rate?
We should also like to know whether there is any overriding guarantee as to the total minimum traffic, and over what period of years. We should like some information as to the amount of employment generated both at the plants involved and also on the railway itself. We should like to know what will be the value of the production planned and to what extent it will result in an increase in the gross national product.
In his speech at the resolution stage the minister said, as reported on page 638 of Hansard:
The management of the C.N.R. has informed me that by means of traffic guarantee contracts made with the two companies whose names I have mentioned, the C.N.R. is assured that the products of these plants will be shipped over the new lines and over the other lines of the C.N.R. in such volumes that the revenue therefrom will support all the costs of the lines-
I do not doubt that, Mr. Speaker, but I think hon. members are entitled to have a look at these agreements and know what is involved in them. There have been eases in the past where railroads have indicated what in their view would be the means of raising revenue from freight to cover the cost of building a new line and subsequently they have been disappointed.
I suggest these are facts to which we are entitled. Certainly in the case of both railway projects to which I referred the standing committee made a careful and detailed study. Questions were asked of the C.N.R. officials and of the minister. When the time came that the committee was ready to make its recommendations to the house the committee was satisfied, after a full and searching inquiry, that the project was in fact one which deserved the support of the house and all the facts were before the house.
I do not doubt that this will be the case now, and I appreciate, of course, the need for haste. I understand that time is of the essence and that there is a need to get the project launched and construction started as early as possible this fall. Although the time spent in sending the matter to the standing committee and then waiting for it to come back here may seriously retard the commencement of the construction and completion of the railway,
DEBATES	867
Canadian National Railways nevertheless I think we are entitled to the information to which I have referred.
Therefore I ask the minister, who I think has not spoken yet, whether he would indicate to the house in closing the debate-I hope it will not be long-that we have his assurance and guarantee that these facts will be made available during the committee stage and perhaps also the agreements in question to which I referred. 1 do not think there is anything secret in them. Certainly the contracts involving the construction of the Pine Point railway and the agreements between Pine Point Mines, the C.N.R. and the government were all made available and examined in some detail by the members of the committee, who were quite well satisfied. I make this request for information so that when we get into committee hon. members house will have some idea of the pertinent facts.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question. He said that documents relating to the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway were made available to members of a committee. To which committee was he referring?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think at that time it was called the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which has since yielded place to the committee on transportation and communications.


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


Edward Richard Schreyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should answer the questions that have been asked by the hon. member for Peace River. If he does not know the facts then we should have the No. 1 transport minister here instead of the No. 2 transport minister. Some of the clauses need explaining. One clause suggests that there should not be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to remind the hon. member that the bill is now before us for second reading and it would not be in order to refer to clauses individually.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to rise to close the debate till all hon. members who wished to had spoken.
October 7, 1968

Canadian National Railways [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I realize that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate. While we are dealing with Bill No. C-109 I feel I have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the house and the minister a matter which has been before us for quite some time now.
In Bill No. C-109 we are being asked to authorize the Canadian National Railways to expend a certain amount of money to construct a line of railway in northern Alberta. No one is objecting to this provision. Some years ago a bill similar in intent and purpose to the one now before the house was introduced and passed, and as a result the Canadian National called for tenders for the building of the Great Slave Lake railway. For the past two and a half to three years hon. members on this side and on the government side of the house have asked the Minister of Transport to look into the matter of improper tendering with respect to that railway. Allegations have been made that serious errors in the enforcement of the terms of contract were made by the Canadian National, as a result of which some contracting firms engaged in building that railway for the C.N.R. went into bankruptcy.
I realize that under the rules there are limitations on how deeply I can go into the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway by the Canadian National. To keep the matter brief and to the point, I and other hon. members of this house do not feel under any obligation at this time to vote additional sums of money under this bill for a new line to be built by the Canadian National until we receive some answers from the Minister of Transport on a matter which he says he has been studying for some time.
About March 20 last I asked the Minister of Transport whether he had received any claims accompanied by briefs from those construction firms that had been engaged in the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway. The minister said he had received claims and briefs, that they were complex and voluminous and that he needed time to study them. Several months have passed since then and in the meantime some firms have been forced into receivership and bankruptcy. Some were forced into bankruptcy before the matter was brought to the minister's attention by members of this house. Since that time I understand one or two other firms engaged in the construction have also been forced into receivership.

Lest the Acting Minister of Transport tries to say that those contractors who worked for the Canadian National ought to have exercised their rights and brought their claims before the courts, I wish to say that all possible legal avenues have been exhausted. The situation is very like the one that existed in the early 1960's when the northern Ontario pipe line was constructed. At that time five or six construction firms were placed in a precarious and untenable financial position, not through their own fault but as a result of sloppy specifications which were given for job tenders by the crown corporation involved. As a consequence a number of firms which lost heavily in the construction of the pipe line made claims for compensation. I do not care whether one considers an extra payment an ex gratia payment from the crown. The fact is that the contracting firms I have just referred to had no alternative but to make a special claim for payment. The matter was brought before the Treasury Board in 1961, I believe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member for a moment. He himself had reservations about whether his remarks on the Great Slave Lake railway had any bearing on the matter now before the house. It is always difficult for the Chair to determine at what point we stray beyond the four corners of a motion, but in my view a discussion of the construction of another railway line, the Great Slave Lake line to which the hon. member has referred, is somewhat beyond the terms of this bill. The discussion on the bill need not be entirely relevant but the hon. member may wish to bring his contribution closer perhaps to the principle of the bill now under consideration.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I was actually supporting the contention of the hon. member for Peace River who said that the subject matter of this bill ought to be placed before a committee so that we could look in detail at the operations of the Canadian National relative to the construction of a railway line similar to that envisaged in this bill.
During the past year Your Honour will no doubt recall that I tried repeatedly to obtain from the Minister of Transport some indication as to what he and his department were doing with respect to the outstanding claims which have been entered by contractors who, I repeat, were forced into bankruptcy as a result of the manner in which the Canadian National enforced the conditions of contract when the Great Slave Lake railway was being constructed.
October 7, 1968

That matter, I know, has no direct relevance to the substance of Bill C-109, except in one connection.
We are now being asked to vote a sum of money to the Canadian National in order to enable it to construct a railway. I suggest, and I think many hon. members agree with me, that we should not be in a hurry to do so until we are satisfied that the Canadian National is prepared to settle satisfactorily and conscionably the claims of those contractors who were forced into bankruptcy some six or seven years ago. I think there is a direct connection between what happened in the past and what we are now asked to do. Unless we obtain from the Minister of Transport some indication of action, the contractors to whom I have referred will all be forced into personal and corporate bankruptcy.
I make one final plea to the Acting Minister of Transport to communicate with his colleague and persuade him to appear before this house when we are dealing with Bill C-109 in committee of the whole so that he may explain what has been done in the past several months to deal with the urgent petitions, pleas and requests not only of the owners or heads of the contracting firms involved but of hon. members of this house. I could name names although I hesitate to do so, not having asked hon. members if they wish to have their names mentioned in connection with this matter. Many hon. members have made representations to the Minister of Transport and a Senator in the other place has also made representations in order to- and here I use a colloquialism-to clean up this mess of the past several years.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words regarding Bill No. C-109 respecting, and I quote:
-the construction of a line of railway in the Province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Windfall on the Windfall Extension to the Sangudo Subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a westerly direction-
This deals with the construction of a 60 mile line at an average cost of $174,000 per mile or at an estimated cost of $10,435,000 according to the schedule. I hope that the government, the Minister of Transport and the officials of the department have carefully studied the margin of profit which can be expected from a construction which is going to cost $10 or 12 millions.
869
Canadian National Railways
The bill mentions that the Minister of Finance will have authority to advance money, to make loans available, not in excess of $12 million. In addition, the contract will be awarded by tenders. This is still no guarantee that the contract will go to the lowest bidder. The contractor's solvency will probably be considered. Should a tender be a little higher than the lowest one and should the contractor be more solvent, the government reserves the right to choose the tenderer it pleases.
Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to call the minister's attention to this point. At a time when the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. are forced to abandon some railway lines, as is now the case with the Ontario Northland Railway in northwestern Quebec and northeastern Ontario, has the government studied closely whether it would be economic to build a railway line in Alberta? Will it still be used in five or ten years, in view of the fact that the trucking industry could undoubtedly meet the needs of the area which will be served by the C.N.R.?
If the operation of this railway line becomes less economic year after year, I wonder whether, at a time when credit is so hard to get, at a time when it is so difficult to undertake constructions that would be useful to our people, the government would not be well-advised to consider thoroughly that matter and the situation in that area of Alberta. The fact is not that we object to the construction of a railway line, far from it. However, if the trucking industry should meet the requirements in that area of Alberta, I cannot see why the government would assume the responsibility of constructing such a line which would finally cost $10 to $12 million.
If we follow the example of the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, the construction of that railroad could well cost $35 million. We should, therefore, examine very carefully that proposal for the construction of a railroad in Alberta. We should ascertain whether that project will be profitable. Will the Canadian National make a profit by operating that railroad? If it is proved that it will, then we will not oppose it. On the other hand, if it is doubtful, in view of the fact that people turn more and more to trucking instead of railroads, then I feel that the Canadian government is not authorized to spend from $10 to $12 million for the construction of a railroad that will be abandoned within a few years.
These then, Mr. Speaker, are a few of the impressions I had on reading Bill No. C-109. I say again that we have no objection to the
October 7, 1968

Canadian National Railways construction of that railroad as long as it is profitable. But, if there is any doubt about that, then I feel the government should give the bill a six months hoist and prepare other bills likely to help the citizens of the area which Bill No. C-109 is intended to assist.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested lately in the subject of government contracts and I was particularly interested in what was said by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schrey-er) regarding the contracts which will be let following the passage of this legislation. The conditions and guarantees for which provision is made when such contracts are entered into are diverse in nature, as I have found from recent experience.
I should like to refer to two provisions which in my opinion the bill before us should contain. One relates to the point made by the hon. member for Selkirk. In providing a guarantee of financial assistance to the railway company the government should retain a certain amount of power to prescribe the conditions of contracts to be let under this arrangement. The situation which developed in connection with the Great Slave Lake railway could easily develop in the case of the line we are now considering. The point raised by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) was that the present arrangement might result in expenditures much greater than those anticipated in the bill we are now considering.
The failure in the past of the government and of crown corporations to make adequate provisions for the protection of those engaged in the construction of public works is much to be regretted. The powers of the federal government are rarely sufficient to make sure that tendering procedures are effective. I might refer to a case of which you, Mr. Speaker, have intimate knowledge. In the reconstruction of the west block, for instance, there turned out to be no relationship between the original tenders and the final amount paid in connection with every aspect of the contract. This is true in respect of many government contracts, if not of most of them. Yet this bill seems to contain no means of protection against the type of possibility which is bothering the hon. member for Temiscamingue in relation to the national arts centre.
In my own area we have encountered a great deal of difficulty this year in connection with a government contract. In this case peo-

pie in one province are employed as prime contractors to carry out public works in another province. I realize that the employment picture of Ontario Hydro has no relation to the present bill except in the sense that employment is affected, but it is relevant to point out that when the Quebec provincial government lets a contract it specifies that the people employed must come from that province. Not only the contractors but the workmen employed must come from that province. This affects Ontario workers. People living near the border, unable to obtain employment in connection with Quebec Hydro projects, have even found themselves denied employment in Ontario because they lack the experience which Quebec workers have gained while employed in both provinces.
I raise this point because I think it is time we took advantage of experience gained in letting contracts in northern areas where local inhabitants must be given preference in terms of employment. I believe a similar provision should be written into the bill before us because I see no other way in which this result can be achieved in the absence of general or overriding legislation on this point. I recall legislation brought in by a former minister of northern affairs in which there was a clause to the effect that the native population should be given preference in terms of employment whenever they were available and suitable. If we cannot have over-all legislation providing for this type of employment then it should be a factor in this bill. I recommend to the minister sponsoring the bill that a clause be written into it providing for a 10 per cent local employment factor, which in turn will be inserted in the tenders issued to the contractors.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are going into a totally new development area. People living in that area have no alternative form of employment. Contractors should be made aware of the need to provide local employment, and it is our responsibility to see that this is done. It would obviate some of the problems that plagued contractors in the Great Slave Lake area with regard to local employment.
This bill takes the form of many such pieces of legislation that come before us. It does not take into account the aspirations of the federal government and of others with respect to native populations. Unless consideration is given to this matter now, difficulties
October 7, 1968

will arise. Those difficulties could be forestalled if the government inserted in the bill the two clauses I have suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction and completion.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, what is the position of the minister with regard to the series of questions I posed? I recognize that all of the facts may not be available at this time. If so, may I suggest we stand clause 1 if the minister is not able to answer the questions and provide us with copies of the agreements, or at least tell us the essence of the agreements. We could then proceed with the other clauses in the expectation that before the committee stage is finished he will provide us with the facts. However, if he is able to provide us with all the answers I would be happy to hear him now.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to reply to the questions that have been raised. First of all, may I say that in considering this bill it may be reassuring to hon. members for me to point out that except for necessary changes pertaining to geographical location and dollar amounts the form and provisions of the bill are in all other respects similar to legislation passed by the house from time to time authorizing the construction of C.N.R. branch lines.
The question of the traffic agreements has been raised. Such agreements have been negotiated between the C.N.R., the Pan American Petroleum Corporation and the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, and they guarantee annual shipments over the C.N.R. line of 75 per cent of all production of sulphur and liquid petroleum gas from both plants, with a minimum of 223,000 long tons of sulphur. I think it will be evident to all hon. members that the guaranteed shipment of this large tonnage of sulphur makes the branch line an attractive addition to the C.N.R. system.
I would like to elaborate further although I must in fairness point out that the competitive position of the C.N.R., both in relation to other railways and other methods of transportation, as well as the C.N.R.'s negotiating position with the companies concerned, indicate that it is not appropriate to discuss the anticipated earnings of the railway, but I have been assured by officials of the railway, as I stated earlier, that the operation of this
29180-56J

Canadian National Railways branch line will provide a satisfactory earning for the railroad.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go back to other legislation except for purposes of comparison, but I would point out to the minister that in the Great Slave Lake railway bill reference was made to certain agreements and clause 6(b) stated there would be a guarantee to the company by Pine Point Mines Limited:
-of such traffic volume over the railway line as will, in the opinion of the company, be sufficient to ensure recovery of the cost of operating and maintaining the railway line based on such freight rates and for such period of time as may be set out in the agreement;
In other words, a statutory obligation was placed on the government to make sure an agreement of this kind had been entered into, and it was this undertaking of the government, followed up by members of the standing committee, that provided the basis for the passage of the statute. Of course a much larger amount was involved in that case, $86 million.
I understand the position with regard to the competitive situation of the railway. Personally I am not going to intervene in this regard, but from the agreements could the minister, paraphrasing as well as he can, indicate the number of years involved and the gross and net income to the company in that period? I think a combination of that information plus the information that the minister has given might well indicate to the committee that there is an undertaking by the railway company, pursuant to these traffic agreements, to obtain from the people principally concerned net revenue that will cover the cost of construction of this rail fine.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this statement will be satisfactory to the hon. member. The officials of the C.N.R. have confirmed that gross railway earnings generated from the operations of these two sulphur recovery plants will meet all expenses of operation and maintenance of the branch fine, the cost of transporting the industry's traffic on other lines of the C.N.R. system, plus interest and amortizing of the cost of the branch line, and produce a satisfactory surplus for the railway.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, the acting minister suggested there were guaranteed shipments amounting to 75 per cent of the sulphur. How long is this guaranteed? He gave

October 7, 1968
Canadian National Railways the amount of the return, but is there a specified period of time?


James Armstrong Richardson: The period of time is 15 years.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether the minister is in a position to tell us more about the conditions of this area. It is in a fairly undeveloped part of the country where there is a large though generally sparse, Indian population.
I am sure the people in this area are interested in the employment factor. When this type of proposition came up in respect of the Panarctic Oil company the former minister of northern affairs made a declaration which eventually became part of the contract between the oil company and those doing the work, and there had to be a certain amount of local employment. I see no reason that this cannot continue in this case in order that a percentage of the people employed must be people in the local area. I should like to know whether the minister has considered this and, if so, what the intention is.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member was speaking during second reading I made a note of his observations regarding local employment. I will certainly pass his concern on to the officials of the C.N.R.


William Arnold Peters: The minister will have to do something more than pass on those observations. The C.N.R. will have been granted a concession when this bill has been passed. We have been informed that the cost of this operation will be amortized and recovered over a period of 15 years through the sales of sulphur. We are giving this concession to the C.N.R. and in return we should have some definite commitment from the company about the advantages the area will have.
I was very pleased with the former minister of northern affairs, now the Minister of Public Works, as a result of the declaration he made. It was very positive and definite. The company was not to be assisted unless certain conditions were met. There was an increase in local employment. It is my belief there are a number of people in this area who are skilled and could be employed on this construction.
I remember an occasion when a $40 million contract was awarded in my own area and it appeared that one company from Montreal intended to bring in its own people to work in that area. That company intended to

exploit our water resources and it was not even going to employ local workers. A great fuss was made, in which I was involved, and we were able to change the situation. I suggest there will be great resentment on the part of the people in the area of this line if the company does not employ local people on heavy construction of this nature.
The Canadian National is not a benevolent organization and it has never been. It has always tried to make the biggest profit possible for its owners, namely, the crown and the shareholders of the old Grand Trunk. If we write in these conditions I think there will be support for the project in the area. Surely this is an obligation we should accept. These conditions should be made in a formal way.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, at least part of the work will be contracted out to others and will be beyond the control of the C.N.R., particularly having regard to employment. However, to the extent that this work is done by the C.N.R. the hon. member's suggestion will be borne in mind. I think it is a very good one.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the acting minister could tell us whether the C.N.R. is now ready to call for tenders and when it will be ready to start construction after the awarding of contracts.


James Armstrong Richardson: The company would like to start construction at the earliest possible moment so as to get going before the winter season in Alberta. The company will be calling for tenders as soon as this legislation has been passed. It is anticipated that construction will take about a year.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the exchange between the hon. member for Timiskaming and the minister about the value of the suggestion made by that hon. member regarding local employment. I was pleased to hear the minister's response in that he said it was a good idea which he supported wholeheartedly and would communicate to the C.N.R. Perhaps this is not very kind to the Minister of Transport, but if this is such a good idea why did he not think of it before? That minister has been in the government for a number of years, as has the former minister of northern development who had great concern for native peoples, particularly in respect of employment. We should have some communication from the Minister of Transport who is responsible for this bill as to why this idea was not incorporated in the bill in the first
October 7, 1968	COMMONS
place. The acting	minister apparently
endorses it as a good idea, but we are concerned about the Minister of Transport who obviously has not endorsed it. Otherwise it would be in the bill.


James Armstrong Richardson: I hardly think it is right to say that the minister would not endorse it. Surely he would assume, as I would, that the C.N.R. and other companies who will be given the contracts will try to use all the local labour they can. This would be the natural thing for them to do.


Frank Howard: The history of the C.N.R. and those contractors who do work of this kind does not indicate that to be the case. It only occurs when there is a directive written into the contract. It only happens when there is an obligation on the company to do so. It then follows this course because it is required to do so, not as a result of generosity. This is something the Minister of Transport will have to account for somewhere along the line, perhaps even tomorrow.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Competitive bids or tenders.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I should like sincerely to urge the acting minister to give consideration to the fact that the company should adopt the principle of competitive bids or tenders for such work or any part thereof that it does with its own forces prior to calling for bids or tenders from outside sources. We all know there has been a great deal of contracting out by the Canadian National. All companies concerned with railway operation and construction should have an opportunity to bid in respect of the laying of this trackage and the construction of the roadbed needed for the trackage.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think this would only be appropriate in view of the fact that the acting minister has already said that he believes the people in the area should be given preference. Under the circumstances the company should adopt the principle of giving these people the preference of employment before calling for competitive bids. I appreciate that bids may have to be called for in order to come up with a competitive proposal and price vis-a-vis what the railway's own operating people can do and what a contractor can do. This is only to get things in line so far as bookkeeping is concerned. I am certain we should adopt the
DEBATES	873
Canadian National Railways idea that the employees should have first chance at this project. I ask the acting minister to look seriously at this question in order to give the railway's own forces prior consideration. This would be most advantageous to those people in the area.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I suppose this matter would come under clause 2. My question concerns facilities available to railway employees while the construction is in progress. From what I have seen of railroad construction, those doing the work are continually on the move a few miles a day. In this part of the country I suspect there are very few and probably no facilities in terms of places in which to eat and sleep. I refer to accommodation and facilities for those working on the job who move with the track-laying equipment.
Undoubtedly when railway workers are doing the work the railway will supply boarding cars. Does the minister know whether there is any requirement in the tenders and subsequent contracts signed by contractors calling for a minimum standard of eating, sleeping and recreational facilities to be provided by the contractor? If this is not the case, will the minister take up this matter with Canadian National?
We run into situations where there are a large number of wildcat strikes. Some are very close to the minister's area and some are very close to the area of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. This is quite general during the construction stage in such large operations. I think there should be some requirement in the contracts whereby contractors must provide a good standard of eating, sleeping and recreational facilities because in this part of Canada-the hon. member for Peace River could tell us better- I suspect there are absolutely no such facilities available off the scene of construction.
I hope the minister will remind Canadian National that certainly in some cases the calibre and quality of the facilities provided for their employees are most inadequate. Some of the old boarding cars that have been used for extra gangs you and I, Mr. Chairman, would not keep cattle in. If these people are to be 200, 300 or 400 miles away from any large settlement or centre, they must have decent living, eating and sleeping facilities. I hope the acting minister will pass this on to Canadian National and assure them that this matter will be watched.
October 7, 1968

Canadian National Railways


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I realize lull well that the Acting Minister of Transport said the C.N.R. would like to get going on the construction of this line of railway in northern Alberta just as quickly as possible. Like other hon. members, I would like to see this public work completed. It would contribute greatly to the economic development of this part of the country. But it is not as simple as that. The Canadian National may be in a hurry now but it apparently is not always in a hurry when it comes to dealing with problems which come before it.
I say again to the Acting Minister of Transport that since he has become involved in this department and is helping the minister to deal with the problems in this portfolio, he should ask for the files of the C.N.R. regarding the construction of the Great Slave Lake, Pine Point railway. Some construction firms, Hatch Construction, Pete Rohl Construction, Ginter Construction, Krywa Brothers Construction, Lucas Construction and others, have been put into bankruptcy because of clause 16 of the form of contract.
This form of contract has been used by the C.N.R. in reaching agreement with construction firms which undertake to build roadbeds for them. I do not know how long clause 16 has been a normal part of the form of contract used by the C.N.R. Rumour has it that after many years and in fact decades this clause has been dropped. I wish I knew for sure. I would certainly hesitate to vote sums of money to be provided to the C.N.R., which will be used to pay contractors for the building of this new railway, if I felt there was a chance that clause 16 was still in the form of contract.
Clause 16 was in the form of contract in the case of the construction of Great Slave Lake railway. This clause was enforced in such an unconscionable way that it contributed directly to the bankruptcy of four or five road construction companies. The acting minister must, and I am sure he will, avail himself of all the briefs, printed documents and material which have accumulated in the office of the Minister of Transport. I am sure the acting minister will want to look at this material in detail to see what course of action can now be followed in order to redress the grievances of these people. There is no use talking about their right of access to the courts. In some cases justice, unfortunately, still is not obtainable without money with which to hire legal counsel, etc.

Most of these construction companies were bonded. In one, two or three instances the bonding companies exerted such pressure on the contractors that they forced them to sign off. The harshness of it is that the contractors simply had no legal recourse but morally, in terms of what was right and ethical, I am satisfied they have an iron-clad case. I am just about sick of the Minister of Transport taking seven months to make up his mind whether he thinks they have a case.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 2 carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words before we proceed past clause 2. After reading the clause I think perhaps the appropriate time to deal with this matter was in the earlier discussion. However, that is immaterial.
This is the clause that refers to Canadian National, the company, adopting the principle of bids and tenders and thus negotiating better prices. The clause provides that the company does not necessarily have to accept the lowest or any bid, etc. This clause embodies the authority to enter into a contractual relationship for the carrying out of the construction work.
Regardless of whether the suggestion of my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming, is considered a good one by the minister and will be passed on to Canadian National, in the absence of anything written into the law that we are now considering that would make it a requirement for Canadian National to do something I think that in view of the activities of Canadian National its attitude toward contractors it may hire from to time will preclude any generosity on its part.
I have some fairly harsh thoughts about Canadian National in another context and in relationship to some other forms of activity. For a publicly owned company I do not believe it to be the least bit progressive, desirous of advancing the interests of the economy, or anything of that sort. It is, rather, a sort of ultraconservative, status quo type of corporate structure that can become pretty callous and have a great deal of disregard for the well-being of people.
Apart from that, there is a factor in our economic life I do not particularly like, which I am sure many other hon. members do not like either, that may well come into play with respect to any of the contractors the C.N. engages to do any of its work. The situation to which I refer would arise from the type of collective agreement between any one union
October 7, 1968	COMMONS
and the company containing the so-called closed shop principle. Incidentally, this is a principle with which I do not agree, particularly because it militates against the employment of people within the locale where the work is taking place. This is a supposition in regard to this proposed construction, but it is an actual situation in many cases.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It has been my experience in the past that the situation can arise where a union having its local headquarters in one of the major cities within a province will have a collective agreement with an employer who has a contract to perform construction work 500, 800 or 1,000 miles distant from the headquarters of the union and in some cases from the headquarters of the construction company itself. Because of the closed shop principle contained in such collective agreements under which a person wishing to be employed on the job must first be a member of the union, we find that construction crews from the cities go out into the hinterland or into rural areas to perform the construction work. People in the local area, regardless of the fact that they may be perfectly qualified tradesmen in the particular occupation that is involved, are precluded from having any opportunity to become gainfully employed on that construction project because there is a collective agreement which works against them.
As a further extension of the concept advanced by the hon. member for Timiska-ming, in the initial instance this situation would apply to the people indigenous to the area, particularly to the native Indian people, but it might equally well apply to anyone else in the area. Unless we can write in the bill some requirement that Canadian National Railways, which in any event does not have a good history in this regard, must provide employment to the local people, it will not be done for a number of reasons which I have just advanced.
I have just been consulting with some of my colleagues and we find we do not have at hand what we would consider appropriate wording by way of an amendment to guarantee the opportunity of employment to people in the area where the construction will take place. However, surely the Minister of Public Works, because he was the minister of Indian affairs and northern development when a conscious effort was made to ensure in legal terms that people indigenous to an area were given employment opportunities, will find in
DEBATES	875
Canadian National Railways the files of his department or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development an appropriate wording which could be applied here. In this way the good point supported by the minister will become an actual fact. Perhaps consultation could take place between the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to see whether or not such wording exists. Since this matter has been dealt with before, surely there is appropriate wording which was used successfully in the past and which we could perhaps incorporate into this clause.
I should like to ask the minister in a informal way if he could indicate whether he would be in favour of holding this clause over until the appropriate wording is found to give the protection which we all want to give. If the wording is not immediately available, we could hold it over until tomorrow or even until later today.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I listened with great interest to his accusation of reaction against the C.N.R. I make no comment on this, but may I ask whether the hon. member is trying to prevent reaction in employment practices within the unions? In other words, who is being reactionary, or are we both? I commend him for his honesty in his answer.


Frank Howard: I am sure the hon. member need not have asked his question because he heard what I said and I was quite clear about the closed shop principle. I do not believe in it. I do not think a union should have the right to determine whether or not a person should get employment in the first instance.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Chairman, the point has been very well made and I have accepted its validity. May I say that I will convey it to officials of the C.N.R. I really do not think it would be appropriate to bind the company with legislation on this point. I really do not believe we should entertain any alteration to the bill as drafted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, could the acting minister tell us whether the C.N.R. has as yet acquired any right of way? I do not expect him to know how much right of way they have, but does it go through crown land? If it does, has it been purchased or is it leased from the crown, and what kind of a lease is it? Is it for 99 years or for 33? Does any part of this right of way pass through

October 7, 1968
Judges Act
Indian land or Indian reserve holdings, and what kind of arrangements were made to compensate them?


James Armstrong Richardson: I do not have information at the present time about the ownership of the land but I do believe a right of way has been acquired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Could the acting minister also tell us whether the railway has started any construction of the roadbed, of the right of way fences or any construction with their own crews up to this time?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, the main work on this line awaits this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By leave, now.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I just want to say, sir, that I am not prepared to give unanimous consent unless the minister can report in detail on the decisions that have been taken by the department concerning the validity of the claims in connection with the contracts involved in the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



JUDGES ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for three additional Ontario County Court judges and eleven additional Quebec Superior Court judges.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As hon. members will note, Mr. Chairman, the resolution provides for three additional Ontario County Court judges and 11 additional Quebec Superior Court judges. Perhaps I might address a few remarks to the second of the

two basic proposals involved in the resolution. I point out that the necessity for the 11 additional Quebec Superior Court judges, which hon. members will at once recognize as an important addition to the judicial force of that particular province, has been the direct result of the decision by the province of Quebec to take advantage of legislation passed at the last session to amend the divorce law.
If hon. members will recall, at the time that bill was before the house it was not anticipated that Quebec would, at least in the current year, take advantage of the opportunity to assume jurisdiction over divorce. It was assumed that the province would continue to use proceedings which had been established over the years for the granting of divorce by parliament. However, late in the month of June the Quebec government made a decision to take advantage of the provisions in that divorce measure which made it possibel for that province, as well as the province of Newfoundland, to assume jurisdiction over divorce. The necessity arises, therefore, to provide for additional judges so that the courts may exercise jurisdiction in this area. This is the reason for seeking these additions to the Quebec bench at this particular time.
It is my understanding that the three additional positions for the Ontario County Court really result from the normal increase in litigious business resulting from the growth of the province.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the Minister of Justice here because I wanted to say something very complimentary to him. First of all, I want to congratulate him on his recent appointment of Chief Justice Val Milvain of the trial division of Alberta. I feel he is the type and calibre of man, and I am sure the bar association of Alberta as well as the Canadian Bar Association will agree with me, that we need in this position in Alberta. He will add dignity to the judiciary and will do a fine job as one of the judges of the trial division. I believe, too, he will supply the necessary administrative skill to take care of the backlog that may exist in many of our courts. I should also like to say that we have had very good appointments to the bench. I can speak for the two provinces in which I have practiced, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Mr. Orlikow:: Was he a Tory?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly there have been members of parliament appointed. I have always taken the view that experience gained
October 7, 1968

in parliament is helpful to a judge in coming to a conclusion when certain important cases come before him. On the whole, I would say that appointments to the judiciary have been very good. My friend asked if I want an appointment, but I would tell him that I am quite happy with the position I now hold.
This resolution contains two very simple propositions. As the President of the Privy Council said, on behalf of the Minister of Justice who was absent for a moment, provision is made for increasing the number of County Court judges in Ontario and adding 11 additional judges to the Quebec Superior Court. It goes without saying, and even without mentioning the additional jurisdiction in connection with divorce, that the growth of urban centres in Canada, as in other countries, has increased the work load of the courts of our various provinces. There is a backlog of cases, both civil and criminal. I do not know but perhaps the minister will tell me how many judges of the Quebec Superior Court there are now. In view of the additional jurisdiction in connection with divorce, I would say this resolution results from a recommendation by the Attorney General of Quebec.
When we are talking about the appointment of judges there is one thing I should like to mention to the Minister of Justice. This is no criticism of the present minister. I am referring to cases that come before the superior courts of the provinces in which judgments are reserved. Frequently in this country judgments are reserved for months on end. I know in my own province that at one time some cases had been reserved for two or three years during which time citizens of that province were denied a judgment. The United States system may seem harsh, but after a certain number of cases have piled up on a judge's desk for a certain length of time his salary stops until he catches up. It seems to me these people sometimes procrastinate far too long.
I think it may be well to underline the fact that amendments to the Criminal Code are coming before the house soon. There is not much change, I understand, between the former bill and the new bill in so far as the jurisdiction of the various courts in criminal matters is concerned. There is no doubt that there has been an acceleration in crime, and this was mentioned during the question period. I do not have the statistics before me, but I have a newspaper article with the heading,
Judges Act
"Underworld Toll At 15 In Montreal". The article reads:
The count of "underworld killings" in the Montreal area stood at 14 dead since last February after police discovered the bodies of a young couple in the trunk of a car Saturday.
But by Sunday the toll appeared to have mounted to 15 with the discovery of a young man's body in a car cemetery near Huntingdon, 20 miles southeast of here.
He had been shot and had apparently died of bullet wounds in the head and neck-
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It seems to me that one of the things we must have is a strong police force in order to solve crimes. Then, when criminals are brought before the courts, we need an expedient administration to bring them to trial and, if they are found guilty, to hand out a proper penalty.
There are two kinds of crime, Mr. Chairman. The notion that crime can be described in a single category is erroneous. Violent crime creates a climate of fear in the streets of our growing cities. White collar crime, in economic terms, is much less visible than violent crime. The material cost of crime, such as petty theft, consumer fraud, violations of the Combines Act and embezzlement, dwarfs all crimes of violence, even in Canada. However, to control violent crime and white collar crime, we must have laws that are practical and acceptable to modern and new interpretations of life and human behaviour. One move in the right direction, of course, is to increase the capacity of the courts to handle the cases that come before them.
I might say that I read the recent article in Maclean's magazine, and the minister is a great reporter. I thought that in this regard he was wearing the new jacket of the Prime Minister, whether or not the reforms came from him or from the Prime Minister. However, I recommend to him that he make some real changes in the Criminal Code so as to make our courts expedient. Justice must flow so that everyone has an equal chance, those with money and those without.
Proper laws and proper law enforcement cannot be underestimated in the control of crime, but I have felt for years that we must get at the breeding grounds of crime. Crime breeds in the cesspools of injustice and poverty in the urban slums of our fast growing cities. Urban poverty makes the people who dwell there the victims, not the masters, of their environment. The bad environment becomes the hereditary legacy of the next generation. In order to launch a major assault

October 7. 1968
Judges Act
on crime we must make an attack on the conditions of despair and the denial of human opportunity in which crime can grow. However, crime still thrives under conditions of affluence, and it is the white collar, economic crime which is eroding the capitalistic system and promoting more controls and less freedom.
In brief then, police, courts and prisons cannot alone control crime. We must also deal with the underlying cause of crime-the immense and stubborn forces pervading our environment, measuring our character and determining the quality of our lives.
Through long range effort in a new land of bountiful resources we can conquer poverty, ignorance, disease, discrimination, family breakdown, injustice, social tension and despair. But while we must strive to uproot the causes of crime we must put our practical mind to work to amend the various sections of the Criminal Code to guarantee that the law is respected, that it is not shaped and planned so that it protects the rich and creates injustice against the poor. Crime is a national problem by our constitution, while law enforcement is a provincial and local responsibility. This parliament must direct its processes to ensuring criminal justice. It is for us to bring excellence to every aspect of the administration of criminal justice. That is why I congratulate the Minister of Justice on the calibre of men he has appointed to the bench during his short time in office.
I have dealt with reserved decisions, Mr. Chairman, and I do not quite know what is the answer. Perhaps a letter from the minister to the chief justices of the various provinces would help. We have to cure the problem created by judgments that are reserved for a long time, because this prevents the wheels of justice from turning.
I am also concerned about something I read recently. There is now a bill before the other place, no doubt promoted by the government and which will be here soon, in connection with amending the legislation that deals with the Supreme Court of Canada. We have increased the number of judges of the Superior Court trial division of one province and of the County Court of another, and since this resolution is now before the committee it might be appropriate to consider what will happen under those amendments to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada. That bill seeks to put justice on a strictly materialistic basis whereby civil cases will not come before that court, if the bill

becomes law, unless the amount involved is at least $10,000 and unless there is a question of law at stake.
First of all, let me deal with the question of law. I think the Supreme Court of Canada is overworked; there is no question of that. Perhaps the Minister of Justice or the appropriate officials of the crown would consider the possibility of enlarging the court. However, I suggest that before we cut down on the number of cases that come before that court we should be very careful in our approach.
We must remember that if we take away the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and declare that in civil matters where property or human rights are concerned no one shall come before the court unless the amount involved is at least $10,000 or there is a point of law to be decided, we are shutting the door of justice. People in Canada and also small corporations would be deprived of the right to appeal their cases to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land.
The Minister of Justice has been a trial lawyer, like many of us in this house, and he appreciates one of the great responsibilities of a trial judge in the superior court, of whom we shall be shortly naming a number in the province of Quebec. I have often wondered about the kind of power such a judge has but I do not know how to alter this power in our field of jurisprudence. I refer to the power of a trial judge to find the facts of a case.
What do I mean by that? Let me explain it for the benefit of those who do not practise before the bar. For example, ten witnesses on one side of a case may say one thing and one witness on the other side may say another thing about what may be a very simple matter. The trial judge has the power to come to the conclusion that he believes the one witness and to discard the evidence of the ten witnesses. Once he finds this as a fact, Mr. Chairman, you are stuck with that fact in the court of appeal and in the Supreme Court of Canada. This becomes a fact in the case unless you can prove that the judge arrived at a certain set of facts on non-existent evidence. That pretty well puts the formula simply.
When you take away from the Supreme Court of Canada, in spite of the rule of jurisprudence that is a rule of common law and not statute law, the right to be able to review the facts of a case, then I submit that once more you are closing the door of justice. 1 fully realize that there may be a question of
Ociober 7, 1968

mixed law and fact, and whether a trial judge has improperly found a fact based on non-existent evidence may itself be a point of law.
I am against such a step on two grounds. Over the week end Senator Roebuck said- and I agree with him-that we are really shutting the door of justice in the Supreme Court of Canada to citizens of the country if we enact a provision stipulating that cases before that court must involve $10,000 or a question of law. The average citizen of Canada will be denied the right to go before the highest court of the land, which to me is a very dangerous approach to justice.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In defence of the Supreme Court of Canada may I say that I think its judges are overworked. The judges of that court do not receive the assistance given to judges of the supreme court of the United States, who have many lawyers behind them to help them in research. In this country our judges have no such facilities and that is why they are overworked, no doubt. I say that the answer to that problem is not to cut down the number of cases that come before the Supreme Court but to enlarge the membership of that court, if it needs to be enlarged, just as we are enlarging the membership of the Superior Court of Quebec and the County Courts of Ontario.
Before the Minister of Justice seeks to diminish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada he ought to read the speech Senator Roebuck made in the other place last week. He ought to study it well and think about it before taking away the rights of the average people of Canada. I say that even at present our system of justice falls below the level it ought to achieve in any just society. Here I adopt the words of an hon. member to my left who said there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor. That is so. The quality of justice a litigant obtains from the courts all too often is determined by the intelligence and ability of the man who represents him before the bar of justice, whether the action is of a civil or criminal nature. We must be careful before we curtail the jurisdiction of courts.
The President of the Privy Council said that one reason for increasing the number of Quebec judges was that the new divorce law entailed much more work for the courts. It seems to me from what I have learned that the rules and regulations under the new divorce legislation are so cumbersome that
Judges Act
those who seek a remedy under the law meet with two difficulties at the present time. First, since the new procedure is so cumbersome, it has become almost too costly to litigate. I do not know what lawyers are now charging for divorce cases. I have not discussed the matter with members of my firm or with members of the Alberta bar, but I am told that under the new rules lawyers must do a great deal more work than they had to do under the old rules. Therefore citizens must pay a great deal more for a divorce than they paid under the old system.
The second problem also has to do with procedure. Here I refer to an example taken from Ontario. Perhaps the Ontario rules ought to be changed in cases where substitu-t'onal service is required. At present a spouse who has been deserted must publish a notice in a newspaper. However, in order to obtain an order to publish the notice the litigant must swear to an affidavit that his spouse will probably read the newspaper in which the notice is to be published. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how can anyone swear to such an affidavit, especially if he has not seen his partner for four or five years or if his partner has gone to Timbuktu or somewhere else? That is making an ass of the law, as Charles Dickens would have said.
The Minister of Justice ought to see that the rules, which are far too cumbersome, are changed. The present requirement for the filing of material should also be changed. I do not think that all the material at present required is necessary. Let us streamline the procedure and make it easy for the average citizen to go to court without incurring too great an expense. That way the litigation time will be cut down and the amount of work judges must do will also be reduced.
On the other hand, I have always taken the view that the price we pay for defending the liberty of the subject can never be too great, and that is why I speak on behalf of this resolution. If the provincial governments have made their recommendation then, naturally, I think it ought to be accepted.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Albert Béchard: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 7, 1968
Judges Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I also think that the
Department of Justice ought to look into the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada. First of all, that court leans towards the crown. Whether one brings an action having to do with an expropriation or with any other wrong, that court is a little pro-crown. Second, even under the new rules the procedure of the court is so cumbersome that it is far too costly for the average citizen to litigate in that court.
In my hand I have a newspaper report concerning a case before the Exchequer Court. I should hate to guess how much this matter cost the litigants. The article was printed on October 3, 1968, and is headed, "No Recourse For Japanese, Lawyer Says". I see that an hon. member from British Columbia has looked up. The report reads:
When the government confiscated properties from Japanese-Canadians during the second world war it was forever and without recourse, a federal government lawyer said yesterday.
Norman Mullins-
He is counsel for the Department of Justice.
-was arguing the government's case in a $1,450,000 claim for compensation by Torazo Iwasaki, 89.
Mr. Mullins said the arguments put forward by counsel for Mr. Iwasaki were rejected 21 years ago by a judgment of a similar claim by Eikichi Nakashima.
The article goes on to say that this property was taken from the Japanese owner during the war and that compensation of $5,000 was paid. Mr. Macleod, counsel for Iwasaki, told the Exchequer Court that Gavin C. Mauat-I am not sure how to pronounce that name-an agent of the Secretary of State, was the custodian of enemy property. Now Mauat is one of the leading members of a syndicate that stands to make $1,450,000 out of the property.


Mr. Perrault:: The matter is before the courts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know, and the court will make its decision.


Raymond J. Perrault: It is still before the courts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If my hon. friend wants to make a speech he should do so at the proper time. I do not wish to enter into an argument with a member on the front bench rump.
I should like to see the Minister of Justice examine the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada as it relates to property rights of citizens and arrange for matters involving property rights to be taken out of
[The Deputy Chairman.!
the Exchequer Court and placed in the Superior Courts and Supreme Courts of the provinces. In that way litigants could afford to have their cases tried. In that way we could go a long way to remedying the old concept that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor in the Exchequer Court.
At present actions involving expropriations are far too costly for the average citizen. Recently a case involving the green belt had cost the litigant $29,000. He tried to come before the court but could not and gave up the ghost and let the matter go. I say that when we talk about appointing judges to Supreme Courts, Superior Courts, the Queen's Bench division or what have you in the various provinces, our first duty, before enlarging or diminishing any jurisdiction, ought to be to make certain there is not one law for the rich man and another law for the poor man.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is one other point I should like to make and it has to do with the calibre of judges to be appointed. I refer to a case with which we are all familiar, the case of Whitfield v. Canadian Marconi Company and the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, later upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, with respect to a contract into which the following clause had been written:
Indian and Eskimo villages are considered out of bounds and personnel are prohibited from fraternizing or associating with the native population except in special circumstances. Infringement of these orders is cause for discharge.
One man fraternized with an Eskimo girl. He was fired. He sued his employer for $25,000. The Quebec court in its ruling had this to say:
In view of my conclusion that the clause complained of is not contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights, I do not propose to discuss whether the Canadian Bill of Rights applies either directly or indirectly to the contract of employment passed in the province of Quebec between Whitfield and Canadian Marconi Company.
The court upheld that clause as being a proper one. If ever there was a case of discrimination being applied, this was one. If a clause like that in a commercial contract can be made to stand up, it means acceptance of the very essence of discrimination. Incidentally, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was a brief one simply upholding the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec; it was not a written judgment, recorded in the books.
October 7, 1968

It does seem to me that a case like this emphasizes once again the importance of appointing to our courts men with feeling, vision and a knowledge of humanity, men who understand that the law can never stagnate, can never be regarded as something which is unchangeable. Law, as it is interpreted, must be like a growing tree, growing as circumstances change and as society changes. This is the key to the kind of imagination and influence required of those who are appointed to our courts. For example, the word "banking" meant one thing in 1906, another in 1935 and something entirely different again in 1968. I give this as an example because I recall a case in Alberta which turned on the definition of banking when the Social Credit government came to power and passed some legislation in this field. As I say, the law must be like a growing tree, able to interpret language so as to fit new circumstances, new facets of society. In this way, of course, the courts legislate.
Naturally, we on this side support the resolution. It comes before parliament, I repeat, as a result of meetings and recommendations of the Attorneys General of various provinces. I thank the house for its indulgence in allowing me to take a few extra moments this afternoon to illustrate why I feel the calibre of the men who are appointed to the various courts of our country is so important to the welfare and good of our nation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it takes a brave man to follow the eloquence we have listened to in connection with such a small resolution. I rise to speak because the minister, when explaining the need for these additional Superior Court judges, said it resulted from legislation we had passed in this house. Commenting on this I express surprise that it would take 11 men from Quebec to replace Judge Walsh and Judge Cameron of the Federal Exchequer Court. The minister expressed surprise that Quebec should have set up its divorce courts so soon. I think this surprise is shared by everyone who took part in bringing about the change in our divorce legislation. Many held the opinion that Quebec would not even consider this question for a number of years to come. It is interesting to note that no resentment whatsoever has been expressed, at least in the English language newspapers, because the Quebec Superior Court is now seized of this matter. This leads many of us to the conclusion that if we had had the courage to take the bull by the tail we would have been surprised at the number of people who
Judges Act
were expecting us to do so and who would have let go of the horns.


An hon. Member:: Taking it by the horns would be easier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
horns presented them with a dilemma.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say a word about the calibre of the work which was done by Judge Walsh in particular and by Judge Cameron who, I understand, handled the contested cases. Both these gentlemen will now be very pleased to go on to other duties. I think parliament owes them a debt of gratitude for the way in which they handled these cases. We all recall the reluctance on the part of the government to proceed to the stage at which a commissioner for the dissolution of marriages was appointed. But in all those divorce cases there was no comment from anyone concerned to the effect that their petitions had not been handled in the best possible manner. This experience has no doubt led to the extension of jurisdiction of the Quebec Superior Court and to the request for the appointment of these judges so that the province can handle its own business.
I know that the members of this house who were originally involved in the legislation setting up this new form of hearing are all proud of the way in which it has been handled. A former minister of justice, the late hon. Mr. Favreau, suggested that this matter could be settled in a period of five years. It seems now that he was being pessimistic, though I was inclined to share his view. I therefore congratulate the present Minister of Justice, bearing in mind that an arrangement of this kind calls for negotiation between the Attorneys General of the provinces before it can be put into effect. I also congratulate a number of former ministers of justice who had very limited time in office but who each pushed forward this matter. The result has relieved parliament of a burden which in my opinion it should never have had to carry, which was neglected for many years, and which will now be returned to the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts and the Supreme Courts of the provinces.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I know this will cost some money. I know the federal government picks up the tab, but I think the two gentlemen who have been conducting this business for some time will feel better when they receive their cheques

October 7, 1968
Judges Act
and they realize it took so many to replace so few in such a large office.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Could the minister find out how many County Court judges in Ontario now occupy dual positions such as the chairmanships of milk boards, liquor boards and other offices of that nature, and does the minister contemplate a conference, or some other way, to bring this practice to an end?
Second, what does the minister think of the ethics of retired judges returning to practice law in the courts and in some instances, I regret to say, appearing before the very courts of which they were once members? Is there any departmental policy on this most extraordinary practice?
Third, my hon. friend from Calgary North mentioned the point of reserved judgments. I think all citizens who are affected by this difficulty would hope the minister might see fit to ask each of the Attorneys General to correspond on occasion with the respective chief justices-I think that would be the way considering the constitutional problem-seeking a return on a semi-annual, or perhaps monthly basis, of judgments unrendered. This was done on other occasions with other courts and it worked rather well.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, this is a very short resolution asking for three more Ontario County Court judges and 11 additional Quebec Superior Court judges. I was wondering if there are only 11 defeated Liberal candidates in Quebec and three in Ontario who have still to get jobs?
I noted that the hon. member for Calgary North wandered far afield in his observations. They were quite good but I thought he would reserve them to a later date and direct himself to this resolution.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I directed my remarks to the resolution. This is not a slight on me, it is a slight on the Chairman because if I was out of order I know the Chair would have brought me to order. If what I said, when I pointed out that there was a law for the rich and a law for the poor, offended the niceties of one who is now trying to be very verbose about nothing, then I would be very surprised.


John Gilbert: I can see my hon. friend is a little sensitive today. First of all he gave us credit for stating that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor and now he is trying to take away that credit. Be that as it may, I would like to direct a question to the

Minister of Justice with regard to the general criteria that he uses in the selection of judges. He will recall that during the last parliament the former minister of justice, now the leader of the Liberal party and Prime Minister of Canada, bypassed party lines in his selection of judges. This was something new. He set a precedent and I would like to know whether the present minister is going to follow that pattern in his selection of judges.
I would also like the minister to comment on the training of judges. Men who are selected for a judgeship are often men who have not had court experience, have not had a refresher course in law and are not up to date. When we ask a man to be a judge a duty is imposed on us to train him to be a judge. Past experience has shown that men who have been selected for judgeships have had good intentions and good motives but lacked a great deal when it came to knowledge of the law and applying the law.
I would like the minister, who is among the avant-garde in the Liberal party, to tell us what his criteria are in the selection of judges, and I would like to hear his comments on the training of the men he chooses.


John Napier Turner: Some very good questions have been asked, Mr. Chairman, but as I understand that the house would prefer to see the bill before proceeding with second reading I wonder whether at that stage I could provide answers to the questions raised today?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are in agreement with that. In fact we are in agreement with proceeding to second reading this afternoon, if you want.


John Napier Turner: I understand there is not a general disposition to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So far as the Conservative party is concerned if the minister wants to go on with second reading we are prepared to accept that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we think it is a wise rule that we should see the bill before we go that far.


John Napier Turner: That being the case, could I have the consent of the committee to deal with these questions when I address the house on second reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
October 7, 19G8

Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-114, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the second reading of Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was an understanding between the government house leader and members on this side that the debate at the second reading stage of this bill would not take place until eight o'clock. We do not mind the minister proceeding at this time, but we want this bill to be debated.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could respond. As I understood it, the hon member's colleague was reluctant to be called to speak before the dinner hour. I explained that with the time the minister would require to make his presentation and to hear the eloquent words of the hon. member for Crowfoot I doubted that in the remaining seven minutes they could be completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I am asking is that the minister make his speech before we give second reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I was so anxious to have this bill passed I thought I should not interrupt the proceedings which seemed to be going so well.
I should like to refer hon. members to page 601, the right hand column starting with the second paragraph. There they will find an explanation of the purpose of this bill contained in a speech I made on that day, September 30. I do not have very much more to add by way of explanation except to say that during the course of the debate there seemed to be some misunderstanding, if I may call it that. There was a common complaint or representation made by hon. members in many parts of the house regarding the rate of interest that would be set down when this measure becomes operative.
Hon. gentlemen will realize that the funds lent to farmers for the purchase of equipment
Farm Improvement Loans Act and for other purposes under the Farm Improvement Loans Act are funds that belong to the ba'nks. We are suggesting in Bill C-lll that this be extended to include some other financial institutions such as credit unions, caisses populaires and others. However, these institutions will also be using their own funds.
An advantage of the Farm Improvement Loans Act is the guarantee of a portion of these loans which largely removes the risk of repayment to the institutions which make the loans to the farmers. Many members have suggested this is not the time to increase interest rates because the farmers' costs are very high and going up and because of the cost-price squeeze in relation to their receipts and the market value of their sales.
In this case we are not withdrawing any assistance to the farmer so far as the treasury is concerned. The simple fact of the matter is that several months ago, long before the Farm Improvement Loans Act expired on June 30 of this year, the banks stopped making loans under the act because the statutory limit was too low. They argued that in many cases the cost of these funds and the amount of interest they were paying to their depositors were higher than the statutory limit under which the government guaranteed the loans.
What has happened is that there are loans being made, perhaps not as many for farm machinery purchases as there were when the Farm Improvement Loans Act was operational and active, depending on the credit risk of an individual farmer, at rates up to 7 and some fraction, 8 or 9 per cent, and I have heard of some as high as 10 per cent. These rates can be related to the credit risk of a particular farmer.
All we hope to do is to reinstate most of the provisions and indeed extend them. We intend to extend the purposes under the act for which farmers can use these loans and to set the maximum interest rate which should be charged for loans that we will guarantee. This interest rate would be substantially below what many farmers have to pay today.
Again we have to bear in mind the fact that the banks carry on the administration of this act and it is their money. If this proposal is accepted other institutions will be included, but the same thing applies. It is their managers who administer this act and decide what applications will be accepted. I should like to remove any confusion that may have been in the minds of hon. members as to the

October 7, 1968
Old Age Security Act
situation regarding the method of arriving at an appropriate maximum.
With those brief remarks arising out of the debate that took place at the resolution stage and the explanations I made at pages 601, 602 and 603 of Hansard, I think that is all I should say at this stage until we get into committee where we will have a detailed explanation of the bill during our clause by clause study.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about this farm improvement loans legislation and its success in the past. Perhaps I should outline some of the hopes and aspirations of the farmers I represent who are concerned with legislation of this type.
We in Canada are perhaps entering a new era of high interest rates as a result of the removal of the 6 per cent ceiling. I well remember when the ceiling was removed. At that time the then minister of finance was asked what would happen to the interest rate on farm improvement loans. It was suggested that if we allowed interest rates to go higher than 6 per cent, surely the 5 per cent maximum would no longer be of any value. The Minister of Finance agreed that we might run into difficulty but that a formula which would allow a 5 per cent rate on farm improvement loans would have to be worked out. I hope the minister in his remarks will give us some idea as to what this formula will be. Surely we do not want the interest rates that farmers will have to pay to be sky high.
We all know there is a great demand for money. We were told some years ago by witnesses that the banks tried to keep 30 per cent of available lending money for the small loans field, but there is less and less money available through banks to this field. May I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to the provisions of provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the matters to be discussed at the time of the adjournment period are the following: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Labour Conditions; the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Whiting), Drugs; and the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), Public Works.

It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to amending the Old Age Security Act to provide for the full amount of the income supplement provided thereunder to be incorporated into the basic pension, for the amount of the basic pension to be increased to $125 per month, for the increase granted each year on account of an increase in the cost of living to reflect the full extent of that increase, and for the eligible age to be lowered immediately to 65, so that all persons in Canada 65 years of age or over who meet the residence requirements will receive a full pension of $125 per month, plus the cost of living increase, without any means test, the full amount of the old age security pension thus being recognized as a matter of right.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many matters which come before parliament in which I am interested, but this motion relates to the one which has probably had the greatest amount of my attention during the years since I first came here, now nearly 26 years ago. I am reminded that the first time I rose in this House of Commons to speak on the subject of old age pensions I very boldly and courageously urged that the pension be raised from $20 to $25 per month. I had to sit and listen to Mr. Ilsley tell me that this could not be afforded. However, that same Mr. Ilsley before very long did agree to increase that pension to $25 a month, only at that time there was a means test on it and the provinces were required to pay 25 per cent of the pension.
We have come a bit of distance since then, and I now urge that the old age security pension be raised to $125 a month. I also urge that the income test attached to a portion of it, that portion known as the guaranteed income supplement, be wiped out and that the full $125 a month be granted as a pension to all those who meet the age and residence requirements, without any means or income test of any kind. I also suggest that the formula in the legislation for providing a cost of living increase should be altered so that the increase given to our pensioners will reflect the full amount of any increase in the cost of living, not just that portion up to 2 per cent in any one year.
October 7, 1968

As hon. members are aware, I would not stop there so far as the adjusting of pensions is concerned. When one talks about increasing pensions to reflect an increase in the cost of living one is talking about a minimum requirement, namely, that our pensioners should be enabled at least to keep up with the cost of living during their years of retirement. But as I hope I have made clear times without number, I believe we have to go further than this with respect to all our pensions. I think we have to make it possible for people in their years of retirement to enjoy the increased standard of living that our economy makes possible from year to year and from decade to decade. It is not good enough for just the other sections of society, particularly those in their working years, to be in a position to get increases, to share in our increased productivity. That right must also be extended and guaranteed to our retired persons.
Let me come back to the fundamental part of this resolution, which is its request that there be an increase in the amount of the old age pension itself. The statistics that the Department of National Health and Welfare has produced-some of them are to be found by way of answers to questions of mine that have appeared on the order paper-make it clear that our older people definitely need more than the amount of pension they are now getting.
If the guaranteed income supplement, for all its faults, has done anything, it has proven this point. The statistics show that about 60 per cent of our people who receive the old age security pension have been able to qualify for all or part of the guaranteed income supplement. Sixty per cent of that 60 per cent, or a little more in fact-it is about 40 per cent of the total-have been able to qualify for the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement. These statistics illustrate in a very striking way the fact that for most of our people in their retirement years there is little else but their old age security pension. There are people with other sources of income, but those who have enough other income to live as befits life in this day and age are very few.
I say that a society which does not show greater respect and greater regard for its older people is not a just society and does not deserve some of the accolades that are given to it at the present time. I like and enjoy the emphasis on youth in this day and age. I enjoy and support the emphasis being placed
Old Age Security Act
on the proposition that our youth should be given opportunities in education, employment, culture, and all the things that make for a richer and fuller life. I welcome the efforts that are being made, and successfully in many areas, to involve people at younger ages in the processes of democracy, in all of the life of our society. That is good. I support it wholeheartedly. But I submit that our society must not, because of its concern for youth, forget old age. Far too many of our older people in this country are suffering privation, suffering poverty, suffering want in the midst of all the affluence that we have, because we have not provided them with a sufficient pension.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I recognize that pensions are not the only answer, that we have to do more in the field of housing, in the area of health, and in providing recreational, cultural and other opportunities, including the opportunity to be useful. But to make speeches about these other things that we must do does not take the place of doing this basic, essential thing, namely, increasing the amount of money that we make available to our people. When one looks at the total production in our country today, the money that we are able to find for other things, it just does not make sense that arguments are put up against increasing the amount of the old age pension.
Therefore I urge that this figure of $125 a month be taken very seriously. I urge that the house must not permit the government to try to slough it off, to try to tell us that enough has been done for pensioners and that we must leave the pension where it is. Our old people need the increase, they deserve it, they have the right to it, and we can afford it. If we are going to talk about a just society, these people are entitled to it as much as anyone else.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the main elements of this resolution is its point blank call for the abolition of the guranteed income supplement as such, for its incorporation into the basic pension, and for the discontinuance of the idea that a portion of the pension is to be paid on the basis of an income test. I need not remind this house how strenuously I argued against the income or means test, and for the acceptance of the principle of universality and for maintaining that principle in our old age pension legislation. I feel that the return of a portion of the old age pension to an income or means test was a backward step

October 7. 1968
Old Age Security Act
which has done immeasurable harm, and it is a step that we must reverse at the earliest possible time. However, instead of repeating my own arguments, which are to be found on many of the pages of Hansard, I thought I would like to refer again today to an interesting and valuable address that was made in Winnipeg on September 19, 1968, by Dr. Reuben C. Baetz, executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council. Dr. Baetz was addressing the audit workshop of the social service audit at Winnipeg on that date.
What Dr. Baetz had to say is very telling, and I urge the government to pay attention to it. I will read parts of his address. This is what he said:
In our income maintenance programs, especially, we tend unwittingly to disregard the concept of solidarity. In recent months universal income programs, such as flat rate allowances for the aged and family allowances, have been severely criticized. It is argued that we should develop a selective policy in our income maintenance programs, and concentrate our efforts on the poorest sector of the population.
I interrupt to suggest that that is an accurate description of the position being taken by the government today. It is a description of the popular and plausible notion that instead of paying larger pensions to everyone and letting the income tax take care of those who get too much, we should pay pensions on a selective basis. Here is a specialist in the field saying that this idea has to be looked at very closely. Dr. Baetz admits there are arguments on that side, but then he goes on to say:
Nevertheless, a selective policy-
This is the kind that implies an income test so that the pension will be given to those who need it, not to everyone.
*-in income maintenance creates artificially, or at least emphasizes by official flat, an inequality between two social groups, between the one that aids and the one that is aided and is dependent.
Let us pay special attention to the following:
The social segregation which results is, in itself, an affront to the dignity of the whole section of the population.
That is what I said time and time again when the government was bringing in the guaranteed income supplement and putting back an income test-I called it a means test-on a portion of the old age pension. Some people said it is not an insult to have to fill out a form of that kind to get the pension. But here is a specialist in the field saying it

after it has been in effect for a period of time. Dr. Baetz went on to say:
For example, through our stubborn insistence-
That is the government for you.
-at being selective in our income maintenance programs for the aged, we have in fact divided our aged population into two groups-the "haves" and the "have-nots".
Let us listen to this as it describes the tremendous forward step we took back in 1950 when we took the means test off the old age pension. This is what Dr. Baetz said:
For quite a number of years we have provided a flat rate allowance to all regardless of need. The feeling of solidarity among the aged was maintained.
Not only was a feeling of solidarity maintained but one of pride in being retired people and being on the old age pension. It was there. Any of us who lived through the earlier years when the means test was at its worst and then lived through the period when the pension was universal can confirm that the feeling of solidarity among the aged was maintained, and not only solidarity but pride. However, let me quote Dr. Baetz again. He said:
However, two years ago, we introduced a guaranteed income supplement for those aged who can prove their income is low enough to warrant it. One half of the aged population did prove themselves to be eligible for supplementary assistance-
Actually it is 60 per cent.
-through massive paper work. In effect, we have split our aged into two almost evenly divided groups-the "haves" and the "have-nots". Those who need supplementary financial assistance-which is "welfare" in their minds and others-and those who are independent. We have forced thousands of our aged, who struggled all their lives to "stay off relief", to accept this status in their declining years. By increasing the flat rate allowance to $107, and adjusting the income tax rates for higher income groups among the aged, we could have provided the same financial assistance to the aged whose other income was too low, and still maintained the concept of solidarity among the aged.
I could go on quoting other interesting sections from Dr. Baetz' address, but having quoted from it last week I hope hon. members will become interested in it and will get copies of it. I will therefore content myself with just one or two more sentences from his address. He said:
In recent months the concept of universal programs has fallen into disrepute, and selectivity seems now to be the ascendant theme.
How true that is. People are saying, "let us use the money to give it to those who need
October 7, 1988

it". This sounds plausible, and very compassionate, but Dr. Baetz says:
I would hope that before we throw out our universal programs we should more thoroughly examine their weaknesses and strengths, one of which is the maintenance of the feeling of solidarity among all Canadians.
I come back again to the theme on which I have rung the changes so often. I have been interested in the subject of old age pensions and in old age pensioners long enough to have seen three distinct periods in its administration. First, there was the period when the first old age pension with its means test was in effect, when it was a disgrace to be on it and when people had to submit to the indignity of a vicious means test to get it. It was a period to which we do not want to go back at all. Second, there was the period from about 1951 to 1966 or so when the old age pension of various amounts, $40, $46, $55, $65 or $75 a month, was universal and everyone who was at the right age received it. At that time it became a matter of pride to be a pensioner. Now we are in a period when we have divided our old age people into two groups: Those who get the pension and have enough so that they do not get the supplement, and those whose condition is such that they have to go through the test, and their pride of being on the pension is already diminishing.
My arguments are well known, but I hope it makes some impression on this house that I am relying so heavily today on a specialist in the field, Dr. Reuben Baetz, executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council. He says very briefly what we in this corner said when this matter was under debate. We could have achieved the same purpose, we could have got the money through to the people who needed it, by making a universal payment, doing away with all this massive paper work that was unnecessary, but leaving it to the income tax to take back from those-and they are few-who do not need any surplus that it was inappropriate for them to receive.
I hope that we have not gone too far down this road of selectivity and too far away from the principle of universality. It is still in my view one of the finest moments in the history of this parliament when we took the means test off in 1950 or 1951, and I still think the way to establish not only an adequate level of income for our senior citizens but to give them pride in being part of that way of life which is old age is by giving the full old age pension as a matter of right.
Old Age Security Act
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Speaker, we will not be faced with the argument that because the means test supplement was enacted only a couple of years ago we must stick with it. One of the arguments then was that we should give it a trial. All right, we have given it a trial and it is not working. There is far too much paper work involved in it. About 60 per cent of the people are getting it anyway. It would be far better to pay this amount to everyone and let the income tax take care of those who get more than would otherwise be appropriate.
I urge that the various parts of my motion be considered. As I say, the allowance for the increase in the cost of living should reflect the full increase and not just 2 per cent in a year when the increase has been more than that. The eligible age might as well be brought down to 65 right away instead of going through this procedure of reducing the eligible age a bit at a time. I feel that the income test should be wiped out and the guaranteed income supplement should be incorporated into the basic amount, and that that basic amount should now be $125 per month.
I urge very strongly that in this year of 1968, when our nation's coffers are ever so much more full than they were when we set the figures now in effect, in this age of affluence, in the midst of all our talk about the just society, the least we should do for our old age pensioners is to provide them with $125 per month without any means or income test, the full pension being theirs as a matter of right.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: It is with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I take advantage of this opportunity to address myself to the house in respect of the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I sympathize, like everyone in this house, with the problems of our senior citizens. I can say honestly that I share with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre his concern for these people. We would like them to have sufficient income to enable them to live with integrity, to live on a proper standard, during those later years of their lives.
The points the hon. member made in the resolution are simple. The first is that this problem deserves immediate attention. I think that is true. I think that the whole problem of social security in this country deserves immediate attention. In addition, the problem of unemployment deserves immediate attention. I could stand here for 20

October 7, 1988
Old Age Security Act
minutes and sound oft about all the things with which we have to deal that deserve immediate attention. It is a matter of priority. I, for one, do not feel competent to say where this particular subject should be placed in the order of priorities.
I believe it is true that there are many people-I know there are in my riding

who are older and who suffer from the problems of inflation. They have fixed incomes and have great difficulty in establishing a satisfactory standard of living. This does not mean, however, that I feel the real solution would be to give them an income of $125 a month, which is not much more than they are getting at present. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to think that we should do away with the guaranteed income supplement and incorporate it into the old age security pension. This statement is a surprise to me because I would have thought the members of the New Democratic party would have welcomed some approach toward achieving a guaranteed income. I would have thought the principle of the guaranteed income supplement would have been more important than the other principle. However, it seems they want to do away with the income supplement itself. Perhaps in the guaranteed income we would find a solution to the whole social problem.
We have a mass of social welfare programs. I believe they cost this government well over $1 billion a year. Perhaps the real solution is to marry all these social programs into a master program. Perhaps it could take the form of a guaranteed income supplement so that we could look after the needs of all the people of this country who really try to look after themselves but, because of the position in which they find themselves, are not capable of doing so. The proposal to increase the income to $125 a month and to tie it to the increase in the cost of living is not really much different from what we have now. Mind you, the difference is important to those people in that age category. At the present moment, and I believe I am correct, the payment per month to these people is over $107.
I admit this is less than $125, but with the escalator clause and the way things are going we will soon achieve that level.
Another point the hon. member made was that we should lower the eligible age to 65. At the moment the eligible age is 67. In 1969 it will drop to 66 and in 1970 it will drop to 65.
I do not see, therefore, that there is that much difference at the moment. So far as the means
[Mr. Cafik.l
test is concerned, to which the hon. member referred, I would agree with him it should be eliminated if it were a means test. I do not think it is. It is one thing to say we are going to give a benefit to those who have an income of less than a certain figure, but it is something else again to make people sell their homes and find out how much money they have in the bank before they can qualify for a pension. I may be wrong, but I believe the only qualification is that people cannot earn more than a certain amount. I believe the government will supplement incomes to enable people to earn up to $1,260 each year. This is quite a different thing from a means test. I, for one, do not really think it is embarrassing. I think the whole problem of social security, or part of it at least, is to make sure we help those who are genuinely in need. I think everyone would agree with that.
I believe we must find an approach to this problem and to all social security problems that will eliminate to some extent aid which is given to those who do not need it. We should have a master program so that we can eliminate many of the abuses that exist in our social assistance and welfare programs. While this may not be apropos to the question of old age pensions and old age security, I think it is important that whatever welfare programs we implement we recognize that we must never create an atmosphere in which people believe the world owes them a living, that there is no point in saving or that there is no point in trying to provide for yourself because the government will look after you. We want to look after those who are in need. I feel we have a distinct obligation to pay great respect and show great concern for the interests of our elderly people. I, for one, will take no back seat in that connection to anyone in this house. I believe all of us share that concern.
I believe there is a need here. I know that many people within the existing programs need help. I will do anything I can to support any measure to help them. I know that I need more information on the subject before I can make a basic decision. I suggest that this problem should be considered by a parliamentary committee, and considered most carefully. In this way we would make sure that whatever we decide will be in the best interests of both our country and our senior citizens.
October 7, 1968

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this notice of motion that has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is really in four parts, the first of which suggests that the house should give immediate consideration to amending the Old Age Security Act to provide for the full amount of the income supplement provided thereunder to be incorporated into the basic pension.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the present guaranteed income supplement has had the effect that I said it would have when it first came into being, and that is to cause an awful lot of hardship and headache to many recipients. I made the prediction, Mr. Speaker, that if we went back to a means test- which is really what it is-many elderly people, not because of any ill intent or that sort of thing, but purely inadvertently, would report their income wrongly. I am sure the huge majority of our elderly citizens were convinced that they had reported their incomes correctly; but correct or not, I know of literally dozens of instances in my constituency-and I am sure this number is multiplied 264 times across Canada-who applied for additional assistance under the guaranteed income supplement, made an error in their application, and subsequently had their cheques reduced because the government felt obliged to recover the overpayment.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, this has caused tremendous hardship to many people. I have seen many cases where not only the guaranteed income supplement which had been paid in error was cut off, but where the basic pension cheque during this year, 1968, was cut below $76.50 which, due to the increase in the cost of living, about which I shall say a word or two presently, is now the basic amount of the pension. I predicted that going back to a means test would not mean that everything would run smoothly. I claimed, as did others, that hardship would be caused to many people.
As minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare for almost six years, I had experience in the fact that, under the old age assistance scheme people between 65 and 70 could claim assistance after meeting a means test. They would then find out subsequently that they had made an error in reporting their income-again inadvertently. However, according to the law the government had to claim a portion of their old age security
Old Age Security Act
cheque after they became eligible for old age security at 70 years of age. I have known cases, Mr. Speaker, where people in receipt of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement have had for several months to suffer a cut to less than $76.50 a month, and this has caused untold hardship.
Another thing that bothers me is this. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted Dr. Reuben Baetz and referred to the affront to dignity that is faced by people who have applied for the guaranteed income supplement. I feel that this affront is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to remind the house of the report of a committee made in 1950. This was a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate and was composed of members from all parties of this house. Although I did not enter the house until two or three years after that report, if I am not mistaken the committee's report was unanimous. This was the first time there had been a unanimous report of a joint committee of this house and the other place, Mr. Speaker. This committee had studied the problem for months and months, and had finally arrived at a plan to give people a basic old age pension without a means test, which it felt was the correct thing to do. I feel that it is still the right decision to make today. It is all very well to say that we want to help those who need it most; I agree with that. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, people are suffering today as a result of the present system of paying the guaranteed income supplement.
I do not propose to speak further, except to point out that undoubtedly a new bureaucracy is growing up to look after this sort of thing. We suggested that this would happen as well under the Canada Pension Plan. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, 60 per cent of our old age security recipients also receive the guaranteeed income supplement, and 40 per cent are receiving the maximum of $30 a month. I just point out that this government is putting the recipients of either the old age security payment, or the old age security payment and the guaranteed income supplement further and further in a hole every year.
These two programs, Mr. Speaker, are geared to the increase in the cost of living to a maximum of 2 per cent. We all know what has happened to the cost of living during the last two or three years. As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, it does not matter whether or not the recipient of old age security receives

October 7, 1968
Old Age Security Act
some other income on the side: his net return suffers. It is the same old story, Mr. Speaker; it is the elderly people of this country who suffer, and I am heartily in favour of seeing some relief given to them.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to speak on this resolution, and to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles! for having brought the question before the house, as I think it is very important.
First, I think that this notice of motion contains four main ideas, one of which is to increase the present pensions about which, Mr. Speaker, I will say only a few words. I think that, in view of the present cost of living, pensions could easily be increased, especially when an old person lives alone. When two people live together, even with the present pension, they can manage up to a certain point, because they have some common expenses, for example rent or housing, electricity and certain other related expenses.
However, an old person living alone finds it difficult to live adequately on the pension he now gets. I therefore feel that the house should study the possibility of increasing that pension to enable those who get only that pension to live more comfortably, more adequately and to feel less closely watched, especially by government inspectors whom some of them call hunting dogs.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I come precisely to that part of the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre where he asked that the guaranteed income supplement be granted without any means test. I fully agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on that point, as well as some of my colleagues in the Ralliement Creditiste and other hon. members I will not mention and who spoke at length on that matter.
When this amendment to the Old Age Security Act came before the house, we had anticipated the difficulties which the income test would mean for the aged people claiming the $30 supplement who would have to give an account of their income.
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday-hardly two days ago-an old lady on the verge of bursting into tears came to my office, saying that the Department of National Health and Welfare was demanding the return of an overpayment out of the $76.50 pension now being

paid to her. What happened in her case? Since her husband's death, that lady had had federal, provincial and even municipal officials looking through all her papers and her bank accounts to see whether she had some income hidden somewhere. Fed up with having strangers know more about her personal affairs than she did herself, she had refused to reveal to the government what little capital she had in reserve precisely to meet possible difficulties. On those grounds, legal claim was made to the amount which it seems she had been paid and to which she was not entitled, and that without knowing exactly what her financial situation was.
This is one of the many cases of which the members are aware, I believe, concerning the old people who feel persecuted through those investigations. I therefore fully agree that the system of checking should be abolished as soon as possible, and I doubt that sending the resolution to a committee for study would improve the situation, because more protracted debates would keep the government from acting, thus delaying the setting up of a just society.
So, I feel that the government should take it upon itself to make the necessary amendments now, during the current session, to improve the act and grant immediately, and without tests, all old persons 65 years of age-as a spokesman of the government said a while ago, without waiting for the present provisions of the act to take effect-a $109 pension from the beginning of next January; or to increase the pension to $125 as proposed by the mover. Indeed, the government need not refer this resolution to a house committee; it can do so on its own.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, at this point, I merely wish to add a few words which, I trust, my colleagues can easily remember.
First of all, I congratulate my good friend for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having proved, once again, as always, that he is an inveterate defender of those classes of society which certainly need help.
I should also like to congratulate those who have spoken in this regard, for I feel that this is more than a question of dollars. Although we, in this corner of the house, at times feel that we need field glasses to see your elegance in the chair, Mr. Speaker, nonetheless we are members of this house and we want to express our opinions as much as possible. I trust that note will be taken of this. I say this is not merely a question of dollars, and I feel
October 7, 1968

that if we grant everyone $125 this year, next year it will be $135, $140 or $150.
In my opinion, the most disadvantaged segment of our population is that which is over 65. Why? Because it is a problem which those who are 30, 40 or 50 have never thought about and have never tried to solve. The answer is simple. Today, under our present economic system, people retire at 65. Some like to be called pensioners and others do not. Anyway, whether they like it or not, they are pensioners. These people find it difficult to make ends meet and often die soon after they retire. I think that we should give greater consideration to the problem of ageing.
My hon. friend mentioned earlier Professor Baetz. I might suggest that he read an article written by Dr. Bortz entitled Our Ageing Population. That, I think, is the whole problem: gerontology.
As an example, there is no amount appropriated for gerontology in the estimates of the National Research Council of Canada. In 1960, people over 65 years made up 8.6 per cent of the population of Canada and 10 years from now the proportion will be 10 to 12 per cent. What are we going to do with the aged? Shall we give them $140, $150? In my view, it is not only a question of rehabilitating them but an economic question as well.
Medicine is making constant progress, whether we like it or not. The estimated span of life nowadays is 72 years. Within 10 years, perhaps it will reach 76 or 77 years. People will enjoy a green old age and perfect health. Old people will be in a certain way useless to society. I believe we are making a mistake. That is the reason why I said a moment ago that this is the problem of the people who are 30, 40 and 50, and they are the ones who should endeavour to set up a scheme of occupational therapy. This is called ergotherapy in medical terms. It is a kind of therapy which makes it possible for those people to enjoy the economic advantages available instead of suffering the disadvantages which seem to be their lot.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
If we remove these people from the labour market at the age of 65, if their number increases in 10 or 12 years, as I said earlier, our productivity will certainly decrease. Now, if our productivity decreases, another group of people will have to work more to balance it out. These people raise problems in the field of housing, for instance.
Old Age Security Act
Earlier I heard my very good friend talk about an old lady who came to his office. He is very lucky to have seen only one; I have seen them by the hundreds. Every day for instance, I see people who need drugs. They do not have the means to obtain them and even if they received $125 or $150 a month, they would be poorer than if they could be covered by a drug insurance. If these people could be assisted in other fields, besides money, it would be a lot better in my opinion.
We were talking a while ago of statistics; I have here figures that are quite surprising. In the United States, for instance, it is said that the population will show an increase of 20 per cent in the next decade, while the number of workers will increase only by 6 per cent. Twenty years from now, if those figures are correct, and as they can be ascertained in the book entitled America Next Twenty Years, the population will increase by 40 per cent, but the increase in the number of workers will be only 10 per cent. This means that a worker will not only be self-supporting but able to provide for one person and a half, with all that is coming as concerns labour reform, etc.-
[English\
They will have to support themselves and three and a half other persons. In other words, to maintain today's standard of living tomorrow's worker will have to more than double his activity.

Then people having reached the age of 65 can perform certain functions, that is true. According to statistics, five out of eight persons over 65 can accomplish a great deal of work, and interesting work too. And this will not penalize those less than 65 years old, because after all, it is a penalty. It is a penalty because as people over 65 cannot work, people less than 65 have to pay a tax. In the mean time, this deprives the taxation department of some revenues that could be obtained by levying a tax on people over 65 who earn something.
This means, therefore, that we are living in a rapidly changing society, in a society that seems to seek itself. In short we live in a sick society and it is up to us to legislate, not in a unilateral sense, but in a sense that could bring something practical to this society which is changing too rapidly, I would say.
It is up to us to give funds, to induce researchers, especially in geriatrics, to find solutions to the serious problem of ageing. Nowadays, university people are trying to

Ociober 1. 1968
Old Age Security Act
find vaccines, everything is being done to extend the limits of life. But once a person is 65 years old, we abandon him. He is alone in life. I think those people are the most destitute, the most unfortunate. They still feel able to do something and we are not enabling them to do anything that would permit them to become more or less an asset to society. I think that we still need experienced people today, people who have been through economic hardships like the older members of this house knew in 1933. I feel that it rests with the Canadian people to wake up and to be sensitized to that important problem; it is a problem of the survival for a nation.
Do we realize that, with the pill, one day we will have to cope with the fall in the birth-rate? We speak about genocide in Bia-fra and many other things. The real genocide is committed by the white man and will eventually experience the consequences. We do not have to worry about it, Mr. Speaker. When we are still dashingly young we do not think about tomorrow or illness, we do not think that one day we will be 65 years of age and that we will be retired from the Canadian economic life.
Now, I would like this matter to be taken into serious consideration and every effort made so that the people will understand that the real problem is not that of a $125 pension.
I greatly admire those who have served the country, whether it be in the public service or in the armed forces, in the defence of our rights on foreign battlefields during the last three wars. I have great confidence in these people, and if it were possible for me to do so, I would give them everything, because they deserve it. I think the fact of giving something is only a poultice on a wound; it is not a treatment.
I believe that today we should not work out compromise policies but rather planning policies that would at last bring about a sound economic system that would likely benefit the young people who are 65 years of age, because at that age, we can still be young, Mr. Speaker.
There are some people who are still active at 80. As a matter of fact, Professor Dudley White, the great American cardiologist, celebrated his 80th birthday last year. I think we need people who have lived that long, because their lives have been interesting. They knew how to use their heads and their hands to do something and eliminate the fatal boredom of those who no longer feel useful past the age of 65. All soldiers, young and

old, are needed by society, particularly experienced people such as those and people who only ask for an opportunity to do something useful for a society that appears to be very sick.
I would like to add that if that policy is not rejuvenated and does not attempt to make gerontology an active science, as is done today in the United States where millions of dollars are spent on research in the fields of geriatrics, gerontology or the study of senility, we shall find no solution to our problems. Even if we were to create all kinds of machinery to make fine finished products, if nobody can use them our manufacturing activity will be useless.
It is all very well to read books, it is all very well to write poetry at 65 or after. We prefer to read poetry in our free time in order to spend our valuable time in being useful to people, to Canada, more especially to our youth-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

["Mr. Speaker, the special committee appointed on September 12, 1968, has the honour to present the following as its first report:\nYour committee recommends that the standing committee on external affairs and national defence be composed of the following members:\tMr. Alexander, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Asselin, Mr. Brewin, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Cafik, Mr. de Bane, Mr. Fair-weather, Mr. Forrestall, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Groos, Mr. Harkness, Mr. Lanlel, Mr. Laprise, Mr. Legault, Mr. Lewis, Mr. MacLean, Mr. Macquarrie, Mr. October 7, 1968\tCOMMONS\nMarceau, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Penner, Mr. Prud'homme, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi), Mr. Stewart (Cochrane), Mr. Thompson, Mr. Wahn, Mr. Winch.\nI move that the report be concurred in."]
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house would agree to revert to motions so that I could move the motion to constitute the committee on external affairs and national defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the special committee appointed on September 12, 1968, has the honour to present the following as its first report:
Your committee recommends that the standing committee on external affairs and national defence be composed of the following members:	Mr. Alexander, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Asselin, Mr. Brewin, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Cafik, Mr. de Bane, Mr. Fair-weather, Mr. Forrestall, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Groos, Mr. Harkness, Mr. Lanlel, Mr. Laprise, Mr. Legault, Mr. Lewis, Mr. MacLean, Mr. Macquarrie, Mr. October 7, 1968	COMMONS
Marceau, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Penner, Mr. Prud'homme, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi), Mr. Stewart (Cochrane), Mr. Thompson, Mr. Wahn, Mr. Winch.
I move that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson (for Mr. Benson) for the second reading of Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, just before the private members hour I was saying it is a well known fact that the Farm Improvement Loans Act is administered by the banks. Some time ago the banks informed the finance committee of this house that they aimed to lend out about 30 per cent of their money in what are generally conceived to be small loans. I am really more than a bit disappointed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who is now back in Canada, has not taken a greater interest in this debate because the manner in which banks operate and their service to Canadians come under his jurisdiction. I recognize that if the minister had incorporated a fixed interest rate in this bill the banks might not lend any money at all under its terms. I ask how far the banks are prepared to go to serve the Canadian people and the various segments of Canadian industry? A number of years ago when the whole question of banking was being thoroughly studied by the finance committee we were informed that western Canada is a bank depository surplus area, and that it provides a depository surplus from which banks can lend money.
At the resolution stage of this bill the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) stated that the banks became hesitant to lend money at 5 per cent under this legislation, even before the act ran out on June 30 of last year. We are not in any way saying that they have to lend all their money at 5 per cent. I would not suggest that they should not make a profit on lending money, but I do say that in giving a bank a charter we stipulate that it has to provide a service to the community. This is a licence which banks should dearly cherish. They should be prepared to help out various segments of the economy if help is required, and especially so under the terms of this legislation, which provide a government guarantee.
DEBATES	893
Farm Improvement Loans Act
I have taken a rough look at this bill, and after doing so I wonder what the Minister of Finance has in mind. Is he trying to assist small banking companies? Is he trying to assist trust companies and loan companies? When he was speaking on the hustings the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said his government would set up a separate policy for small farmers, giving them more aid than is available to farmers who are already on economic units. But this bill suggests that the government is giving aid to small banks and near banks, the latter being a term that was applied to such companies some years ago. This bill is an attempt to benefit the near banks and bring them under the government guarantee, something they had not enjoyed previously. There is really no heart shown for the agriculture industry in this legislation.
The minister said that the act came into being in 1945, and I am the first to agree with him that it has served a great purpose since that time. From July to September of last year something like $55 million was lent by the banks under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. There was a government guarantee at that time. I would like to know how much money the banks lent for farm machinery in the same period this year, without a guarantee?
I know the banks are telling the Minister of Finance that this government guarantee is not necessary any more, that the agricultural industry is a reliable one, and that this guarantee is not really worth a 1 per cent interest rate. They are telling the minister that they have to charge farmers a high rate of interest. If that be the case, then why are machinery sales during the first seven months of this year down 30 per cent in Saskatchewan, 26 per cent in Alberta and 22.8 per cent in Manitoba? That is a drastic reduction. It is interesting to link that with the fact that the farm improvement loans legislation was not in effect for a three or four month period.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is part of the reason.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the minister admits that that is part of the reason, then he admits that the government guarantee is worth something.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is what we have been trying to enunciate quite clearly. I have asked the minister a number of times what the formula will be, and how much it is worth. As recorded at page 602 of Hansard he said it was worth something but he did not know
October 7, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act how much, and he was not prepared to give us a set formula.
The agricultural industry is a basic one in Canada. The Economic Council has said that it it sadly lagging behind the agricultural industry in the United States, but I do not believe it is that far behind. It says, further, that it will take us 20 years to catch up with the United States, and points out that the U.S. agriculture industry has had greater access to and made greater use of capital than Canadian farmers.
I note that the Minister of Finance has returned to the house. I urge the Minister of Agriculture, who knows the situation very well, to use his best offices with the Minister of Finance to fix a formula so that in effect we will not be asked to give the government a pig in a poke, with carte blanche to fix the interest rate as high as it likes. We know what the government has done to house builders and to people who want homes. It has set the interest rate for mortgages at 2 per cent above the rate for long term borrowings by the government. We think this is too high for the agriculture industry, which serves a very necessary purpose in the Canadian economy.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Let us check the budget speeches of the last two ministers of finance. They indicate that the balance of payments situation in Canada has been assisted to a great extent by increases in exports of Canadian wheat. Let us hear what the Minister of Agriculture intends to do about bankers setting the interest rates.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the agricultural industry today is in difficulty because of rising costs of operation. The cost of the necessary capital is one of the major factors. The Economic Council of Canada has suggested that the use of more capital by the agriculture industry is one method of assisting the Canadian industry to catch up with its counterpart in the United States. I hope the minister keeps this in mind when he deals with the bankers. I hope he will also bear in mind that the government controls banking in this country. Not long ago when the Mercantile Bank was to be taken over by the First National Bank in New York the government would not allow that to happen. We know the government controls banks in this country because they are the ones who issue bank charters. These banks have to be told that the

agriculture industry is necessary to the general economy of Canada and that it is an obligation on the part of the banks to service that industry by providing capital at a reasonable interest rate.
I realize that the bankers will say they pay 6 per cent on invested money, and that they cannot possibly lend money at 6 per cent. Only a few years ago they were making loans at 5 per cent, yet the statutory limit was 6 per cent. That is one per cent off the statutory limit.
Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) intend to inform this house during second reading what formula will be devised so that the interest rate will be 1 per cent below the prime lending rate? If he assures us that he will do so, I will have no objection and I do not think many others will object. But we have had no such assurance.
The Minister of Agriculture has said that he believes the government guarantee is worth something, but the Minister of Finance has not indicated what he believes is the value of the charter to these banks. He has told us that these banks are serving various segments of the economy.
In 1945 banks were lending money at 6 per cent without difficulty. The government provided a guarantee and instructed the banks to lend at 5 per cent. The Economic Council report shows that the banks provided huge amounts of money at that percentage rate. I believe it was something of the order of $2 billion. Surely if they have been able to lend that amount of money at 1 per cent less than the prime borrowing rate they can continue to do so now.
We have removed the ceiling on bank interest rates and have allowed them to fluctuate. Will this money be made available to the agricultural industry at 1 per cent less than the prime borrowing rate? If the minister does not like that idea, would he please inform the house what formula he intends to work out?
For the last 20 years the government has felt that the agricultural industry required an interest rate of 1 per cent less than the statutory limit; but that industry today is in even worse difficulty and requires more assistance. The sales of farm machinery are down quite drastically. There is conclusive evidence that the industry needs assistance as badly as it did in 1945 or 1955.
The minister may well suggest that the banks will not lend money if we do not
Ociober 7, 1968	COMMONS
increase the interest rate. That is the crux of the difficulty. Surely the minister can assure us that he take action to force them to make this capital available. The government has given these institutions the right to lend money, and, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) said when he was sitting to my left on the Social Credit benches, this right gives the banks the opportunity to make money. I am sure he remembers that old formula, though he may have pushed it out of his mind.
These banks should be asked to provide service in order to assist this basic industry in Canada. As the minister has said, this measure will allow other institutions such as the Caisses Populaires and, I suppose, the treasury branches in Alberta and the credit unions throughout the country to make loans. I should like to ask him to indicate what percentage of total farm improvement loans will be made by these so-called near banks. I suggest that percentage will not be very high. I have no objection to this idea and I think the minister has shown some initiative in this regard, but he knows full well that the percentage of these loans made by near banks will be very small. He is nodding his head. I am sure we agree that the majority of the loans under farm improvement legislation will be made by the chartered banks.
What authority has the government to force these banks to serve this basic industry in this country? The minister has said that the guarantee is of some value. I agree, but I urge him to consider this whole matter very seriously. Over the years the agricultural industry has played a major part in boosting the economy of this nation. Many people are employed by farm machinery producers, and much of this equipment is shipped to western Canada. This means a great deal to the economy when machine sales are high. For the past few years there has been an average of about $200 million spent on farm machinery in western Canada alone. This is big business.
We are prepared to allow speedy passage of this legislation but we want to be assured that there will be safeguards. The minister cannot ask us to give him carte blanche authority in setting interest rates. We must look after this industry. We already have many people in the cities today who are untrained and unskilled and we do not want another group of people from the farms moving to the urban areas. We must do something to keep these people on the farms. This can only be 29180-571
DEBATES	895
Farm Improvement Loans Act done by providing the required money at a reasonable interest rate.
What has the Minister of Finance said to the bankers in this country about these interest rates? While this bill has not yet been passed, the minister must have had conversations with bankers. There has been a suggestion made that this legislation was ready last February. If it was ready then, the minister has surely had the opportunity to discuss it with bank managers. Will he not inform the house about these conversations? Can he give us an indication of how these people intend to deal with this legislation?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Surely the Minister of Finance can get up in this debate before we start a clause by clause study of the bill and tell us the thinking of the banks. Surely he has talked to the chartered banks on this matter and knows what they will have to have in order to lend money to the agricultural industry. We have it from the Minister of Agriculture that the government guarantee is worth something. Surely the Minister of Finance can tell us what the banks think the government guarantee is worth. I think it is his duty as Minister of Finance, piloting this bill through, to tell us what the banks think the government guarantee is worth and what he thinks the charters of the banks are worth, because after all he is the man who is handling the finances of this country.
It cannot be overemphasized that this piece of legislation has been very successful, particularly in the past 23 years. Over $2 billion has been lent to farmers, and the loss has been as low as one-tenth of one per cent. Surely the Minister of Finance owes it to the house to tell us what procedure he is going to use. Has he discussed the matter with the banks? What is their attitude about this piece of legislation? We cannot let it flounder and die because the banks are allowed to set too high an interest rate. The banks must be concerned about other matters.
I am sure the government would agree with the inspector general of banks, who about two years ago said to the finance committee that there is no real guide that can be used, but it has been the rule of thumb that 30 per cent of the money is put out in the way of small loans to small businessmen and! farmers alike. Surely that is still the policy; but I would like to hear it from the Minister of Finance so that I may be reassured that this useful piece of legislation will continue to be of service to the agricultural industry.
October 7. 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act
There has been a great deal of concern across the country, particularly this year, because every time you have a difficult harvest year there is a rush on buying farm machinery. The Minister of Agriculture knows this. If there is a difficult harvest year the farmers say, "We have to get the crop off the land. We have to buy a new combine, and time is short." Machinery sales increase in proportion to the difficulty of the harvest. This has been a difficult harvest year. We need to be told in a hurry what the interest rates will be and whether this legislation will prove useful this fall and in the years ahead.
There is another problem with which I would like the Minister of Finance to deal. I refer to a practice that has sprung up in the last year or so. The machinery companies say to a farmer, "We will sell you a combine interest free. If you buy it this fall you will not have to pay any interest on it until next spring." The banks have been reluctant to do this. They say to the farmer, "Why did you not come to us in the fall?" The farmer says, "I have it interest free now, so why should I take out a loan for it?" Surely the Minister of Finance has had some discussion with the banks in this regard. The fact is that the banks have simply been reluctant to make use of the legislation because of the uncertainty with regard to the interest rate.
I will summarize my remarks briefly, Mr. Speaker. We want to know how good the guarantee is. I know that the Minister of Finance thinks it is good. How good do the banks think it is? How good does the Minister of Finance think the charter is to the banks? What percentage of loans does the Minister of Agriculture think will be made by the so-called near banks who are included in this legislation? We have the right to know some of the details of the program before we get into a clause by clause study of the bill.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I recall that the other day when we were discussing this legislation in resolution form it was suggested that there was an urgency here; that it was important that this legislation go through quickly because the farmers were waiting and needed the credit that would be available under the legislation. They needed this credit program working again, because for all practical purposes it has not been working for almost a year.
This piece of legislation is the one that is supposed to be most urgent. If this is so, I really do not quite comprehend why such extensive changes are being made to the act

at this time. I would have thought that if it was considered urgent-and I would have to agree that it is-it would have been advisable to take the act as it was, put it before this house, and then take a later opportunity to put some of the suggested changes before a standing committee so they could be carefully considered.
I believe that at least one or two fairly important departures have been made in this bill. One is the inclusion of land as an added security or as an added purpose for which money can be lent. This will be the first time land has been included in the act, which as the previous speaker said came into force in 1944 or 1945. The manner in which this provision and the proposals with respect to it are included is, it seems to me, a departure from what has come to be, shall I say the established approach to farm credit in this country. Indeed this does not apply to Canada only but to the United States, our neighbour to the south, and Europe. In effect, comparatively speaking this is short term credit for the purpose of buying land, or perhaps more properly I should say it is intermediate term credit.
In the immediate post second world war period our farmers were starved of credit. They were short of credit; they could not get it because the banks and the standard lending institutions would not make it available at that time, for understandable reasons, one being that they had taken a pretty good shellacking in the 1930's. I can recall the farm organizations, the farm unions and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture saying that a credit program was needed for farmers.
One of the principles put forward by these organizations and the economists was that long term credit was needed for the purchase of land because short term credit is a risky method of putting up money for such a purchase. All the economists that I know seemed to agree with this principle. So the program was started with a 20 year term for repaying the loan. That term was increased to 25 years, then 30 years, and in the last two or three years economists have been talking about perpetual mortgages on farms.
The idea has been that money would be lent and there would be no real intention of repaying it; that it would simply be a charge against the productivity of the land and transferred from one generation to another. I do not know that I agree with this idea, but it is a trend in the thinking.
October 7, 1968	COMMONS
[DOT] (8:30 p.ra.)
One of the economists at the University of Manitoba gave a talk on this subject a year ago. Now, under this legislation, we are regressing when we say we will go back to the granting of intermediate credit on land. We expect that the purchaser will pay this off in 15 years, which is contrary to our previous policy. Now we know that under the present circumstances farmers are not able to build up their own capital. I think it was Mr. John Dawson, who was with the Economic Council of Canada, who said that there was only a short period in the late 1940s and early 1950s during which farmers were able to make enough income from their farms to build up sufficient capital to replace their machinery and to expand and develop their farms, taking advantage of the new technology. The same report from the Economic Council of Canada stated that from time to time we had been depending on credit, and according to most predictions we will continue to do so with the greater use of the new technology.
However, the legislation before us proposes quite the opposite and, in fact, goes against this trend. It may be that some new wisdom has descended on the Department of Agriculture, which has come to the conclusion that this trend is no longer the right one and that we had better consider a new way. This seems to be the sort of approach which is now acceptable, to start a new trend. Perhaps the legislation before us reflects the new trend. For example, within our credit programs we have developed a new approach whereby credit supervisors in the Farm Credit Corporation are able to say to a farmer, "if you want this loan of several thousand dollars, we will sit down with you and see how you can use this money, and how it can be tailored to your operation". Under the farm improvement loan proposals in this bill we will leave it to an insurance company, a trust company or to a bank, whoever may be making the loan, to decide to whom to grant the loan, wherever they think the security is sound, and that we will then underwrite it. If it turns out badly we will pick up the pieces.
I do not consider this to be a really new advance.
It was only a year or two ago that in the maritimes the Farm Credit Corporation decided not to collect payments for a year. I suppose this was helpful to the farmers there and I hope that since then their situation has improved. What will happen if the same situation should arise again in other parts of
DEBATES	897
Farm Improvement Loans Act the country, such as in western Canada this year with the slow grain sales and damaged and wet crops? We may well have to take that sort of action again. So I say that this legislation does not provide an answer to the problems with which we may be faced.
The matter of the interest rate was already discussed here by the previous speaker. I am not sure that I can add a great deal, except to state the obvious, namely that we know that there is a limited earning capacity in farming and the only thing that we can do to help is to keep down the interest rate. Such are the circumstances now that farmers are being hemmed in on all sides. With respect to grain, we are limited by the GATT agreement, and the international situation is tough on farmers.
A few days ago we had here in Ottawa the group of corn growers who have requested us to block purchases from the United States. This is a pretty difficult problem. We have trade relations with our neighbour to the south, the ramifications of which have to be considered seriously. However, in the credit field we can take whatever action we consider to be appropriate in the circumstances under which we are operating. This also applies to housing. I suppose that the government believes that higher interest rates and short term loans for land is the appropriate action at the present time. Apparently this is considered appropriate because it is proposed to us. The government proposes to put trust companies, insurance companies and banks back in the lending field, with government guarantees, although these institutions have had considerable difficulties in this respect. This is not necessarily a reflection on the institutions but rather a reflection on the facts of life. When loans are being made to farmers the situation is different from when they are made for the purpose of apartment building, or when they are made to other sectors of industry which are more secure.
These are the points I wished to make with regard to the bill before us. I hope they will receive serious consideration when the bill is dealt with clause by clause.


Mr. Stanley Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length at this stage of our consideration of the bill. However, I wish to make a few remarks, because of some fears which I have with regard to this legislation.
After considering the various amendments which will be introduced, one of the paramount questions which occurs to me has to do
October 7, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act with the rate of interest to be charged. This is the crux of the matter, the purpose of the bill.
Although other supporting amendments maybe generally acceptable for various reasons, I think the main question which comes to us as members of the opposition is what criteria the minister will use in determining the interest rates, and on what basis the farmers will have to decide from day to day whether it would be in their interest to hold off borrowing money or whether it would be in the interest of the machine dealers to try to stall a sale for a month or so, thereby giving the farmers the best advantage.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We are very concerned over the fact that at this late stage the minister cannot tell us of the results of his discussions with the banking institutions, even though the bill has now been introduced in the house. I do not know how much discussion has taken place to date, but 1 do know if the minister does not have any answers now then he should be concerned. Perhaps if these bills are passed the banking fraternity will tell us that they can only give us an interest rate comparable with that which they grant house builders. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has said, such an interest rate would not be in our interests. I am very much concerned because I really thought that when this government took on the job of administering the country, they would be following the pattern advocated during the election campaign.
I happened to obtain a statement which was made by the Prime Minister in Winnipeg on June 2, concerning small farm policy. 1 believe that the interest rate which is set will certainly have an effect on the small farmer. I am concerned because I thought the Liberal party advocated a specific policy for the small farmer. I quote from this statement:
While the situation varies from commodity to commodity, in general 30 per cent of Canada's farmers produce 70 per cent of our agricultural production. This great variation in farm size, and with it productivity, renders the development of agricultural programs appropriate to varying farm sizes most difficult. The problem could be met through the institution of a system of farm differentiation by productivity and size. This differentiation could provide a basis for modifying programs to meet the particular needs of farms of different sizes. The concept is that farmers themselves could reach the decision as to their own classification for this purpose. All farm programs could then be designed taking into consideration the special needs of the smaller farmers and the social aspect of such programs could be recognized and measured. Programs for all other farms could be those

consistent with a larger scale viable operation. In return for the differential level of assistance the smaller farmer could undertake that at the time the farm passed from his possession he would not dispose of it for other than farm consolidation or for movement into the public sector. Thus the special programs designed for farmers in this category would not perpetuate the problem.
The farm improvement loan provision would be extended and integrated with the Farm Credit Corporation. So far as I can see, the only integration is going to be a higher rate of interest. The other day when I took part in the debate I suggested that the government was deliberately trying to eliminate the small farmer. The minister challenged my statement, and as recorded at page 771 of Hansard, he said:
I say to him with all sincerity that the government is deliberately trying to help the small farmer by passing this legislation.
However, even the Winnipeg Free Press of June 4 had to make this statement in its editorial:
-the long run results would be the elimination of small, uneconomic units and the large subsidies paid to them.
I repeat that the increasing of interest rates is a deliberate policy on the part of this government. This will mean that the small farmer will just have to go. I am concerned about the method the minister will use to determine the rate of interest. I wonder what will happen every time the Bank of Canada adjusts the rate. Are we then to expect a change in the rate for farm improvement loans? Will an order in council immediately be passed? Will this be one of the responsibilities that the cabinet will have, to follow suit immediately? If there is an election in the offing, will it be in the interests of the governing party to amend the rate of interest in order to obtain some advantage? It may be in the interests of certain segments of the economy to have a tight money policy, but that might not be in the interests of the agricultural sector.
Since the minister is a farmer he knows, for example, that even though government financial policy may dictate a tightening up of the amount of credit available, in the springtime the farmer must have fertilizer. The minister knows full well that there are other expenses in the spring in connection with seeding which farmers cannot avoid. Either the farmer puts in a crop or he does not. Will this policy apply all across the board? What will happen if we have a situation such as we have this year, one wherein, when harvest time arrives, we have not taken off the crop? We still have to carry on. Will that high
October 7, 1968

interest rate prevent us from going to the bank? What are we to expect? Can the minister give us some idea? Can he tie his formula to anything so that we will not be guessing from day to day?
I have already mentioned some of the other amendments that will be introduced. It is interesting to note that one section of the bill will provide for the reduction in the amount of the guarantee. The purpose of this provision may be to induce some of the lending institutions to grant money, but the banks may find themselves in a position where a great deal of money has been lent, so they will restrict tending operations. They may withhold money from the farming community. The farmers may find themselves in a position where instructions have come from the head office in the banking institutions to hold back on loans to farmers, despite the government guarantee. Will the government guarantee mean anything?
Before this debate ends, I hope the minister will give us some idea of what we may expect. Surely we should not be dependent on the whim of the minister, or the need for adjustment of interest rate prior to an election, in order to make it clear that the government is acting in the interests of the farmer. When we are putting in a crop, we cannot have a suggestion that we should wait a couple of weeks. I do not think this would be in the interests of an industry that is so dependent upon weather and other seasonal factors. At this particular stage I think the minister would be helpful if he could give us an indication of his thinking on this subject. If he has not done any thinking, he could at least give us some indication of the stage the discussions have reached with the banking institutions.


Edward Richard Schreyer: These are bleak times on the Canadian prairies, Mr. Speaker. In addition to mother nature not being very accommodating this fall, we have a government that is not very accommodating. The minister knows full well that with the rising costs of production the last thing the Canadian farmer needs is something which adds to the cost of production. I feel we are being asked to do that very thing by agreeing to a proposition that will mean an increase in the cost of capital to the farmers.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The minister is the sort of man who understands the industry. I ask him, is he not asking the opposition for too much when he

Farm Improvement Loans Act asks them to endorse a blank cheque by giving to the cabinet the power to set interest rates, when we are given no indication of the level at which they might be set? I understand that the old interest limit under farm improvement loans is untenable, given present rates of interest in the money market. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to that of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and my colleague from Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) in submitting that the minister really must give us some idea about the general nature of the formula that the cabinet will follow when it meets to prescribe the interest rate referred to in this bill. The hon. member for Crowfoot has a very logical point when he argues that the value of the government's guarantee to the chartered banks, and to the other money lending institutions for that matter, must be something definite and concrete. It is a question of how much.
Perhaps it is difficult to arrive at the value of this guarantee to the banks in precise percentage terms. But, Mr. Speaker, this is what the officials of the Department of Finance are for. I am sure that they know how to operate a slide rule, and to meet and consult with financial experts. They must be in a position to give us some pretty tangible idea how much lower the interest rate chargeable under this act will be because of the fact that a guarantee is extended by the government of Canada.
The other day, when the minister was responding to the different arguments that had been put forward by members during the debate on the resolution stage he attempted to answer some of them. I am not suggesting that he did not answer some of them with a good deal of logic, but he really did not come to grips with some of the arguments. One in particular has to do with the fact that the farmers of Canada have to compete with agricultural producers in other parts of the world particularly with those who operate in climates much the same as ours.
In the United States I understand-the minister did not indicate otherwise and I am sure his officials gave him information on this point-that the interest rate charged to farmers under the federal farm loan administration, which is the credit granting agency for farmers in the United States, is still at 5 per cent. If this be so, Mr. Speaker, what effect will it have on Canadian farmers if we proceed to increase interest rates charged them by one, one and a half or two percentage points?
October 7. 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act
From a brief conversation I had with the hon. member for Crowfoot, I think it might be reasonable at the present time to think in terms of an interest rate set at somewhere around 6 or 6J per cent, and perhaps we on this side should force the issue by proposing an amendment. Personally Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to support an amendment which laid down a formula by which the cabinet would have to abide when it sets an interest rate under this legislation. It seems to me that the interest rate under the act should be limited to that level that meets the cost to the banks, of obtaining money, plus just enough to cover the cost of administration and provide a margin of profit.
One hears it argued that we cannot expect the banks to charge a rate that would be lower than that which the banks have to pay depositors who deposit their money under certificates of deposit. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that because of action taken by this government two years ago interest rates have escalated. I understand that banks now have to pay depositors on certificates of deposit somewhere around 6 per cent. It was as high as 6| per cent a few months ago; but now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a slight downward movement in the cost of money and certificates of deposit are costing the bank only about 6| per cent. That is about how much the banks should be allowed to charge the farmers under a farm improvement loan, particularly since they have an iron clad guarantee from the people of Canada through the instrument of the government of Canada. I do not see why the minister cannot tell the house what formula the government has in mind. Would it be roughly at that level of interest that the banks have to pay on certificates of deposit, plus a small fraction beyond that? If the minister were to concur in that, then I would say it would be reasonable enough.
The issue before us, Mr. Speaker, is weighty and important. Much could be said about it, and much has already been said by hon. members on this side. The minister is under some obligation to give us just a little more information before he has a right to expect us to agree to his proposition.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my voice in the debate by making a few comments in our discussion of Bill No. C-lll to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is now almost a year since the benefit of the farm improvement loan legislation has gone awry and farmers across Canada have

been labouring with the problem of trying to get adequate farm credit. As was pointed out earlier this evening, the Economic Council, in analysing the economic situation of the agricultural industry of this country, has indicated in no uncertain terms that one problem that is facing the industry is the lack of proper and reasonable credit.
As has been mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, and should be emphasized again, the agricultural industry is the second largest source of income for Canada. The wood, pulp and paper industry is, I think, the major source of income for Canada; but agricultural products take second place. I think hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, have realized a number of times since they took office in 1963 that it is only because of the ingenuity, the perseverance, the tenacity, the technological advance and good economic judgment of the farming industry that we have been able to bail ourselves out of a serious position, so far as the balance of trade problem is concerned.
In 1968, Mr. Speaker, we find the agricultural industry in a very serious financial position, not only because of the effect of inclement weather, frost and so on on this year's crop, but because of the lapse of the world international wheat agreement, which has caused the greatest pile-up of wheat in Canada's history.
Today our farmers owe many bills. They are staggering under the increase in overheads and the cost-price squeeze. It looks as if by design the government is trying to aggravate the situation by bringing in this bill. We are almost in the position of having to buy a pig in a poke.
I do not think this is fair to the agricultural industry, Mr. Speaker. It should have the same consideration as any other. I am greatly discouraged by some of the arguments advanced. I am sure hon. members on this side of the house from western agricultural areas, as well as those who sit opposite, representing agricultural areas, are distressed to hear it asked why the farmers should get a subsidy, why they should not fend for themselves the same as others.
I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the members of the house, that the farming industry is in a very unique position compared with other sectors of the economy. The farmers of this country have no basic control over their economic prospects. On the other hand, if labourers in Canada are dissatisfied with their income, then under the law they can go on strike and demand higher wages in order to obtain their share of the
October 7, 1968

economy. Industry and business are the same. When I, in common with other small businessmen, find myself facing economic problems brought on by rising costs, I raise my prices in order to obtain a fair mark-up and to stay in business. It is the same with the wholesalers, and it is the same in practically every industry across this country. But the farmers are in a unique position. They must rely on mother nature. The farmer cannot go out in the spring and say, "I will leave my tractor in the shed and let it rust, because the cows will calf, the chickens will lay eggs and the pigs will farrow." The farmer is at the mercy of the market and depends, for his livelihood, on what he will be paid in a market over which he has no control.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I disagree with those who argue that the agricultural industry is not entitled to any subsidy. It is one of the basic and most important industries in the country, and consideration ought to be given to providing it with some subsidy. It is important not only to Canadian consumers in this country, but to consumers throughout the world. We all depend upon it. Anyone reading statistics and learning of the very rapid expansion of world population will realize that the agricultural industry has an important part to play in our very survival. I think therefore that we should establish a reasonable rate of interest for farmers to pay so that, so to speak, they are not buying a pig in a poke. The farmer ought to be entitled to a reasonable rate of interest. There are some who say that in the case of the agricultural industry the subsidy ought to be, possibly, 1 per cent, in order to help farmers meet their commitments and stay on top of the economic heap.
I join with other hon. members on this side of the house in urging the Minister of Agriculture to bring forward a formula of some kind so that the farmers of this country will know for certain what they must pay for their money, and will receive assurance that the rate is within reason.
The banks and other lending institutions of this country have been doing very well financially; they seem to have no financial problems, particularly since this government took the lid off the bank interest rate one year ago. We see how our financial institutions are thriving. We are proud of them; they are among the best there are. Nevertheless we, as members of this house, must seek to help the agricultural industry in its problems. Our agriculture is of the best, and we must see that it has a fair chance to survive. I again
Farm Improvement Loans Act urge the Minister of Agriculture to give serious thought to writing into this bill some type of formula that will enable those engaged in farming to be assured of a fair chance of survival.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-lll is, naturally, a continuation of the resolutions we were considering the other day, when I mentioned the importance of the agricultural sector in our Canadian economy. I also maintained, among other things, that agriculture is the very basis of the economic structure of Canada. I am still of that opinion. It is one which we express everywhere in Canada and particularly in the east, without, however, discriminating on that account against other parts of the country.
For example, in order to help the western farmers, we accepted and supported legislation likely to help them, and we believe that hon. members from the west will likewise support us in our demands in the eastern part of the country, that is, a uniform agricultural policy for both eastern and western Canada.
In the past, we have noted that there were economic disparities. Now, we also have agricultural disparities. Western farmers are treated better than eastern farmers. Having to deal with many kinds of products, eastern farmers were unable to sell their products or get subsidies, when such subsidies were granted, for example, for wheat production and even for non-production of wheat.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the government paid the western farmers so much per acre for not producing wheat. A few days ago, I received letters from Canadians in western Canada informing me that the wheat crop was left to rot this year, because the crop insurance was more beneficial to the western farmer than the subsidies paid by the government. This means that wheat will rot under the snow this winter, since crop insurance is more profitable than government subsidies. Now, while production is being destroyed this way, the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is introducing bills allowing farmers to get deeper into debt, to enlarge their farm by enabling them to borrow $25,000 instead of $15,000.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I was saying the other day: The present minister of Agriculture possesses agricultural efficiency and knowledge that are probably greater than those of any other Minister of Agriculture
October 7, 1968

Farm Improvement Loans Act parliament has ever known. Only, that same Minister of Agriculture was once an active member of the Canadian Social Credit and, at that time, he violently denounced similar bills, sometimes accusing the Conservative government, sometimes the Liberal government, of wanting to crush or stifle the Canadian farmer. Today, firmly seated in the front benches, he has entirely forgotten what he said and repeated for so many years in the house.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable, even incomprehensible, that a man should suddenly change his political allegiance and propose to us today what he fought yesterday, worship today what he fought yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, we are now studying bills Nos. C-110, C-lll and C-112. Those three bills, instead of helping the farmers, place them in a difficult position. A farmer will feel quite free because he will be able to borrow $25,000 to buy machinery and more land to increase the acreage he is farming at the present time. However, when the time comes to pay back capital and interests, he will find himself in a situation even more difficult than at present. The Minister of Agriculture should anticipate that. Anyhow, he knows that when the time comes for repayment, it is painful. We noticed that not only in the field of agriculture but also in every field of economic activity in Canada. Everything goes well when a loan is granted. When the time comes for repayment plus the interests, some suffer headaches. Farmers have been in that state of stagnation for many years.
In 1946, when I came to this house-22 years ago-farmers were facing exactly the same problem as today.
It was difficult for the farmer to sell his production and he could hardly borrow, either under national or provincial farm loans. At least, I know that there was a farm credit board in the province of Quebec. Now, it is a Farm Credit Corporation that governs us at this time. The government undertakes to guarantee the loans and borrowings of farmers up to $25,000, but it does not have the courage to tell them: You will not have to pay an interest rate higher than the one that has been set. Farmers are left an open prey to all the exploiters that will want to lend them money, in order that they may purchase farm lands. As a matter of fact, these lands will cost in 15 years twice as much as their original purchase price. Even if the interest rate


were increased to 8, 9 or 10 per cent, the Minister of Agriculture could at the same time include in this Bill No. C-lll, a subsection in which it would be stipulated that the government undertakes to pay a subsidy equal to 2, 3 or 4 per cent, so that the farmers would be assured of paying nothing more than 2 or 3 per cent interest. Then the minister would help the farmers. For the time being, with that bill the minister is convinced that he is not helping the farmer and that the finance companies will benefit from this bill. Even if one believes, at a given time, that the farmer will benefit therefrom, in the long run, it will be the financiers, those who will lend money to the farmer, who will draw the greatest advantages and, as in the past, the farmers will have to face the same problems.
As I said before, the problem does not boil down to having the farmer produce. He could produce five times more than he does now if he could only be sure of selling his production at prices which would allow him to make profits. The minister knew that when he received the delegation of the Canadian corn producers. The other day, he was told on parliament hill that these people were operating at a loss. Even though they would treble their land, their loss would only be trebled.
In the field of the dairy industry, the same problem is the same. In the field of wheat production, it is the same thing.
We are now selling our wheat to the Russians at a price lower than the costs incurred for its production in western Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is aware of that. Even if western farmers were allowed to borrow $25,000 to triple the area of their farm in order to produce more wheat, if we are going to sell it at a loss, what advantage will farmers draw therefrom? Will it be profitable? We have absolutely no assurance. Such bills will not improve the standing of agriculture or assure the economic stability of farmers. Those means should not be used.
If the minister brought in a bill, for example, providing for the construction of cold storage plants throughout Canada, that would not only enable us to meet the needs of the Canadian people by storing commodities but it would also enable us to help the emergent countries of the world. Then, the farmer would be sure to sell his products at a profit and the hon. Minister of Agriculture would have saved agriculture and Canadian farmers.
What we need is action and we should stop beating around the bush. Let us not introduce
October 7, 1968	COMMONS
any more legislation which looks for difficulties where there are none, but instead let us try to bring a solution to the problems. As I said, a farmer who borrows $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 may feel that he is getting substantial help, but 10 years from now, Mr. Speaker, if we are still in this house, the farmers will experience far more serious problems than they have to face now. So, I say frankly that these bills are not meant to assist the farmer; on the contrary, they tend to mortgage his farm a little more and to enslave him, and this is the fault of the present government and the one we had before.
Mr. Speaker, the farmers deserve attention from the minister, from the government and from parliament, and although we do not all come from agricultural constituencies, it is nonetheless true that agriculture is the basis of the whole national economy. As a matter of fact, L. B. Johnson, who is now president, said not so long ago, that returning to the land could be the solution to the depression now looming up in the United States.
It is the same with us. Thirty years ago, we witnessed a back-to-the-farm movement. It was said that leaving the cities to settle on farms would solve the problem of poverty amidst affluence. We practised colonization on a very large scale, and, at that time, in the northwestern part of Quebec, in the Quebec and the Lac-Saint-Jean area, in the Saguenay and even in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, most of the parishes were founded. It was back to the land. Well, today, with the problems which crop up in the cities, I am convinced that instead of saying: Let us cut down the number of farms, the minister will have to say, as in the past: The back-to-the-farm movement might be the ideal solution to the depression in order to face the misery which is anticipated in the cities this coming winter, not within 10 years but this winter, because we will have to face an increasing number of unemployed, not because people do not have the opportunity to purchase commodities, but simply because they cannot afford them. At the present time, the farmers cannot afford to buy land or incur expenses to increase their production because they have no assurance that they will sell their surplus production, they are not even sure of selling this year's production.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have but one solution: foresee the day when we decide to finance production through consumption-not through finance companies-but through the
29180-58^
DEBATES	903
Farm Improvement Loans Act Canadian consumer, who needs food, clothing, lodging. When production is determined by the consumer, financed by the consumer, we will have done away with the blood suckers of the Canadian economy those finance companies which crush, on the one hand, the producers by mortgaging their production and, on the other hand, the consumers by mortgaging their purchasing. That is the system in which we live, and the system we fight. That is the system the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) helped us fight for years in parliament. But, today, now that he has responsibilities, not only towards his riding or the farmers of his riding, but towards the whole of Canada, the time has come for him to tell the government to act according to the needs of Canadians, of the farmers of our country who are willing to supply what the Canadian consumer needs.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: The weakness of this legislation lies in the fact that the determining of the interest rate by the governor in council leaves ground for wide latitude of action and a good deal of uncertainty. My information leads me to believe that the banks would not lend money at the present time unless there was a spread of between one half of one per cent and 1 per cent above the prime interest rate. That is near 7 per cent at the present time. For near banks and similar institutions I should think a rate of 9 per cent would be in the neighbourhood at which they would be interested. Interest rates at 9 per cent are in fact available at the present time, with some takers.
In the rural areas of western Canada there appears to be an accumulation of savings resulting in a net outflow of money from rural areas into city lending hands. I am sure this trend is a useful one and that as a nation we should encourage these savings. There is room for argument, however, that as a consequence of this the banks should be required to lend a certain percentage of the money to farmers to enable them to carry on their business. It is important that the formula by which the governor in council is to set the interest rate should be elucidated. I feel that until details of this formula are forthcoming the present bill makes little sense and may be of little value. I would urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to bring forward this formula at the earliest opportunity so as to make this debate a useful and constructive procedure.
October 7, 19G8

Farm Improvement Loans Act


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: intend to be as brief as was my hon. friend in my comments on the bill at this stage. The minister obviously knows by now that the main point of contention here is the projected interest rate, the suggested interest rate or the unknown interest rate which faces the opposition at the present time.
There is no necessity to belabour the point in connection with the need for improved farm credit facilities. We all know that for all practical purposes no money has been lent under this legislation for some time, with the interest rate at only 5 per cent. What we had hoped for was a realistic interest rate, oir a realistic formula for defining one. The minister in the resolution speaks about orders in council which may be made to prescribe maximum levels. This still leaves an area of uncertainty which causes a good deal of concern to many of us on this side of the house. As my hon. friend from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said, the guarantee must be worth something.
This act was established over 23 years ago in 1945 and during all that time, as far as I know, the interest rate has been fixed. As to my own attitude, if the minister looks at a speech I made in this house a year ago on this subject he will find I suggested there should be some change in the Farm Improvement Loans Act to get money to work. We know there has to be an increase or a change in the interest rate. But that it should be open-ended, without a limit, after 23 years during which it has been fixed, leaves much to be desired.
This does not only affect those of the farming community. People living in urban areas have an interest in the kind of rate which farmers have to pay. No one living in the city would contemplate getting involved in a contractual obligation if he did not know what rate of interest he would have to pay. It is evident that under the proposed bill the rate of interest is to be increased, however the rate is set. This will mean increased cost of production which will be passed on in turn to consumers, leading to a higher cost of living.
At this stage our criticism is directed against the proposition that the interest rate should be open ended after 23 years of operation during which it was set at a definite figure. Many millions of dollars were lent under this system. The minister tells us the cabinet will set this rate. Perhaps when we pass this bill in principle the minister can advise the committee which other bills involving the lending of federal moneys make
[Mr. Ritchie.)

provision for an open ended interest rate to be set by the cabinet. Rates of interest under the National Housing Act are not set by the cabinet, though it is true they are set in accordance with a formula.
I suggest that under this measure the farmers of this country will be playing a floating crap game with the dice loaded. They have not too much option, because they need the credit, and have the experience of turning to the government for help in this direction. As I say, they will be playing a floating crap game with a floating interest rate set by the cabinet-this month it might be a certain figure, next month it might be lower; or perhaps, because of one's friends, it might be different. The minister shakes his head, but we do not know.
We heard before this parliament began that this was to be a swinging place. But we did not appreciate that we would have swinging interest rates. It is one thing to be a swinger and another to be a cool cat. We would like to see a cool interest rate with no swinging on the ups and downs. The minister nods his head and I shall sit down, because I want to know how he will answer these questions during the committee stage. This act was passed back in March, 1945, close to the ides of March, of which we are told to beware. Mr. Speaker, unless the farmers have the benefit of a definite interest rate it will not be the ides of March we should beware, but the interest of Olson.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I noted with some interest tonight the change in the arrangements of the business of the house by which second reading of the Farm Improvement Loans Act now takes precedence over second reading of the Farm Credit Act. It seems it occurred to the minister at the last minute that the program should be altered? Did this indicate that there was some disturbance behind the scenes? Is he, perhaps, trying to put down a revolt? Is he having second thoughts? Did he receive a message from the prophetic Bible Institute of Calgary? Or is this a manoeuvre setting the stage so as to justify the change of interest rate proposed in connection with the farm credit legislation?
This bill does three main things. It changes the manner in which interest rates are set. Under the new arrangements the governor in council will have the power to set interest rates, whereas formerly the rate was fixed at 5 per cent. In the second place it extends farm improvement loan coverage to include
October 7, 1968

land purchase where the land in question is added to an existing farm.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Third, it extends coverage in that it makes it possible for credit unions, caisse populaires, and trust and loan companies to make loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I approve of the principle of extending the provisions of this act to include credit unions and co-operative organizations. In the main, credit unions are working at the community level and are very knowledgeable of the needs of rural communities. Some trust and loan companies are already in the farm lending business and are familiar with the credit picture and can handle these loans effectively. Some are making farm loans at this time, but it is obvious that most lending companies are primarily interested in making a buck, rather than being concerned with the welfare of the agricultural industry.
I trust the minister, in designating eligible loan companies and others who may lend with government guarantees, will first determine that they have adequate and skilled personnel and policy to make a positive contribution to the welfare of the agricultural industry. It might also be of assistance if this were spelled out to some extent in the act, so the minister will have some legislative guidance in determining whom he should designate to make loans under the provisions of this act.
The amendment proposed in regard to the interest rate structure represents a major change, as has been pointed out by previous speakers. The minister has recounted how the banks would not lend any more money at the 5 per cent rate. The government has adopted a policy of allowing interest rates to go up and they have to take the responsibility for this situation. What the minister is now saying in effect is that the banks made him do it. But the government cannot slough off its responsibility in this way.
The argument has been made that the level of returns in agriculture at the present time is insufficient to carry high interest rates. Certainly it has been made clear that the effect of the proposed amendments would be to raise interest rates on farm improvement loans. It seems to me the government must concern itself with the direction in which these actions will take the agricultural industry.
If the government cannot or will not do something about the interest rate structure in Canada it should take a look at some of the
Farm Improvement Loans Act alternatives that have been suggested during the previous debate on this matter. One suggestion that has been raised is that lending in the area of intermediate term credit might be made with government funds. In this way the level of interest rates could be restricted.
A second step that could be taken as an alternative would be to ensure through other programs-certainly not by this legislation, as the minister seemed to think we were suggesting

that the agricultural industry will receive an adequate level of returns.
The third possibility that might be considered, and I admit the administrative difficulty, would be to subsidize interest rates. Certainly it seems to me this would be preferable to allowing market forces to determine what rates of interest the farmers will have to pay for loans under this act.
There are two basic points which require consideration. The first is that parliament should be the body which sets the interest rates or the basic policy in respect of rates. The second point is that rates should be set at a reasonable level. The other major provision in this legislation will extend the act so that it will include land purchases. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) has already dealt with this question at some length and quite effectively.
Again I must ask the minister to give consideration to what this step will do to agriculture as a whole. I am suggesting that it will help large farmers the most, and these are the people who are not really in greatest need. After all, they are in a position to consider higher interest rates and this will add to the penalties and hardships on the smaller and new farm operators who are trying to enter this industry. I suggest it will result in a further scramble for land which will be backed by public guarantees. Some credit is provided by private companies now, and land purchases are being made, but this is not being done with public backing.
The change in this legislation will mean that private companies can engage in the land mortgage business with public backing and guarantees. The Farm Credit Corporation does consider lending from the viewpoint of farm units and not on a piecemeal basis. I suggest this will not be of concern to the private industry in the land mortgage field.
I suggest that this measure as it is set out could be a step in the direction of destroying the effectiveness of the Farm Credit Corporation. Certainly I think the corporation is
906	COMMONS
Farm Improvement Loans Act accepted by farmers all across Canada and recognized as an agency for the betterment of the agricultural industry. I agree there are some problems in respect of present Farm Credit Corporation legislation, particularly for those farmers who wish to add a piece of land to their existing farm enterprise. I think these problems could be solved and dealt with by amendments to the Farm Credit Act rather than in this other way.
Let me suggest to the minister that most of the history of private credit in agriculture shows poor results and poor outcome. Public credit programs have helped the industry, and in this regard I should like to refer to the report of the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture which dealt extensively with the field of farm credit in 1955.
It has been noted in this house that this report was used as the basis for the Farm Credit Act as it was originally introduced in this house. I should like to draw the minister's attention to some of the principles that were set out by this royal commission for a public credit program. It did suggest that a farm should be treated as a unit for credit purposes. Second, it suggests that credit is needed by the young farmer with practical experience but a shortage of capital. Third, it suggests there is a greater need for credit facilities and, fourth, there is a need for an assessment of applications for credit and the income potential of the potential borrower. What we do need is more emphasis on the income potential and management ability rather than on collateral security. It was pointed out that guidance and supervision are essential to an adequate rural credit program. It was also pointed out that loan repayment periods must be longer and flexible enough to meet the argicultural situation. Those are some of the principles which I suggest should be included in any public credit program.
Let me draw the minister's attention to the fact that one of the recommendations made was that the extension of loans for fixed and working capital by a farm credit lending agency should be done by one credit agency rather than a proliferation of agencies in order to permit sound supervision. In some of the programs we now have before us we are moving away from this principle.
Questions are being asked in the agricultural industry today such as whether it is necessary to repurchase land each generation? In other words, do farmers have to live poor and die rich, as has been too often the case in the past. Is it necessary to have these high

DEBATES	October 7, 1968
interest rates? What kind of rural communities are we building for the future?
These are some of the questions that the government must also consider. I urge that they be given careful consideration when the government is dealing with legislation such as that now before us.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, before the minister replies I should like to ask one or two questions similar to those posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).
I cannot recall whether he gave any reasons for the inclusion of land under the farm improvement loans program. I am wondering whether this is to take some of the pressure off the Farm Credit Corporation in respect of loans on small parcels of land, so as to leave Farm Credit Corporation capital available to a greater degree to large farmers, thus turning over the smaller farmers or the purchasers of small parcels of land to the tender mercies of the lovey dovey finance company and various other and sundry such organizations.
The minister and his colleagues in the cabinet can set the interest rate at whatever they want. I was sorry to hear one hon. member to my right say that he agreed an interest rate of 5 per cent was too low. I do not think that statement could be made to any farmer in this country, because if it were you would not get out of town with a whole skin. If the minister wants to do that, fine. Then I suggest that the government should proceed, as I mentioned the other day during another stage of this legislation, to set as national policy for the most basic of all industries in this country that no one under this legislation, or the other legislation which we have been considering, shall pay more than an interest rate of 5 per cent. Then, when the minister and his colleagues choose to set a rate higher than that by order in council, they should also ask the banks to send them a bill for the difference between 5 per cent and whatever rate they set. Then they would be making a real contribution to the most basic of all industries in this country. They would not be adding to the costs of production that farmers face.
When the Bank Act was opened up in a previous session of this house, government spokesmen and spokesmen for the financial interests of this country expressed great concern over the fact that the near banks, the loan and trust companies, were getting too
October 7, 1968

large a share of the capital market of the country and that by opening up the act the banks would be allowed to get into other fields and they might even be able to stay open longer. Now the government wants to reverse the process.
If the arguments were logical in the discussions regarding the opening up of the Bank Act, I suggest that the arguments now about including these other organizations are not logical. I am speaking of trust and loan companies, because I support completely the opening up in this legislation of facilities which include credit unions, caisses populaires and co-operative credit societies. But opening up this field to other financial institutions such as trust and loan companies is the exact opposite of the arguments put forward previously in the debate on amendments to the Bank Act. On the matter of fees and service charges I wonder what would happen to a farmer who had obtained a loan under the act and fell behind in his payments because of a crop failure. I can just imagine how the lovey dovey finance companies would treat him if he asked for an extension of the repayment period or a renewal of the loan.
I say this because under the provisions of the act they are not subject to any additional charges so long as they are not in default of payment. But I can just imagine how some of these outfits will get caught up with making a faster buck by charging higher interest rates and service charges, should the farmer find himself in the position I have mentioned. I hope the minister can inform the house that if the provisions of the legislation are not solid enough to take care of this sort of situation, he will see that such provisions are included when we are in committee.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as I have already had the opportunity of airing my views on such an important and much discussed subject, I would like to take a few minutes to make some remarks since the minister is here. I would simply like to tell the minister that, during the week-end, I happened to meet quite a few farmers from my riding, and I would like to pass on their views to him. In fact, I think those views might lead him to revise his position regarding the bill. To start with, I will tell the hon. minister of Agriculture that I can think of nothing worse. However, we will have to consider the possibility for our farmers to pay an interest rate higher than 5 per cent.
Farm Improvement Loans Act
I know that a great deal has already been said on that subject and that others were certainly more cunning than I. I do not in the least want to be cunning. What I want to do is to beg the hon. minister, in the name of the farmers, not only in my riding, but in my province and in the whole country, to reassure the farmers that the 5 per cent interest rate will not go up. The reasons which motivate my intervention in this matter are well known. The minister is well aware of the situation of the farmers. He knows that they need help urgently, of course, but above all that it is essential to limit the interest rate to 5 per cent.
I am certain that the government will have to make up the difference in the interest notes, which are perhaps necessary. However, in the interest of our farmers and a strong and expanding agriculture, I think we cannot honestly support a bill which will abolish the fixed interest rate.
From the remarks of the leader of the Ral-liement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette), I learned that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was against such a measure a few years ago. I think we should know the opinion of members of the government party from Quebec or other provinces, on that matter. I have not heard many members on the government benches state their position and I do not believe they are really in favour of increasing the interest rate. I imagine they must feel pretty uncomfortable at this point.
Having discussed the subject, and bearing in mind that like all of us, during the election campaign, they committed themselves to a limit on the interest rates, I am still wondering how they will be able to vote honestly, without going back on what they promised on the hustings. I urge them once more to exert pressure on the minister to make him change his mind and accept the fact that the farmers are unable to pay more than 5 per cent.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I waited to speak up until this debate drew to a close to-night, hoping and believing that the farmers might win if not the sympathy, at least the understanding of the Minister of Agriculture. I do hope he will give the matter a second thought and admit, once and for all, that the farmers cannot afford to pay interest rates any higher than 5 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I recognize the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), but I am
October 7, 19G8

Farm Improvement Loans Act obliged to inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I can fully appreciate the concern hon. members have for the plight of the farmers in paying a higher interest rate, which would in fact add to their costs of operation. There is no one in this house who is more anxious to have lower interest rates for farm improvement loans than is the Minister of Agriculture. But I suggest to hon. members that if we were going to maintain the rate at 5 per cent, or indeed at any rate below that which will be sufficiently attractive for the banks and for other financial institutions to make loans to the farmers, we may as well not pass the legislation at all. The simple fact of the matter is that when the interest rate was fixed at 5 per cent, loans were not being made; and indeed when the farmers went in to obtain credit to purchase farm equipment, the banks would not make use of the guarantee under the Farm Improvement Loans Act as late as several months before the act expired. They said to the farmers, "No, we do not regard the guarantees to be sufficiently attractive for us to make loans at that rate; but if you will pay the commercial rate, or some other rate depending on the risk, then we will make this loan to you". Some of these loans have been made at rates as high as 9 or 10 per cent. The whole purpose therefore of having a maximum prescribed rate which would qualify the loan for a government guarantee is to have that rate lower than the going rate.
When hon. members opposite say that the government is doing something which will do harm to the small farmers, I do not know what they mean, because if they wish to keep the maximum interest rate so low that the loans will not be made, we will just be wasting our time trying to pass this legislation. Most of the farmers across this country know this very well. They are waiting for this act to be passed by parliament, so that a government guarantee will be available for these loans and so that the rate will be lower than what they are paying in the banks today.
Hon. members opposite have asked what the precise formula will be. They have asked for the exact rate. Frankly, I do not know the exact rate. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked how much the government guarantee is worth; and then he went on to answer his own question, because at the time it was set at 5 per cent the banks could

charge 6 per cent, but they did in fact lend hundreds of millions of dollars at 5 per cent. It must have been worth at least 1 per cent more.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Could the minister say whether it is still worth 1 per cent?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think it is, and indeed if you were considering it on a percentage basis it might be worth even slightly more than one per cent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Below the bank prime borrowing rate?


Gerald William Baldwin: After the budget is presented it will probably be less.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Lower than the rate that borrowers are paying now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The prime rate at that time was 6 per cent.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The prime lending rate at that time was not 6 per cent. The maximum statutory limits according to which the banks charged their interest rate was 6 per cent, but they lent the money at 5 per cent. I suggest to hon. members opposite that the government guarantee for these loans is still worth 1 per cent, or perhaps a little more.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the minister give us an idea as to what rate he is talking about now?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What is important is that a farmer today can go to a bank and if he has a high credit rating he can borrow money at a fairly attractive rate. However, other farmers whose credit rating is not quite as high pay a substantially higher rate than the lowest rate offered to some farmers today. Hon. members opposite know that. When we offer this government guarantee, every loan that is guaranteed under this act will be at an even lower rate than is the commercial or competitive rate today. So when hon. members opposite say we are helping the big farmers but not the small ones, in fact exactly the opposite is true.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question? Will the prescribed rate be the same for every farmer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have only three minutes left in which to answer the questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor.
Ociober 7, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	909


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We will get to this matter when we are in committee; I have a suspicion it will be brought up again. I want to make it quite clear that the effect of this act will be substantially more beneficial to the small farmer whose credit rating is not quite as high than it will be to the big farmer who has a good credit rating.
I will try to answer some questions in the next few minutes. One of them was: Why include land under the Farm Improvement Loans Act? It is simple. The reason is that it is substantially easier and less costly to make an application under the Farm Improvement Loans Act than to apply to the Farm Credit Corporation, because of the legal fees, the mortgages, and so on, that the Farm Credit Corporation requires. Therefore we think it would be advantageous to include under this legislation smaller parcels of land. Large amounts of money for larger pieces of land will still go through the Farm Credit Corporation.
There are several other questions which I should like to answer, but I will do so when we are in committee. Almost every hon. member who rose in this debate has referred to the interest rate. I hope I have answered their questions. We do not know precisely what the rate will be, but we are sure it will be a substantial improvement over the rate which farmers are paying today. It is for that reason that many farmers are waiting for the house to pass this act, so they can take advantage of it and obtain credit for the purchase of farm machinery which they have probably needed for several months.


Stanley James Korchinski: If we pass this legislation tomorrow, what will the interest rate be?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a brief question for the minister. I quite agree that farmers want this act passed. So far as I am concerned, the interest rate is not what we would like it to be at this stage. We want to vote on it. However, can the minister answer the question which I put to him in the course of my previous remarks? Is there any other federal act under which the governor in council sets the interest rate?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are several other statutes: For example, the second part of the Farm Credit Act, the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, and several others.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder if the government house leader could give us an idea whether we will be proceeding tomorrow with the business he announced last Thursday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, we will be taking item No. 3 on today's order paper, the resolution preceding the amendments to the Post Office Act. When that is completed, we will take third reading of the bill for the Windfall extension of Canadian National Railways. When that is completed we will continue with the committee stage of the bill we were discussing this evening. I will make further arrangements when we have dealt with that business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) the following question, as reported at page 705 of Hansard:
In view of charges of sex discrimination in employment which were made yesterday by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and in view of the need to ensure that women workers will receive equal pay for comparable work and equal opportunity in respect of hiring and advancement, will the government consider the enactment of a fair employment practices act?
In reply the minister referred me to remarks made the previous evening by his parliamentary secretary. I looked up Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and found some references to the women's bureau and to the Female Employees Equal Pay Act. However, I found no reference whatever to a fair employment practices act. I am rather astonished that the Minister of Labour could so lightly dismiss the considered opinion of the president of a

October 7, 1968
large labour organization in this country which represents the overwhelming majority of the organized workers.
In speaking before the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, as had the Canadian Union of Public Employees earlier, criticized the degree of discrimination against women workers. As a matter of fact, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress called for a fair employment commission which would, and I use his words, "forcibly and immediately eliminate discrimination against women on the job."
As I say, I have difficulty in understanding how the Minister of Labour could dismiss this matter in such a cursory manner. When we are speaking of discrimination against women workers in Canada, I think the minister would do well to remember that we are referring to one third of the Canadian labour force at the moment, and that is a very big segment indeed. Had he attended even one session of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women during the past week, he would have realized how deep and widespread is the resentment of women, and even some men in the Canadian congress, against this discrimination against women in our labour force.
This discrimination shows itself in a great many ways. For one thing, the labour congress made it clear that there is discrimination practised against women taking employment in traditionally male occupations. Consequently, these women are forced into occupations which are much less well paid and where frequently they are at the bottom of the pay scale. A newspaper article refers to the statement of the president of the Canadian Labour Congress this way:
Mr. MacDonald backed his case for the need to eliminate sex prejudice on the job by saying that jobs most frequently occupied by women, such as clerks, telephone operators, typists, hairdressers or launderers, seldom lead to advancement and are lower paid than areas where women do not predominate.
We might add that even in those industries where women predominate any males who may be working in it generally fare better financially.
We must remember that the vice president of the council of the Canadian Labour Congress met with Miss Hugette Plamondon, and we cannot forget her statement that when she looked at the pay schedule in a plant her heart started to pound because she realized that at the bottom of the pay scale would be the women workers.

Second, Mr Speaker, there is prejudice in women having positions of responsibility. Why? The usual excuses are given-that women are there for a short period only, that they cannot stand responsibility, and so on. I suspect that the males who got there first are being reluctant to share the more interesting work that responsibility entails, as well as the much better pay and undoubted status that goes with positions of responsibility.
Third, Mr Speaker, there is prejudice against women having supervisory positions over men or other women. Such a situation, which the minister dismissed so casually and briefly the other evening, violates both the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and also the I.L.O. convention respecting discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, from the testimony we heard last week before the commission that the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, which is administered by the women's bureau, has proved completely inadequate to deal with discrimination. The best proof of that fact is that the head of the women's bureau last spring quit her job in complete frustration. Simply paying a new supervisor of the women's bureau a higher salary is not going to get rid of the causes of frustration which brought about the resignation of the previous head. There is need-


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


Winona Grace MacInnis: May
I just finish, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I must inform the hon. member that her time has expired.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and, I must say, with a great deal of sympathy. Last week I explained that the Female Employees Equal Pay Act is basically good legislation and that its weakness rests with the fact that action can only be taken on complaints brought to our attention by affected workers. It is the intention of the Department of Labour to recommend that this act be amended so that the Department of Labour can act on its own initiative rather than on complaints, as is the present practice.
I also pointed out, as Mr. Little of the Canadian Union of Public Employees had already pointed out himself, that perhaps
October 7, 1968

sufficient efforts have not been made to acquaint women with this act and its provisions. Mr. Little was also frank and honest enough to indicate that the unions themselves are not without blame, a point substantiated by Miss Hugette Plamondon of the Canadian Labour Congress.
The Canadian Labour Congress has also referred to this problem in its brief to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. No doubt the observations which have been made, particularly those concerning the interpretation of the terms "identical or substantially identical work", and the implementation of the act, will give rise to conclusions and recommendations by the commission.
With respect to equal opportunity in hiring and advancement, this is a very complex matter involving not only widespread social attitudes as to what is degrading work for women. The physical and mental health of women has also been protected by other laws which prohibit women from undertaking certain work. I have in mind legislation conforming with international labour conventions, such as the act prohibiting employment of women underground in mines.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
When the grounds for discrimination were being established in our Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, it was decided that sex was not in the same category as colour, race, religion, or national origin. None of these bases have the slightest effect on employability or productivity in any occupation. However, there are many jobs requiring strengths usually associated with males, which most women could not fill, while there are other occupations, such as working underground in mines and the like, which society would deem unsuitable for women. There is also provincial legislation governing hours of work, rest periods, safety and health facilities provided in connection with employment of women as distinct from men. Experience has proven the need for legislation to protect women against hazards to which they are more vulnerable because of their sex.
In the case of the working mother for instance, limitations may actually facilitate her gainful employment, and preferential treatment must be expected when maternity conditions require her to take long periods off from work. In other words, because equitable terms of employment for women often require differentiation from those applied to men, sex is a quite different factor from the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion other factors included in the Fair Employment Practices Act.
In the submission by the Canadian Labour Congress to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the congress recognizes there are broad social attitudes which could militate against the effectiveness of such legislation.
They state that prejudice against women taking employment in traditionally male occupations and against women being placed in supervisory positions over men, or even over other women, does not reside solely with management, but also extends to all levels of the employment structure.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.



DRUGS-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO CONTROL INCREASED NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

Mr. R. L. Whiting (Halion):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare what his department is doing to educate young people to the dangers of taking drugs such as L.S.D., S.T.P. and heroin; whether serious consideration is being given to using communications techniques such as films, television programs and young people's popular magazines; and what research is being carried out to determine what long term effects these drugs have on people who use them, particularly on young people whose future could be ruined. It was suggested that this important question be placed on the order paper. Because of the importance of this subject I have asked for an opportunity to discuss it on the adjournment debate.
At the outset of my remarks I think I ought to bring something into perspective, and that is that I believe the vast majority of young people in Canada are not taking drugs and probably will never take drugs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: But, Mr. Speaker, there are young people who are taking drugs such as L.S.D. and S.T.P., and there are others who can be influenced by them. All too often in recent months have we read and heard about L.S.D. and S.T.P. parties involving young people. We know of the many reasons our young people are turning to drugs, but the time allotted to me this evening does not permit my going into all the various aspects of the question. I should like to draw to Your
October 7, 19G8

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Honour's attention one important reason, and that is ignorance. Our young people do not know how seriously they may endanger their physical and mental health as the result of just one experiment with L.S.D.
I should like to read what the Montreal Protestant School Board said recently in an effort to discourage student drug use:
We believe that only factual information well presented, and not conjecture based on emotional appeal, will have an influence on our young people today. The responsibility for communication of this information must be shared by educators, parents, students and the public at large.
This is a national problem and it must be treated as such. I maintain that this information should be initiated at the federal level. I do not think there is a town or community in this country which can sit back smugly and say: Drug addiction cannot happen here. Facts show that drug addiction can happen and does happen in many communities, and no one community or no one area is immune.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) said last week that he will be meeting with the provincial health ministers in the near future. I strongly urge that this subject be placed on the agenda and discussed. I urge the federal government to take the initiative in setting up an educational program in co-operation with the provinces. The money this program will cost will be money well spent.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: In the unavoidable absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his parliamentary secretary I am glad to have the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member on his interest in this most important matter, an interest which I share both as a member of the standing committee on health and welfare in the last parliament and now as parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State, who has a special concern for the youth of Canada.
The hon. member will know that under the terms of the British North America Act, there is no way in which the Department of National Health and Welfare can carry out an education program with respect to drug abuse or any other subject directly in the schools. What the department can do, and is doing, is to make informational materials available for use by school, community or other groups.
Some months ago officials of the department met with a group of high school teachers to discuss ways in which the department

could assist in informing young people of the dangers of drug abuse. As a result of this meeting the department has purchased a number of copies of a movie called "L.S.D.: Insight or Insanity" which it is making available to schools and other interested groups. As well, this film has been brought to the attention of the provincial departments of health and a number of these have ordered copies which they are making available within their respective provinces.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
A number of publications dealing with L.S.D. and marijuana have been produced by the department in recent months and a major pamphlet, designed for mass distribution, is in its final stages of production. This pamphlet will be provided to provincial departments of health in sufficient quantity for distribution throughout the provinces.
It is the intention of the department to expand this informational program in every way possible in order to ensure that the consequences of the misuse of drugs are fully known to our young people.
As well, the department is continuing to reassess and update its control program as new hallucinogenic drugs come into use among young people. By order in council P.C. 1968-1736, Schedule H of the Food and Drug Act was amended last month by the addition of D.E.T., D.M.T. and S.T.P. This amendment will have the effect of prohibiting the sale of these substances as well as L.S.D. which was added to this schedule some time ago.
Item 29 in the list of bills presented to this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on September 12, "A bill to amend the Food and Drug Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code," will further increase our capacity to control the use of hallucinogenic drugs. This bill will add to the Food and Drug Act an additional schedule to be known as restricted drugs and will provide penalties for possession, possession for purposes of trafficking, and trafficking in such substances as L.S.D., S.T.P. and other hallucinogenic drugs. The whole subject of drug abuse-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State but his time has expired.
October 7. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	913



PUBLIC BUILDINGS-OTTAWA-COST OF NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I brought up the matter of the cost of the National Arts Centre which initially was not supposed to exceed $15 million. Yet, today, we are told that it will cost approximately $56 million.
I am happy to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) in his seat tonight to take note of the brief remarks I will make on this matter.
In the Ottawa Journal of June 1966-over two years ago already-one could read this:

Contract for the main portion for the National Arts Centre today was awarded to V. K. Mason Construction of Ottawa on a $31,848,000 bid.
This brings the going price to date to $34,968,000.

And it is said that there is more. It is said now that there were three stages.
First stage:

Phase 1, the excavation, now complete and ready for superstructure, cost $1,453,000.
Phase 2, a portion of the underground garage with the job far from complete cost $1,667,000.
Phase 3, the construction of the three theatres, completion of underground parking and provision of facilities for restaurants, cafeterias, shopping mall, dressing rooms for 160 performers, rehearsal halls and administration offices now is scheduled to begin this July with a completion date set for January 1968.

The total amount at that time was supposed to reach approximately $35 million. That was in June 1966.

Awarding of contract was made public by Works Minister Mcllraith.

Mr. Speaker, recently, that is on October 3, we could read in the Ottawa Citizen the following:

Arts Centre cost now up to $46 million.
-Which means approximately. Reporter Greg Connolley said-

That means about $10 million more than the amount mentioned two years ago.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
That is what prompted Mr. Greg Connolly, of the press gallery, to say, when he questioned certain members, including the former prime minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I quote:

His eyebrows almost popped out of sight when he noted the cost for furniture in the centre was not set at $3,989,000.

We are speaking of $4 million, for furniture only, which prompted the former prime minister to say:

"They must be getting that place dressed up like Joe Greene's office."

Mr. Speaker, there is something abnormal here. Those contracts were given after tenders had been submitted. Now, after the tenders have been received, the contract given, here we are-two years later-with increases of $10, $12 and $15 million. Why tender then, if it serves no purpose?
If someone agrees to do a job for $31 million, how is it that two years later we have a $46 million undertaking? How come $15 million have been added? Is that fair to the other tenderers? Is it fair to the Canadian people who witness such a scandal?
Without the shadow of a doubt, in the minds of the Canadian people, there is messing around somewhere, probably with the election funds, where the contractors are concerned.
We are not against the construction of the Arts Centre; far from it.
Even a Liberal member, the other day, complained about the way the walls of the Arts Centre look.
Mr. Speaker, tenders are submitted and a contract is given to a contractor only after a department has inquired into his financial situation. If the contractor is not solvent, he is not given the contract.
Mr. Speaker, the situation with regard to the construction of the Arts Centre in Ottawa is inexplicable. That is why 1 put a question about it to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon. Since the Minister of Public Works is now in the house, I ask him to tell us why the Canadian people should pay $56 million. I am not the one to say that; it was said by the experts who figured the cost of the Ottawa Arts Centre.
October 7, 1963

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
This centre will cost $56 million, instead of $15 or $20 millions as provided. What portion of that amount of $56 million went to financing the election of the government in office? What amount was provided by the Mason Construction, by subcontractors, such as Pitt's for instance, who was supposed to do the excavation? Architects also were involved. The Foundation of Canada built the garage. The Spino Construction built the tunnel which costs over half a million dollars.
Mr. Speaker, it might be a good idea to tell the Canadian people, and especially the house, what are the reasons for a price increase such as we witness at the present time.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the hon. member correctly he mentioned a figure of $56 million. As a citizen of Ontario who has watched the mushrooming cost of the provincial science and technology centre in Toronto, I sympathize with him, but I do not think he should make the matter worse than it is. Perhaps he was dealing in Social Credit dollars. The government's estimate for completing the national arts centre is $46,426,000.
The figure of $9 million with which some comparison has been made was produced in October 1963 by a group of private citizens who called themselves the national capital arts alliance. This figure was contained in a submission they made to the government recommending the construction of an arts centre.
At that stage they were expressing a desire for a centre to contain provision for opera and an experimental studio, and their estimates were based on prices of previously constructed single unit theatres. No site had been selected although they did recommend a site at Sussex and St. Patrick streets which was relatively open and they believed surface parking would be available. No detailed study had been made on the development of the type of facilities they wished the centre to include. They estimated that the building would contain 4.8 million cubic feet with a floor area of 175,000 square feet.
The project which the government has built is an entirely different project. It contains 16 million cubic feet of space with a floor area of 924,000 square feet including a 900 vehicle underground parking garage.
As part of the development of the capital area it has been constructed on Confederation square, and while in this location it contributes to our capital, its location involves foundation conditions and the necessity of constructing a major portion below ground, as well as the provision of substantial changes in the routing of traffic and access tunnels to the parking, none of which was contemplated by the original proposers of the scheme.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
The government approved of the project in a general sense in February of 1964 with the decision to accept the city owned portion of the Confederation square site and set up advisory committees to determine the requirements in providing facilities for opera, music, theatre and visual arts. These committees have developed the requirements so that the centre will provide for the total range of performing arts under first class conditions, of which Canada as a whole will be justifiably proud. The cost of the construction elements of the centre is $38,922,000 with the parking garage a $3,606,000, these figures including the cost of the necessary relocation and provision of services, such as power, water, telephone and streets. Then $3,898,000 will be spent on theatre equipment and furnishings.
The construction has been in four phases; a preliminary excavation contract being awarded in January, 1965, construction of the Mackenzie King bridge approach and a portion of the garage in June 1965, a tunnel entrance under Elgin street in August 1966, with the major theatre construction contract being awarded in June, 1966. Work on the centre is progressing and will be complete in order that the first performance may take place in June, 1969.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Tuesday, October 8, 1968